would do that, They called for contract from the farmers, carting iron and other material from Bruce Rock to do it. They got it done for nothing, and got the dunnage for nothing. But just the same at the last minute owing to non-delivery we had to find dunnage ourselves and charge it to the Scheme. And the free cartage promised by Mr Hedges did not prove to be free cartage at all, for we had to send men out to load the teams. We had the same trouble with the timber, and eventually I took some of my own and sent it out.

6213. You think the acquiring agent should take the full responsibility of providing dunnage, roofing, etc., until the wheat is handed over to the Scheme?—Not necessarily, for the Scheme can supply sleeper dunnage better that can the agent, and perhaps the iron. However, I think the responsibility of the acquiring agent and of the officers of the Scheme should be very clearly defined. No one party should have a duty to perform so that his neglect will compel the other man to mess up his job.

6214. Is not that likely to happen under dual control?—Unless it is clearly defined.

6215. Can you define it?— I would give as little dual control as possible. The Scheme can provide the dunnage best because it can make a better deal for railway sleepers than we can.

6216. You mean that the Scheme can get the sleepers cheaper?—There would be one Government Department dealing with another. If you have more than one acquiring agent, you have one individual dealing with one other instead of five dealing with one. That is a detail which ought to be straightened out in ten minutes.

6217. On the 15th November,1916, the following letter was written to you—

In connection with the continuance of the Agency Agreement and the question of the liability for re-conditioning the wheat on hand on 30thSeptemberlast, I have to advise you that the following are stacks which we consider have been so carelessly protected, or cared for, as would justify the Committee in claiming from the agents an extra re-conditioning allowance over and above the percentage liability for re-conditioning stacks that the agent might be ordinarily responsible for.

A list of the stacks is given. What was meant by the words "carelessly protected." Would that be negligence?—It sounds like it. I do not know what the intention of the Department was.

6218. I cannot find it in the file?—Did I reply to that? "Noted," I suppose.

6219. Your reply was as follows—

The Secy., Wheat Marketing Scheme, 22nd Nov. Dear Sir,—We have your letter advising that certain stacks of wheat in the country have been carelessly protected or cared for as to justify the Board in claiming an extra re-conditioning allowance. We cannot in any way agree to your contention, except as regards one or perhaps two stacks named. As this is a very important question we would like an early arbitration on this matter. Some of the stacks referred to have already been removed, and orders given for the removal of others. Yours faithfully, W. H. Evans. —That is correct.

6220. I notice that Three Springs is one of the stacks referred to?—That is the 1916-17 wheat. I fixed up finally the 1915-16 wheat. I have some discrepancies with the Board. they thought I did not meet them fairly in the matter. I offered to go to arbitration, but they refused.

6221. Everything has now been settled up satisfactorily?—Yes, as far as I am concerned.

6222. Have you finalised the 1916-17 harvest?—I cannot get a move out of them. We are getting our accounts in. My 1915-16 accounts were rendered about last July. They were only commenced with about January or February, and they were on finalised a few weeks ago. It is difficult to settle up things when ancient history is involved. The biggest claim they had against me in arbitration was not in connection with the stacks named in the letter.

6223. We had our attention drawn to a claim made by you in regard to the Green hills stack, the 1915-16 wheat. One witness pointed out that your contention was drawn to negligence here, and you made a claim of £144 6s. 10d. for reconditioning the stack, which the witness said was caused by your negligence?—I have not seen that statement.

6224. And the Board replied to you that your claim was admitted with the exception of £24 6s. 10d.?— The Greenhills stack was a little one. I visited it, and found that the cows of the station-master had chewed the corner of it. I made strong representation to the railways and got their answer. It was a bad stack for mice. My experience is that whenever you have cultivated land right up to a township the mice are bad. If there is bush land round a township the mice in most instances do not make themselves so early apparent.

6225. Did you ever get a letter complaining about negligence in regard to this stack?—I probably have.

6226. You claim that it was damaged by mice?—Yes, badly.

6227. Was Mr Clairs your agent?—Yes. I have here a list showing what stacks we have covered. (List handed in.)

6228. According to this list, you had a fair number of stacks covered before the end of March?—Yes. The list is dated the 20th March. It reads as follows:—

JAMES BELL & CO.

March 20th, 1917. Wheat Stacks. Season 1916-17.

                                  March.

Pingelly ... 1 1 covered and screened ... 6 weeks.

Pingelly ... 1 1 being covered and screened As built.

Dalwallinu ... 5 Covered and screened ... 3 weeks.

Wubin ... 8 Covered and screened ...

Yandanooka ... ... Now covering ... ... March.

Three Springs ... 17 Now being covered

Brookton ... 18 Now being covered (March) Trayning, April.

Tammin ... 13 Covered and screened.

Cunderdin ... 6 Covered and screened.

Jenacubine ... 7 Covered and screened.

Gwambygine ... 2 Covered and screened.

Mackie's Csng. 3 Covered and screened.

Burgess Sdg. ... 4 Covered and screened.

Bruce Rock ... 11 Covered and screened.

Ardath ... ... Covered (April).

Nungarin ... 10 Not covered.

Carnamah ... 16 Covered.

Gundaring ... 9 Covered.

Nippering ... 9 Covered.

Dumbleyung ... 9 Covered.

Wishbone ... 9 Covered.

Kukerin ... 9 Covered.

Yelbeni ... ... Partly covered (March).

Wickepin ... 14 Covered.

Dump No. 1 ... 15 Covered.

Material at all other stacks, and is being put on, but no advices to hand of amount of work done.

6229. Mr McGibbon, in his evidence, stated as follows (Question 2304 read, from "I want the Commission to mark the clauses in the continuous agreement," towards end of first column on page 100, down to "that the dock should be £24 6s. 10d.")?—I would like to know why Mr McGibbon had reference to files which I have not had before me. I was prepared to go to arbitration with the Government under our agreement over that stack.

6230. Your claim was on account of the stack being damaged by mice?—Yes.

6231. Mice, you claim, were a plague in that district?—Yes. I went so far as to initiate arbitration proceedings and to name my arbitrator. I put the whole thing in my solicitor's hands. But the Government would not face arbitration.

6232. Have you any recollection of receiving a letter of such a description as the letter I have just read?—I have got so many of the same sort. I do not remember that particular one.

6233. When I tell you that you never received that particular letter, you will realise that you could not remember it. The original of that letter is here on the file?—it was never sent to me.

6234. that is so?—That is all right. My reply to the last question, about everything being settled before, should cover my whole attitude over a settlement for 1915-16.

6235.By Mr BROWN : In your final settlement for 1915-16, what did you allow?—I allowed £350; but the claims made on me were such that I could not allow half of them. On the other hand, there were some claims on me that the Board did not make. Claims were made on me in respect of stacks as to which I would have thought to the last ditch; but there