various sidings receiving wheat is almost exactly the same as the amount that has been docked at the depôts by the Scheme's officers, does that not show that these men must have had some experience as far as wheat is concerned?— A certain number of the samplers are agreed upon if the Scheme's representation and the farmers' representative cannot agree the samples are submitted to Perth, so they practically would be the same.

6516. I am dealing with the wheat as it is received from the farmer and is docked at the sidings. The dockage has been almost exactly as that docked at the depôts by the Scheme's officers. Does that not show the men are qualified at the sidings?—It looks very much like it.

6517. You think the men who accept the wheat on behalf of the acquiring agents must have had some experience as far as wheat is concerned?—Yes. 6518. By Mr. BROWN : Who appointed you as inspector and when?—I commenced on the 2nd January.

6519. And who made the appointment?—The Wheat Scheme.

6520. Mr. Keys?—Yes, he was the general manager at the time.

6521. Do you take all your instructions from the manager and no one else?—Yes.

6522. Do you keep all records of your examinations of stacks?—Yes, and I make a report of any inspections I make.

6523. Any regular system of inspection?—An ordinary report when I arrive back in town as to what I have seen and what I have done.

6524. Those reports would be at the head office?—Yes.

6525. Did you take over on behalf of the Scheme any of the 1916-17 stacks?—No, my work is principally at the flour mills; the only other inspections I have made are at depots and three or four of the country wheat stacks.

6526. Practically your whole time since January has been devoted to the flour mills ?—Yes.

6527. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you find the flour millers carry out their agreement satisfactorily?—Yes, they are giving the Scheme as good a run as they possibly can do.

6528. Mr. Murray complained yesterday when he drew attention to the fact that bags are being sent in torn to the mills by mice and rats, that they are not allowed to tally the wheat sent into the mills at the mills?—That arrive in broken bags?

6529. Any wheat that comes into the mills at the mills?—Who is not?

6530. The acquiring agents. He said:— We have repeatedly asked the Government to allow us 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. ?—They have representatives tallying at Kellerberrin, Narrogin, York, and for some time at Katanning mills. The Scheme's officers are tallying at the other mills.

6531. The Scheme's officers are at these mills as well as the Westralian Farmers' representatives?—They are checking the weights for the Scheme.

6532. Then they do tally at the mills?—Yes.

6533. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: You are a practical miller?—Yes.

6534. And used to mill management?—Yes.

6535. In your opinion is 7d. per bushel which is being paid to the millers a fair price on both sides?—Under existing conditions it is.

6536. Fair to both parties?—The miller has a lot more to contend with than if he were milling in normal times. The condition of the wheat the present time is bringing down his output. The wheat is over-tempered in many cases and the weevil question reduces his output.

6537. He is put to an expense in cleaning his mill afterwards?—It is a question of cleaning the mill all the time.

6538. That is an additional expense than in ordinary circumstances?—Yes. (the witness retired)

MARK LEWIS, Farmer, of Pithara, sworn and examined:

6539. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to place some information before the Commission?—The acquiring system last year was not satisfactory to the farmers. It appears from the Press that the whole position of the farmers would be saved if the Westralian Farmers acted entirely for them, but in my opinion that is not the case. With regard to dockages, a certain scale is adopted by the Government. One farmer that I know of had his dockage set down in the first place at 1s.3d. and 10d. He saw the Westralian Farmers,Ltd., and had it reduced to 10d. and 7d. On the other hand , other farmers, with less influence, were obliged to put up with the ordinary dockages imposed in the first place. The present system of giving the handling of the wheat to the Westralian Farmers and not giving the farmers an opportunity of sending their wheat direct to the Scheme is unsatisfactory. Assuming that the work is sublet, the sub-agent may have a friend to whom he will give good treatment. On the other hand, there may be others who will have to put up with a certain amount of victimisation. There is no safeguard against that in the agreement. If a farmer was permitted to send his wheat direct to the depôt, and take the depots weights and dockages, this would be a safeguard against anything of this kind occurring. I wrote to Mr. Baxter about this last year. He pointed out that in the agreement they were bound to give everything to the Westralian Farmers and that they could not depart from that agreement. In the handling last year the wheat received more damage than it did in previous years, as it was not covered at the receiving siding. The average of the wheat was inferior in quality and it took less to damage it. In every case there were three or four inches of rain before the wheat was brought under shelter, and in some cases seven inches of rain fell. The farmers state that the present system of sending wheat to the depots involves a certain cost in handling, and that the wheat is liable to be damaged on account of the delay which occurs between the receiving point and the depot. Mr. Murray led the Commissioner to believe if there were any profits derived from the handling the farmers would get the benefit. I am afraid the farmer will lose more by the mismanagement in the handling than he would be likely to get by way of dividend.

6540. Have you any evidence of victimisation in your district?—No. The only evidence I have is in regard to the farmer who was able to get his dockages reduced, as I have stated. This reduction was unfair to other farmers. Some farmers had wheat similar to that owned by this particular farmer, but they were told that they could sell theirs as pig wheat and it was not fit for the Scheme, but that if the Scheme received it the full dockage set down would have to be made.

6541. You are aware that there were three different dockages fixed last year?—Yes.

6542. As the last one was considerably lower than the first, would not that make the difference?—It would made a difference in the wheat delivered before the reduction was made. A refund was made to the farmers on that occasion.

6543. Would that not apply to this farmer who had his dockages reduced?—Yes, but not to the margin he received. Some of his wheat was delivered before the reduction and some of it after.

6544. I suppose you are aware that, if a farmer is not satisfied with his dockages, he can appeal to the Scheme?—I do not think that operates very well. A farmer would have to be present to deliver his wheat and take an sample of it in the presence of the sub-agent, which would also have to be posted in the presence of the of the sub-agent. Very few farmers could afford to spend all the time necessary. The great safeguard which can be provided by the Government is for them to allow the farmer, if dissatisfied, to have his wheat weighed and docked by the officials at the depots.

6545. You advocate that the Scheme should acquire the wheat?—Yes. I know of cases in which the Westralian Farmers' inspector would pass certain things which the Scheme inspector would not pass. These things would then have to be fought out between the two bodies, and the Westralian Farmers can bring whatever influence they would like to gain their point. Furthermore, the Westralian Farmers themselves take a portion of what is paid