shape of a shed. So far as the method to be adopted is concerned, it seems to me to be part of the cost of marketing the wheat. It must be held and protected pending facilities for shipment. So far as the cost of the sheds can be apportioned to the period during which the wheat is held, it seems to me to be a legitimate charge against the Pool. So far as the sheds may be available for any other season's wheat, that is a question of apportionment.

6422. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: The Government have erected certain sheds for the 1917-18 harvest, and will now proceed, we understand, with further sheds for the 1918-19 harvest. If the Pool continues for a number of years, these sheds will continue to be erected. Under these circumstances, the whole of the charges, less the residual value, would be properly made against the Pool, that is to say, under the legislation but not in equity?—There is no express provision in the Act that the Minister may erect sheds to warehouse the wheat.

6423. The powers are wide enough to enable him to do so?— It necessary follows that if the Minister is to acquire wheat, he must have means of protecting it pending shipment. That must be portion of the cost of the operation as a whole. Except for the difficulties of shipment, this Act would not have come into existence. It seems to me to follow that it must be within the purview of the Act that, pending shipment, the wheat must be in some way stored and cared for. So far as the Minister might rent sheds, or other means of protection, it would be a legitimate cost in connection with the acquiring and ultimate disposal of the harvest.

6424. The only object of the question was to decide whether it might be necessary for this Commission to recommend that provision should be made in future legislation to enable the Minister to do these things?— It is desirable to leave as little as possible to be implied from any legislation. If the Commission were to advise that this should be made clear by legislation, I think they would be acting wisely. I regard it as a necessary implication of the Act.

6425. You think it is arguable?— I think that, if Parliament expressed it so much the better. I think that some protection of the kind is in operation in Victoria. Our Act is the same as the Victorian Act. I have gone through the South Australian Act, but find that it does not touch on the point. There is no provision in it for the erection of sheds, or for the protection of the wheat. It does not materially differ from our own Act.

6426. Do you think the acceptance by the farmer of the receipt for wheat is a sufficient indemnification for the Minister, both for liabilities, as implied by the Chairman's question, and also in regard to the erection of buildings. The interim receipt speaks of the farmer as the vendor?—The term vendor is used in the Victorian Act but the relationship is not that of vendor and purchaser in the ordinary mercantile acceptance of the terms. The Government are really a marketing agency.

6427. The legislation exempts the Minister from liability, and the farmer has no recourse in law, even if the Minister is grossly negligent?— I think no remedy is given to the farmer. The State undertakes to market the wheat, and the farmer must rely on the State protecting his interests in every practical way. The State is not an agency carrying on business as a commercial concern for profit. It is accountable to the farmer for the proceeds. That is why the relationship of vendor and purchaser does not exist in the ordinary acceptation of the term. If the Government were purchasers the ultimate profits would be for the Government, but the Government are accountable for the proceeds and must therefore be a marketing agency, whether the term vendor is used or not. The Government make nothing out of the transaction, and no charge of any kind is made against the farmer except for actual disbursements. I think the Legislature has relied upon the Government using all due care in the appointment of their agents, in forcing the obligations of agents and placing them under bond, and subject to that the Government incur no risk in my opinion.

6428. By the CHAIRMAN: In the agreements under the 1916 Act the Government threw the responsibility for proper protection of the wheat on the agent who acquired it?—The agent is made absolutely responsible.

6429. Up to the time the wheat was shipped, if shipped within a certain time?— I do not know that the agent's responsibility would continue after the expiration of his agreement except for this in Clause 21, "this agreement shall continue in force from the date thereof until the 30th September, 1916, with the right to the Minister to continue its operation for such further period as may be reasonably required for shipping the wheat remaining on hand after the last-mentioned date."

6430. That is, the agreement provided responsibility up to a certain date if the wheat was not shipped prior to that date?— With the right to the Minister to continue the operation for such further period as might be reasonable for shipping wheat remaining on hand after the expiration of the agreement.

6431. That is, he could continue the agreement if he so desired?— He could continue the obligation.

6432. That is not what I was getting at. The Minister knew, when this agreement was framed, that it was necessary that due care should be taken for the protection of the wheat?—Yes.

6433. He had that embodied in his agreements with the acquiring agents for the 1915-16 and 1916-17 harvests?—Yes.

6434. As regards the 1917-18 harvest, the Minister, instead of throwing the responsibility for the care and protection of the wheat on the agents, carried that responsibility himself?—He carried the responsibility of providing protection or cover for the wheat. Clause 8 says: "the agent is responsible that the stacks shall be properly erected and dunnaged, having regard to the fact that the stacking is temporary, and provided that the necessary dunnage required by the agent is supplied by, and at the expense of, the Minister. The agent will not be required to provide protection or cover either as regards supplying material or placing the same on or around the stacks." Therefore the Minister took the responsibility of covering and protecting the stacks.

6435. The Minister having taken the responsibility of protecting the wheat, then, if through neglect of his, which means neglect of his officers, a large quantity of wheat has been damaged, the farmer, according to what you have told us, has no redress at all?—In my opinion the farmer has no cause of action against the Crown.

6436. Then he has no redress?—I do not think he has.

6437. Therefore the Minister could please himself whether he covered the wheat or not?—I do not think there would be any cause of action.

6438. If there is no cause of action, the farmer could not possibly have any redress?—I think that that provision in the certificate issued to the farmer, on the basis of which certificate his wheat is received for marketing, "The certificate of the Minister as to the amount of the net proceeds for distribution is to be conclusive," is a bar to any action for alleged neglect.

6439. By Mr. HARRISON: That being the case, do not you think it would be much better if the wheat growers interested in the Scheme had an executive controlling the working of that Scheme?—That is a matter of opinion. Do you think I need express an opinion on what is not a legal matter?

6440. It seems to me that the people owing the wheat would be the more likely people to take care of it?—I do not think I should express opinion on a matter such as that.

6441. By Mr. BROWN: Should any of the bonds under the agreements have been cancelled before the finalisation of the obligation that the acquiring agents took?— No. I am not aware that they have been cancelled.

6442. They should not have been cancelled?—Clearly not. That is to say, the bondsman should not be relieved.

6443. To cancel a bond would be to relieve him?—Certainly. I am not aware that there has been a cancellation.

6444. By the CHAIRMAN: If there was any bond handed back, it was handed back without consultation so far as you are concerned?—I am not aware of any bond being handed back.

6445. Then you were not consulted?—No.

(The witness retired.)

BASIL LATHROP MURRAY, further examined:

6446. You were going to look into several matters?—One was that we had sent a circular to the Government people at the depôts regarding dockage. We have never