so liable to propagate weevil; and therefore the wheat would be much safer if put in a proper shed right away?—Yes, I think so.

6835. Who is responsible for stacking the wheat on the Albany stacking sites?—The old acquiring agent. Mr . Sibbald did make an attempt to get a new shed erected at Albany, so as to free the wheat from a lot of those old warehouse sheds in which it has been stored for the last two or three years, and which I understand were always utilised before the Scheme came into existence. It was he also who arranged for the loco, shed, about two miles out of Albany, to be utilised for the stacking of wheat, after he had had his new shed arrangements turned down.

6836. Was the proposal refused by the board or by the Minister? —The board did not come into it; but I do not know that it was a matter of being refused by the minister—Mr .Mitchell was Minister at the time—but Mr .Sibbald ,after consulting with the Minister, came to the conclusion that from the Scheme's point of view the proposal was impracticable.

6837. Did the acquiring agent prior to this year have to provide the sites, or did they have the sites place near the railways?—They had to provide sites in this way, that had to make arrangement with the Railways Department for a suitable site, and had to pay the usual rental charges.

6838. When wheat was stacked at Albany, it was done under instructions from those then in charge of the Scheme?—Yes.

6839. Instructions setting out that a certain zone's wheat had to be stacked at Albany?—Yes; had to be shipped from Albany. But it was the earnest desire of the Scheme in connection with all shipments of wheat to keep back in country as much as practicable and as consistent with safety.

6840. Mr . Sutton was first acting as manager of the Scheme?—He was chairman of the board, and he was practically manager.

6841. Have you ever heard whether Mr . Sutton was advised to keep certain classes of wheat out of Albany and not store it there?—Certain classes of wheat, or certain stacks of wheat at different sidings?

6842. By Mr .BROWN: wheat from certain localities? As being dangerous to the wheat?

6843. By the CHAIRMAN: Yes?—No; I do not know of it. Nor do I know he could have taken much notice of it if he had been so advised; that is, if the question was one of shipping the wheat. When he was in control we were getting boats at Albany, and if a particular class of wheat going to Albany to be shipped was not safe to wheat to store there for any length of time the agent in control should have pointed out that that was the class of wheat which ought to be sipped first.

6844. You know Albany?—I just know it; not very well.

6845 Do you know where the stacks of wheat are there; have you been there since the stacks have been put there?—No

6846. Do you know if the board has visited the site?—Different members of the board have; I would not say the present members, but of the advisory board form time to time have . Mr Sutton would know them; Mr. Sibbald knew them well.

6847.Would you get for us what you are paying the railway for their shed; and what you are paying McKenzie for the shed, and what you are paying Wills for portion of their shed?—We are paying them all on the same basis; one-twelfth of a penny per bag per week.

6848. If I had my way and could do it, I would make the man who engaged them pay the money?—It is shocking; it is the same basis of charge fixed by the Fremantle Harbour Trust, and that is what beat the Scheme in trying to get a reduction down there. They said the Fremantle Harbour Trust are charging that.

6849. You had a shed when from wills &co. there at one time?—I think so . When I say I think so , storage was arranged by various shipper agents; some dealt with one firm and some dealt with another.

6850. But at the ports the Scheme had to provide covering for the wheat?—Yes.

6851. At Fremantle and all the ports?—Yes. When I say "provide covering" I mean roofing but not screens.

6852. You are aware you had a shed from Wills& Co. though?—Yes.

6853.The wheat had to be shifted from that shed?—Yes.

6854. Would you be surprised to learn that where it was shifted to is a swamp?—I am very surprised to hear it.

6855. Would you be surprised to learn that all the stacks there outside the sheds are on the ground where they cannot put foundation in for a wool store without having the pumps to work to pump the water out?—I am surprised to hear that.

6856. Would you be surprised to learn that the stacks are riddled right though with weevil?—The latest reports from Inspector Pearse are very bad in connection with weevil.

6857 When were those reports made?—Within the last three or four weeks.

6858. And since you have been shipping down there now?—Yes, the ones I have in mind. I believe two months ago he said they were getting a pretty big hold. I may point out that most of the wheat is that which has been taken over by the Imperial Government as from the 31st December last ,but as the weevil must have been in it prior to that date, we are making suitable allowances and arrangements with Mr Love, the representative of the Imperial Government in connection with that particular point .We are in communication with him now. All the other Imperial stacks have been fixed up.

6859. These are so bad that they are diffident about fixing up about them , I suppose?—I think not .When Mr . Keys was in Melbourne two or three months ago he practically arranged the Albany stacks with Mr .Love but he was not aware they were as bad as they were afterwards reported. The report he was going on was rather favourable at that time.

6860. Here is a sample of wheat from Geraldton (Handed to witness). There are thousands of bags at Albany, which I say are in a worse state than that?—They are sending worse stuff than that to the mills.

6861.That wheat was accepted on a 60½lbs. f. a. q. quality. We tested it here the other day and it weight 46lbs.That is 1917-18 wheat?—What, 1917-18 wheat?

6862. The CHAIRMAN: it is supposed to be.

6863. By Mr . BROWN: they are 1917-18 stacks?—At Geraldton.

6864. By the CHAIRMAN: What you call Professor Lefroy's stack?—Geraldton is the worst part of the State for weevil.

6865. Albany is from our inspection?—It is because of the weevilly -infection site down there, I think, not the atmospheric conditions.

6866. Mr HARRISON: Personally I would rather have the Geraldton site than Albany.

6867. By the CHAIRMAN: The wheat, too, I would rather buy it?—You must not forget the wheat at Albany and Bunbury has been there a linger time.

6868. The same time. The Commission in of opinion there has been gross carelessness in stacking the wheat on the site at Albany?—I am not surprised to hear that.

6869. We have it in evidence that Mr . Sutton was advised not to put Ongerup and Gnowangerup wheat there?—It all depends on who gives the advise .

6870. Qualified men?—It is quite true, but they may have been interest parties.

6871. He is not . We had no intention of going to Albany until we had evidence, and then we thought it advisable to see them. The stacks at Albany and Bunbury are the worst stacks we have seen. You engage the Harbour Trust shed at Bunbury for stacking wheat?—Yes.

6872. What are you paying at Bunbury as rental?—At present we are paying £45 a month but they have under consideration .a reduction.

6873. You have very little wheat on the Harbour Trust properly at Bunbury?—Yes, not very much . I think there are 164,000 bags at Bunbury, but I do not know whether they are all on railway land or Harbour Trust land.

6874. By Mr . HARRISON: That is the total Bunbury?—Yes.