were other claims, not made, against which I could not have stood up for five minutes.

6236. By the CHAIRMAN : You mean the Board might have made claims as to certain stacks but never did make them?—Certainly.

6237. By Mr HARRISON: They picked out the wrong ones?—Yes.

6238. By the CHAIRMAN : That shows they did not understand the business in which they were engaged?—I will not answer that.

6239. I will put it another way. Does it show that the inspectors thought it necessary to make some claims on some stacks whether right or wrong?—They wanted me to settle on a basis of averages. But an average does not suit me in the wheat business. Every particular stack was a stack by itself.

6240. By Mr HARRISON: You said the first season, 1915-16, you expected the wheat to be lifted by September?—Yes.

6241. Therefore you did not stack particularly, you were not so careful?—I was careful about the stacking, but I was only holding for an ordinary season.

6242. Were your stacks covered?—Always covered.

6243. Do you know the various stacking sidings throughout the State?—I have a general knowledge.

6244. What kind of soil is best for stacking on, jam country, gimlet, or salmon gum, or what class of country?—I think any part of the country is good enough if the situations are made properly. Absolutely the best wheat line in Western Australia is the Wongan Hills-Mullewa line.

6245. Do you think the Government is standing in any danger by having moisture below on account of weevilly conditions if they stack on country where there is likely to be seepage?—I think with proper dunnage any country will do.

6246. Is there any danger of the dunnage sinking in the soil?—You can get over that by placing the dunnage closer. You want more foundation then.

6247. It means watching carefully for damp places in the soil?—I think it is more important to see that the drainage round the stack is all right. While on that subject I may say that in my opinion the wheat stacking sites are quite insufficient for ordinary business.

6248. If you were running the whole Scheme privately you would be in favour of having more centres and smaller stacks?—I would pick up all --my sidings as close as possible to where the wheat is grown.

6249. In your foreign business you sell on a running bulk sample of the shipment?—I do not know what you call a running bulk sample.

6250. the whole ship has to be up to f.a.q. by the admixture of the whole of the wheats in the ship?—I do not think so.

6251. What do you understand by a running bulk sample you quoted on a running bulk sample?—I never quoted.

6252. Not in 1916-17?—I do not understand the words. They are not common to my trade.

6253. Was it not offered for the quotation for 1917-18 when you put in a tender?—It simply means to me the quality. The ship should average up to a certain standard. If they put absolute rubbish in a ship and you pick that out it will be picked out all right.

6254. You do not think it can be received from the farmer in that condition, and average the whole the farmer sends in?—In my practice if the wheat is good, and there are a few bags which are not up to standard, I do not dock the farmer for those.

6255. You have always practised docking?—I dock for inferior quality, but if it was only a bag or two I would pass that. If a man has very good wheat and there are a few bags not up to the mark I would let them go.

6256. What would you do with that not up to the mark?—Either sell it locally, or if it can be shipped with the good, all right.

6257. What did you find the natural increase in the shipping?—It is variable. The Wheat Board have the figures for the previous years.

6258. Your former experience?—Very variable. If you get a lot of wheat away in December you lose weight on it. After a certain date you start to make weight, and then if you ship up to the end of the year you start to lose weight again. The Wheat Board have my figures for 1915-16, 22,000 bushels.

6259. Would 1915-16 be a fair average with the other years in which you have shipped?—Yes. I should say it was. We had a great deal of bleached wheat in 1915-16. We had it particularly from the Midland country. I got most of my light wheat into the early ships. Perhaps that helps to account for the good outturn, for I see that my figures are the best. The following season was phenomenal.

6260. Do you think one per cent. is a fair thing?—It is easily that.

6261. More than that?—I could not say. We have had such a broken time in Western Australia during the time I have been here. We have only had one or two shipping seasons. The conditions we are working under to-day are abnormal.

6262. How did you find the condition at North Fremantle in 1916-17 compared with the first year?—I had no reason to find fault with North Fremantle either year, except that we lost the big shed in 1916-17.

6263. For re-conditioning?—it hit us very hard for re-conditioning.

6264. Had you a stack at Geraldton?—Yes.

6265. Was it covered early?—Yes.

6266. Were the other Geraldton stacks covered?—I do not like to talk of other people's business but I do not think so. I had great difficulty in Geraldton with the 1915-16 season's stack. The sea encroached halfway through the railway line on the sea side, and I had to re-build the stack after consulting with the officers of the Wheat Board. I advised them to take away some of the stack nearest to the encroachment, and to take of six or eight bags from the top of the stack to reduce the weight. I was afraid the whole stack would go into the Indian Ocean, but it was no fault of mine.

6267. Did you choose the site?—No, it was allotted to me.

6268. You found your own iron for covering?—Yes, right through.

6269. Also dunnage?—The Scheme found some dunnage, for which we paid a rental, so much a sleeper.

6270. Was there any delay in getting it?—Yes, but not unreasonable.

6271. Is there anything further you wish to tell us?—There are one or two things I should like to say. Here (indicating letter) is a sample of interference against our advice. Ten thousand bags had to be unroofed at Fremantle simply through interference with experienced men. That is a letter I have received (indicating), but I have heard nothing about it since.

6272. In regard to the 1916-17 harvest, they relieved you of the responsibility in December last?—Yes.

6273. And there has been no settlement from that time to the present?—No.

6274. Is there any reason why they cannot settle up?—I think they are overworked. The work is too far in arrears.

6275. On what basis did they take over the stack?—Unless otherwise shown the stacks were accepted as being in good order and condition.

6276. Mr Sibbald in the last paragraph of his letter refers to certain benefits which he thinks should be reaped by certain agents. In view of the delay that has occurred, apparently there are no benefits to be hoped for?—Apparently not. I would like to emphasise the point that not in any State in Australia can the railways carry the wheat as fast as the farmer can carry it. Had there been a large crop this year there would have been chaos at the depots. In my opinion in 1915-16 every doubtful stack ought have been removed to a mill. It is a very bad mistake to have old wheat and new wheat in transit on the railways at the same time. The officers of the Scheme seem to fear only double handling. One mill said that they would do it for one halfpenny per bushel. It would be cheap at such a price to get the railway lines cleared for January, February, and March. I would like to emphasise also what I did at the Kumminin dumps. There had been no spring in any body: no taking any risk. We are still under extraordinary conditions. I read Mr Prowse's evidence, in which he said that he believes in silos on the farm, which I approve. There are very few farmers who can cart their wheat as fast as it is stripped: indeed, some of them do not cart at all while stripping. Therefore, they will have to bag