over settlements and we were averse to incurring heavy costs, not having to hand definite answers to our communications.

6619. By Mr. BROWN: Has that matter been settled yet? —We have made advances to our sub-agents. We will debit the Scheme, but at the same time, receiving no answer to the letters, we do not know quite where we are. A considerable amount of difficulty has been occasioned this year through the inferior quality of the cornsacks supplied. About June, 1917, there was a conference of co-operative companies in Perth and a resolution was passed that the Prime Minister be approached to take steps to arrange that there should be an inspection of bags at Calcutta before shipment. We understood that these steps were to be taken, but apparently if they were taken they were not of much value because the quality of the sacks last season has been very inferior. Our own representative at Spencer's Brook has advised us that the quality of the sacks (particularly after weather exposure in the stacks ) was so bad that he saw bags bursting during a severe shunt there. The Scheme have also supplied inferior bags for re-bagging purposes. One agent told me it was a toss up with him whether to send forward weather exposed, bleached, frail bags out of the stack without any re-bagging, or re-bag into bags just as tender which had been sent up by the Scheme. There is another factor that has a bearing on re-bagging which is more important than is generally recognised, and that is the dunnage. Bad dunnage ( bush poles for example ) often occasions considerable re-bagging. The poles sag and the stacks sink and the back of the bags are apt to break.

6620. By Mr. HARRISON: You would escape that with skeleton sheds?—Yes. We have noticed instances such as I have described in the case of flood water damage. Mr. Keys in reply to a question said that the total loss this season was not as great as the loss of one stack last season and he mentioned Trayning. I join issue with him there. The instance he quoted, however, illustrates my point because the Trayning stack was damaged by flood water, the dunnage sank into the ground, and the re-bagging costs and loss generally was considerable. This applies generally in cases of flood water damage. If the skeleton shed scheme is not adopted I would advocate that railway sleepers should invariably be used for dunnage. If the depot system is going to be adopted, which I would deprecate, I consider that the first essential is the institution of a regular wheat train service. The whole of the wheat area should be planned out, and certain sidings could be ear-marked for direct trucking. At all other sidings temporary roofing should be provided. This arrangement would have a manifold effect. Regular wheat trains going into the depot would enable you to keep your labour regularly employed. You would know what wheat was coming in and you would have sufficient labour there to handle it. It would also eliminate demurrage costs, and the wheat all this time would be protected. At the sidings at which the wheat was to go forward by the regular train arrangement there would be no roofing and covers for the trucks should be supplied by the Wheat Board. It has been suggested that the material for sheeting is not available. I join issue there. In 1915-16 we had a convenient tarpaulin made out of stout hessian tarred. It was very serviceable and the same thing could be used again. Under this system the wheat would be continually under cover whether being moved in the regular train or being put into the sections which we suggest should be roofed immediately they are built. In this way weevil damage would be to a great extent eliminated, and in that regard prevention is very much better than cure. Under a depot system—if it were to be adopted—the acquiring agent should be responsible for the stacking and for the sampling, and he should put up his money as a guarantee that he will out-turn all wheat in such a way as to show no loss to the Pool. It would then be the acquiring agent's interest to see that the trucks were unloaded promptly so that the schedule of trains arranged could be adhered to. It has been suggested that we object to any method of inspection. That is not so. What we object to is dual control. The Other day we were railing an old season's stack at Gnowangerup. The contractor advised that the screens were valueless and weevil infested, and our inspector corroborated that statement. In consequence, we wired the agent to destroy the screens. Before this could be done the Government inspector directed the agent to send them to Tambellup depot. I have here a letter dated 19th August, received by us on the 22nd, which shows that the screens were duly forwarded to the depot as per the Government inspector's instructions countermanding ours. Shortly after Inspector Sabine visited the depot Inspector Pearse, I understand, came along and instructed the superintendent not to destroy the screens but to use them on a reject stack. This is now being done, I am told. I do not quote that instance with the idea of reflecting on either Inspector Sabine or Inspector Pearse; our point is that the childish upsetting and cancellation of instructions as between our inspector and the Scheme inspector should be made impossible. The function of the Government inspector should be to see that we are properly carrying out our contract in such a way as to obviate loss. If we are not doing so we should pay for losses. If we are carrying out our contract properly we should be left alone, but matters such as that instanced should be outside the province of the Scheme. We welcome inspection, but we think it ought to be a supervisory inspection and not interference with our work.

6621. By the CHAIRMAN: But those screens were the property of the Scheme and so were not under the control of your inspector at all?—It was part of our contract to see that the whole of the material was dealt with in such a way as to obviate loss to the Pool.

6622. But the screens had nothing to do with your inspector?—Yes, we had the contract for cleaning up that stack.

6623. But your inspector was interfering in a matter that did not concern him?—We were faithfully carrying out our contract by taking that action. There should not be this dual control. Mr. Solomon said that too much of our inspectors' time has been taken up in attending to general merchandise matters. That is quite contrary to fact. From December to May all our inspectors were engaged full time on wheat work. The fact of one party being responsible for labour at the siding and another for the supply of cornsacks for re-bagging, one party controlling at the siding and another at the depot, and so on. all leads to confusion and loss. To a great extent it is due to this system that there has been any occasion for criticism. It has been suggested that the Westralian Farmers have not had much experience. I will deal with this under two headings, (1) at sidings, and (2) at ports. I organised the bulk of the Westralian Farmers' agencies. Our aim was to get experienced men. Where, in some places, the old buyers were biased against us, we endeavoured to get local farmers with acumen to undertake the work. Mr. Solomon says that when acting for us he, by direction, went to Mr. Stannistreet and got the names of Farmers and Settlers' secretaries in order that he might appoint them as agents, and that some of them resided many miles from the line. Mr. Solomon's instructions would not be to appoint those secretaries. The same instructions would be given to him as were given to me previously. Mr. Solomon suggested that the line of demarcation between the Farmers and Settlers' Association and the co-operative movement was indeterminable. That is not so. The position is that in most places the Farmers and Settlers' secretary was a man of standing in the district. Our practice in making appointments was to consult the officials of the farmers' associations or local justices of the peace when making appointments. Mr. Macdonald, of Quairading, stated that his custom had been to have a tally clerk as well as a jumper at each siding in his agency. On one occasion I was passing through Yoting, where Mr. Macdonald had only one man doing the whole of the work of tallying and jumping. I had a little time to spare and tallied for him. That was in the 1916-17 season. There was the one man only there for Dreyfus all season. I know that the custom has not been to have tally clerks but to make a contract with labour. This method is not a new one, it was adopted by the old time agents. We have had practically no complaints this season in regard to labour at sidings, nor in regard to the obtaining of documents, either by the farmers or by the banks. In fact, the banks tell us that they have had less trouble this year in getting certificates than ever before. Coming to the ports. I have read Mr. Paton's criticism . I do not take any notice of it because Mr. Kevs himself told the Commission that Mr. Paton is hypercritical. Comparing the experience of different firms, when it came to war conditions and long storage, all the firms started off scratch, because none had any knowledge of the new conditions. We were the first firm to lay tarpaulins over the decking on the wharf when loading ships. At first it appeared that the engine- drivers on the wharf would object, but as they passed our foreman would ascertain when they were going to return so that he might arrange to have men there to lift the tarpaulins. Following upon our adoption of that course the other firms started it. We were the first firm to lay tarpaulins over the decking when stacking at ports. You will see our tarpaulins