6643. You spoke of the Scheme sending you bags for re-bagging. Were ever any second hand bags sent to your sub-agents?—In most instances the bags were second hand.

6644. And yet the Scheme objected to the use of second hand bags by the farmers?—Yes. In justice to the Scheme I should say that I believe new bags were unprocurable. In many instances we arranged with those farmers who had new bags surplus from the previous season, to lend us them on the condition that new bags should be returned to them out of the first correct season's shipment. But it has not been possible to do that in all instances. The re-bagging has been excessive through unnecessary exposure, the obviating of which we advocated.

6645. Would you favour the Wheat Pool being continued in existence after was conditions pass?—Yes. I think the farmers will ask for a continuance of the pooling system.

6646. By the CHAIRMAN : Did you ever notice anything being done in India as regards weevil?— No. The necessity for dealing with weevil does not arise under normal conditions.

6647. The weevil has been many years in India now?—But nothing like what it is under present conditions. The chief difficulty connected with Indian wheat is the duplicity of the Indian, who mixes earth and clay with his wheat.

6648. Have you ever seen any wheat buried in the ground in India?—I have not seen it, but I know that it is done.

6649. You have no information to give us about the Indian weevil?—No.

6650. By Mr HARRISON : Have the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., a record of the bad stacking sites at receiving centres?—Yes.

6651. Will you send us a copy of that record?—With pleasure.

6651A. In your recommendation to erect skeleton shed at country centres receiving 20,000 bushels and upwards, you would not include any of those bad stacking sites?—I would not advise putting skeleton sheds at any of those unless sites were improved so as to be safe.

6652-4. Do you think the sheds would have any permanent value?—Yes. I think that if the wheat is shipped, with a return of normal conditions, the sheds could be used for the storage of chaff and all other kinds of produce. The co-operative societies might possibly take them over for that purpose.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

SATURDAY, 31st AUGUST, 1918. (At Bunbury.)

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.

JOHN PETER SMITH, Master Stevedore and Shipping Agent, sworn and examined:

6655. By the CHAIRMAN : I believe you desire to place some evidence before the Commission in regard to the handling of wheat?—yes. Since the inception of the export of wheat I have been very keen on getting some of the stevedoring of it. When the agents were handling it there was competition amongst the stevedores, but since the Government have taken charge it is difficult to know whom to approach with a view to competing for the work. I have succeeded in one or two instances in obtaining the stevedoring of ships, but in other instances I have found it impossible to get in touch with the right parties. I take it the charges for handling include stevedoring, and that being so the cost of stevedoring the wheat from the wharf to the chip must necessarily come out of the freight, and the freight comes out of the shippers' pocket. In many instances, particularly in Bunbury, the stevedoring of wheat costs 2s. per ton. I have never quoted more that 1s. 8d. for the same work/ I cannot understand why the work should be let at 2s. per ton when it can be done at 1s. 8d.

6656. Do the Government let the stevedoring of the wheat to anyone here?— No, no one seems to have any authority in the matter. I have some correspondence on the subject. On the 20th November, 1916, I approached the agent for Geo. Wills & Co. in Bunbury with a view to tendering for a share of the work, but was unsuccessful. I did not even get a reply to my inquiry from Mr Jackson. He said the reason why he did not ask for tenders from me was that I had not been stevedoring for some time. That does not matter. I have the plant and the cash and the ability. I wrote again in January, 1917. Eventually I succeeded in obtaining portion of the stevedoring from Dreyfus & Co. at the rate quoted. I have not been able to obtain any since.

6657. Up to the 31st December, 1917, the acquiring agents were responsible for the wheat right to the ship?—Yes, but this other system would apply to the Commonwealth line of steamers. Mr Jackson is sub-agent for Wills & Co.

6658. Since then has much wheat been shipped from here?—Two boats, loaded by Millars' Timber and Trading Co. The contract was, I think, 1s. 11d. per ton.

6659. Did they ask any other stevedore here to quote?—No.

6660. That was since the Scheme took control?—Yes, this year. I have communicated with the Scheme, and I have got my agents in Glasgow to interview the Imperial authorities at Home. I have approached Mr Keys, and I have now approached the Wheat Scheme in Melbourne, but nobody seems responsible. Mr Pitt wrote me on the 29th July tot he effect that his Board did not make arrangements with any stevedore, and that I must get into touch with the State Wheat Scheme. Nobody seems to have any responsibility in the matter, but when a ship comes along they pay 4d. a ton more than is necessary.

6661. You recommend that if any ship comes here they should get prices from various stevedores for the work?—Yes. I cannot see why 2s. should be paid when the work can be equally done for 1s. 8d.