sent any such circular. I produce a circular headed "Instructions to agents re sampling." If you saw that in the possession of a Government man at the depot I suppose he borrowed it from our own people. That circular is addressed to our agents. You also spoke about the Southern Farmers, Ltd., not getting the extra ⅛d. for stacks under 3,000 bags. That also is quite wrong. The only payment the Government make of that extra ⅛d. is for direct trucking. Before we can get that ⅛d. we have to produce a signed receipt by the co-operative company that we in turn have paid it. Then with regard to the trucks which you saw at Spencer's Brook and about which you gave me particulars, they did not contain this season's wheat. The whole of the wheat in those trucks came from Dreyfus' stack of 1916-17 wheat. It was all old wheat.

6447. Who is responsible for putting the bags in order?—We are, but that was not this season's wheat. At Ballidu the Government would only allow us 1d. for doing the work that was necessary to be done and we could not get anyone to take it on. Consequently, we had to go past our own local company and let a contract to a lumper. The lumper had just started on this stack and he was not in possession of the bags which the Government under their contract should have supplied. Of course, we take the responsibility. The wheat was not consigned to the depôt but to the mill, and I suppose it was at the Spencer's Brook siding awaiting removal. We have repeatedly asked the Government to allow is to tally at the mill. When Mr Keys was acting as manager for Dreyfus & Co. all the wheat which his firm sent to the mill was tallied by Dreyfus & Co., and he would not have agreed to any other system. At the present time we are instructed to send wheat to the mills and we are not allowed to tally there. The consequence is that we never hear of these things until it is too late. It does not give us a fair chance to supervise the work if we cannot tally at the mill.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.

FRIDAY, 23rd AUGUST, 1918. (At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman). Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

MATTHEW JAMES CARLISLE GILLESPIE, Inspector of Flour Mills working under the Wheat Scheme; sworn and examined:

6448. By the CHAIRMAN : Have you been engaged on the mills all the time you have been employed by the Scheme?—Mostly on the mills. But I have been on the depôts, and also on some of the siding wheat stacks.

6449. What is your opinion of the stacks which have been built at the various sidings?—This last year?

6450. Any time? You can give us a comparison between the two, if you please?—I have seen so little of the stacks this year that it would be hard for me to make a comparison.

6451. Is there any difference between the stacks built by the co-operative societies in previous years and the stacks built this year?— I have seen so few of this year's stacks that it is hard for me to make a comparison with previous years.

6452. Do you find any difference between the stacks as built by the Scheme and the stacks as built by the co-operative societies?—I have really only inspected about four of this year's stacks at sidings, apart from depôts.

6453. Were you engaged by the Wheat Scheme prior to this year?—I was in the wheat business prior to this year, but not for the Wheat Scheme.

6454. What have been your duties as regards the mills?—To see that the terms of the agreement are properly carried out from the practical side, and to watch the percentages of flour, and the treatment of offals, and the disposal of them.

6455. Most of the wheat sent into the mills this year has been weevilly?— A great percentage has been.

6456. Some of it very badly damaged by weevil?—Yes.

6457. It costs the mill owner considerably more to grist weevilly wheat that to grist f.a.q. wheat?—Not considerably more; more wheat would have to be put through to extract a ton of flour.

6458. Is the wheat taken by the mills by weight?—Yes.

6459. Then of wheat badly damaged by weevil it would require more wheat to make up the bushel by weight than it would of f.a.q. wheat?—That is true.

6460. Therefore, it is necessary for the mill owner to put considerable more of this damaged wheat through the mill at the price per bushel than would be necessary if the wheat were f.a.q.?—yes, to gain the same amount of flour.

6461. Therefore, the 7d. per bushel for the gristing of the wheat would mean considerably less profit in the case of weevilly wheat, by reason of the increased cost of the work of gristing, than in the case of f.a.q. wheat?—The profit would be slightly less.

6462. I suppose you have nothing to do with keeping the millers up to their payments?—Nothing whatever.

6463. The officers of the Scheme have to see that all the payments are made in accordance with the agreement?—That is so.

6464. Mr Murray, in giving evidence here, presented this declaration made by E. M. Macaulay, referring to yourself (Answer 5153 read). Do you remember that conversation?— I do not remember that conversation. I remember a conversation with Macaulay on that date about the Pingelly wheat stack.

6465. You had a conversation with him?—Yes.

6466. Is there any truth in the contents of this declaration?—Absolutely none whatever.

6467. Is the accusation he made as regards yourself writing for the Press untrue?—It is absolutely incorrect. I should think you could get that information from the Sunday Times. as to whether I wrote.

6468. By Mr BROWN ; Do you have officers at the various mills weighing the intake of all wheat?—Yes, unless the wheat is accepted by railway weights.