Wheat (1) - Part 4

Image 324
image 25 of 50

This transcription is complete

6695. In that year was there any competition among the acquiring agents?— I could not say. I did not deal with purchasing.

6696. By the CHAIRMAN: Is there any difference in care taken with the stacks now as against previous years?— The stacks have been particularly well maintained since the Scheme sent their own man here to look after them. I would not care to make any closer comparison.

6697. You are a shipping agent. Since the Scheme took over have you been asked for a quote in regard to shipping? — I represent George Wills & Co., who are agents for the Imperial Government steamer and also for the Commonwealth line. The question quoting did not come within my province. I was merely the representative of the firm.

6698. Then the agents here for the time being would be the Scheme?— The last steamer we loaded here was the "Chelston" in March of 1917. I think she had 66,000 bags. She loaded a full cargo. That wheat was tendered for shipment by the agents for the Westralian Farmers. It was their wheat. They controlled it up to the time it was on the slings. That was 1915-16 wheat.

6699. By Mr. HARRISON: How do the stevedore's charges in Bunbury compare with those in Fremantle?— I should say the rates we paid for stevedoring those ships in Bunbury were not excessive. They were normal.

(The witness retired.)

—————————————————


JAMES WATSON, Officer in charge of Wheat Depot at Bunbury, sworn and examined:

6700. By the CHAIRMAN: How long have you been Bunbury?— Since the 3rd February last.

6701. In what condition did you find the stacks when you arrived here?— A few were in fair condition, but some were very bad indeed.

6702. Whose stacks were those in bad condition?— The Westralian Farmer's were the worst in respect of roofing. there were a lot of water pockets in them. I cannot say that it was carelessness on their part. I think it was only want of knowledge. I believe Mr. Cullen did his best.

6703. Then they had been nearly two months in charge of the Scheme when you came here?— I think the Scheme took them over on the 1st January.

6704. Some of the roofs might have gone down after the Scheme took over?— They may have done.

6705. We notice that one of the Westralian Farmer's stacks is in very bad condition. You would not lay the blame for that stack on the Westralian Farmers?— No. In my opinion the stack should never have been put there. I suppose they had to take the site given to them. Had I been here I would have refused to stack on that site.

6706. If the Railway Department allotted that site, do you think the Department should have chosen some other place at which to wash out their cattle trucks?— I do not see any other place in the yard where they could have cleaned the trucks.

6707. Are the stacks here on railway property?— Yes. The grain shed the three stacks over there are on Harbour Board property.

6708. In this particularly bad stack a large number of bags at the bottom row, and only the bottom row, are almost totally destroyed through the action of the Department in washing out their trucks alongside the stack?— Only the bottom row of bags, and the state of curtains was partly to blame for that. Only Bell's and Darling's stacks had any curtains on them at all. The curtains on the other stacks were in ribbons.

6709. The water running from those trucks in process of being washed out would have a tendency to develop weevil in the stack? — There is not the slightest doubt about it.

6710. And possibly the presence of the weevil in that stack has been caused through the action of the Railway Department in washing out their trucks there?— To a certain extent yes, but it was through bad curtaining as much as anything. The bags could not dry after a shower of rain, and every time the trucks were washed out the bags got wet again.

6711. By Mr. HARRISON: The water used in washing out the trucks would also tend to damage the curtains?— To a great extent, yes.

6712. By the CHAIRMAN: How do you find the centre of those stacks?— On the average, good. I think, to take the whole yard, 80 per cent is fit for shipment even now. Of course it is going to be a very expensive job shipping it.

6713. It means you will have to check every bag before shipping?— Practically.

6714. What quantity of wheat have you on hand?— On the 23rd August we had, I think, 180,300 bags.

6715. What wheat was put into the Harbour Trust shed?— Some from the Westralian Farmer's Darling's, Dalgety's, and Dreyfus. Bell had no wheat there.

6716. Did this consist of damaged wheat from the other stacks?— As far as I can see, some of it was gathered up from around the stacks. I re-conditioned a great deal of damaged wheat and sent it away.

6717. Would you not have thought that, in a shed with a floor of that description, properly enclosed, they would have put only the best wheat?— I believe they did at first, but had it removed and put in the damaged wheat.

6718. In rainy weather does much water lie underneath the stacks?— No; they are a fair height from the ground, 9in. The water has a good fall into the river.

6719. There is none of this season's wheat there?— No.

6720. All your 1915-16 wheat has gone?— Yes.

6721. How much wheat have you there?— About 19,000 bags.

6722. Not much has been shipped from here this year?— No, not since I have been here. There was some about the latter end of last year.

6723. Are you sending any wheat into the mill?— Yes, only f.a.q. wheat.

6724. What do you do with the other?— Send it to Perth. As I get a truck of rejects I send down.

6725. Those are your instructions from Scheme, namely to supply this local mill with f.a.q.?— Yes, Mr Forrest will not have any other. He is buying the wheat, paying 4s. 9d. per bushel. I have had no complaint about the wheat I am sending him.

6726. By Mr. BROWN: Who pays for the haulage of the wheat into the mill?— Mr Forrest.

6727. Who samples all the wheat that goes in?— I do.

6728. Has any of it been rejected?— No.

6729. Has any particular stack been opened up for supplying the mill?— No.

6730. To whom do you send when sending to Perth?— To the different mills.

6731. When you are breaking a stack, what proportion do you get for the local mill and for the local mill. Of the two stacks I have removed, about 85 per cent. has gone to Forrest's mill. That is where it has not been damaged by water.

6732. By the CHAIRMAN: You have found that the wheat, where the water has not got it at, has been kept fairly free from weevil?— Yes. Every patch of weevil can be traced to water pockets and from underneath the stacks.

6733. By Mr BROWN: Have you had much experience in the stacking of wheat?— In the other States I have been at it since 14 years of age.

6734. You have never stacked wheat for more than 12 months?— Yes. In one place, at Berrigan, New South Wales, in one year we stacked for about two years. They were building a railway from Berrigan to Jerilderie, and we had to wait for the line to be completed.

6735. Did you find any trouble regarding weevil at that time?— No.

6736. The wheat was ultimately shipped away sound?— No, a lot of it was damaged by mice, but there was no damage by weevil. The only time over there that I had any trouble with weevil was in connection with barley. That was at Warragul in Gippsland. Part of that was emptied out in a shed, and the weevil was just as bad as that in the bags.

6737. Have you had any experience of storage in silos?— No, except that the barley was shot out into an open shed.