6662. Have you anything else?— I have noticed a lot of controversy about storage sheds. I used to do a lot of wheat for Cave & Co., of Spencer's Gulf, some years ago. We used to have skeleton sheds. Our floors were built the same height as the floor of the railway truck. I think you will find this storing of wheat in country districts and having no surplus on hand when the ship comes in will land you into gear costs.

6663. You think some wheat should be stored at the port?—Yes, especially at these out-ports.

6664. The weevil means still greater loss?—But weevil will get into wheat in the country.

6665. By Mr. BROWN: Were these two ships loaded since February of this year?—At least one of them was.

6666. So the man in charge of the stacks here will be able to tell us what quantity of wheat went in them?—I do not think Mr. Watson was here at the time.

6667. Was there a big quantity of wheat?— She was an ordinary sized steamer of about 5,000 or 6,000 ton. I think she was named "The Cheltenham." I know she was an Imperial boat and took a full cargo.

6668. Can you tell us anything about bulk handling?—If you carry grain in bulk you require to have a fairly decent boat specially fitted up in the hold. Then she can only carry two-thirds of the cargo with safety because she has to be topped with bags. I am positive that we shall never succeed in sending wheat from Australia in bulk because it would grow in the holds. In the course of 130 days the ship sweats badly and the expense of fitting her up for such a voyage would more than counter-balance the saving in bags. With a big cargo of bagged wheat, the saving in bags. With a big cargo of bagged wheat, the bags absorb the moisture in the ship's hold, but if the cargo is not bagged the grain itself has to absorb the moisture with the result that it shoots and grows.

6669. In what part of the world were you engaged in bulk handling?—In the United States.

6670. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: How long would the boats there be on their voyage?—It all depends. They had to go round the Horn.

6671. Did they have any trouble about insurance?—I cannot say.

6672. By the CHAIRMAN: But you have seen the wheat growing in the hold?—I have, in behind the linings.

6673. And you think the distance from Australia would militate against the successful shipping of wheat in bulk?—Absolutely.

6674. It would be necessary to have a steamer properly fitted up and capable of developing speed?—Yes, to make the distance in fair time.

6675. By Mr. BROWN: Have you had experience in silo storage?—No.

6676. Have you any knowledge of terminal elevators?—No. My work has always been about the wharf.

6677. This wheat you speak of as growing between the linings would not affect the bulk of the cargo?—If it would grow there in a voyage of half the duration it would materially affect the bulk of the wheat in the voyage from Australia.

6678. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Did you have any trouble with weevil in those days?—Yes, the wheat was alive with it.

6679. By Mr. BROWN: Did you experience as much weevil wheat in bulk as in bags?—It is 30 years since I was there. Weevils were not thought much of in those days.

6680. Would the bulk supply compare favourably in selling price with the bagged supply?—I should say the bagged wheat would fetch the higher price. Another thing, the bags in the United States average from 110lbs. to 120lbs. in weight, whereas the bag in Australia carries up to 200lbs. If you reduce the size of the bag to 100lbs. you would not require half the texture in the jute, and on the farm one man could handle all the wheat. The same advantage would be experienced on the wharf, in addition to which a greater quantity could be stowed in a given space on ship board.

6681. By Mr. HARRISON: There would be more stitching?—But that is a mere flea bite.

6682. Would the small bag be of much advantage in the stevedoring?—Yes. It can be better stowed and the ship can be got away much sooner. And if the bag is easy to handle in the hold there is a less chance of the lumpers making use of the knife to assist them in stowing. We did all our loading in chutes. We used no slings.

(The witness retired.)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

ARTHUR EVANS JACKSON, Shipping Agent, Bunbury, sworn and examined:

6683. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to put some information before the Commission?—I acted as sub-agent for Jas. Bell & Co. last year at this port. We received wheat between February and July inclusive, putting approximately 40,000 bags into stack. It was intended that all wheat should be stacked much earlier than July, but industrial troubles protracted the proceeding, with the result that late deliveries were subjected to considerable rain both in transit and in incompleted stacks. Bell & Co. supplied the dunnage, the iron, the curtains, etc., and any gear requisitioned for was received without delay. On several occasions wheat in incompleted stacks was wetted by heavy rain, but in every such instance the bags were up-ended and allowed to dry in the sun before further stacking proceeded. Bell & Co. paid all such debits without question. When appointing me as their agent at this port the only stipulation they made was that the stacks should be well looked after and effectively protected. My subsequent dealings with Bell & Co. gave me the impression that their policy in dealing with the wheat business under the Scheme was to maintain the condition of the wheat regardless of cost to themselves. I am not at the present moment agent for Bell & Co., nor have they asked me to give evidence nor mentioned the visit of the Commission in Bunbury. That is all I have to say.

6684. Any wheat wetted by rain was thoroughly dry before being put into the stack?—Yes. You will understand that when the rain falls on an uncovered stack, it is necessary to dry the bags at the top of the stack. Our method was to up-end the bags for three or four tiers down and allow the sun to get at that.

6685. At that time Bell & Co. had the responsibility of putting out the wheat in the same condition as it was put in?—Yes.

6686. Do you think that system is better than the taking of responsibility by the Scheme itself?—I do not think I am competent to express an opinion. Further, where there is a number of acquiring agents there is always a certain amount of rivalry as to which agent shall look after the wheat the best.

6687. But this year all the responsibility has been taken by the Scheme. Which do you think is the better method, the agent taking responsibility or the Scheme taking it?—If you are dealing with an agent you have somebody from whom, if he does not carry out the contract satisfactorily, you can get re-dress, but when the Scheme appoint their own representatives to look after the work, the Scheme are at once the principal and the agent. If the representatives appointed do not carry out their duty satisfactorily, the Scheme can have no redress.

6688. I am comparing this year's method as against last year's?—I misunderstood you. Beyond the fact that when there are several agents you get a certain amount of rivalry. I do not know that there is much difference between the two systems.

6689. When agent here you were responsible for the wheat, and you would see that there was sufficient roofing and curtains before you started stacking?—I would see that it was here as soon as required. Bell & Co. always sent forward promptly any requisitioned gear.

6690. Did you receive on the 1916-17 wheat here?—Yes.

6691. Did you ever get any weevil wheat from the country?—No.

6692. Did you do anything at all in regard to the stacks in the country?—Nothing. Mine was purely the port work.

6693. So the sub-agents in the country were careful to send no weevily wheat to you?—That was my experience.

6694. By Mr. BROWN: Have you been here many years for Bell?—No. Last year was the first year they operated at Bunbury. They sent 40,000 bags in here.