6875. By the CHAIRMAN: You had the Harbour Trust shed there?—Yes.

6876. It is a well-built shed, I suppose. You have been there?—Not since the wheat has been there.

6877. It is a well-built shed; asphalted floor under ideal conditions for stacking wheat. Are you aware that they brought in wheat for re-conditioning at the time clean, dry wheat was there?—I am not aware of that. It is quite possible if there was nowhere else to re-condition it. All the agents are supposed to take extreme care in cases like that to safeguard the wheat there. They should not re-condition it right up against the good wheat.

6878. Should not the Scheme officials have seen that the good wheat that was there was protected instead of having been damaged by the bad wheat full of weevil?—It depends on whether it was 1915-16 or 1916-17 wheat.

6879. It was 1916-17 wheat?—The 1916-17 wheat the agents under agreement are responsible for the out-turn. We give them the benefit of our inspectors' reports, but they could ignore our inspectors' reports if they were satisfied their out-turn was going to be all right. They might say, "We have guaranteed to out-turn the wheat and we will."

6880. They knew that under the conditions there was no way of contesting their position?—If they did they did not give the Scheme the benefit of their advice. That is the great thing we have against the agents. It was understood at the start the basis of the Scheme was that the interests of the various shipping agents and others were to be conserved on the understanding that the same agents gave the Scheme the full benefit of their advice and assistance and help in every possible way. Unfortunately, we found in actual practice that did not work out.

6881. Do you think the care taken in stacking the wheat in that shed deposited as it was in such a wet condition, the sides of the bags still sticking to the floor that extra care was taken?—You are referring now to Bunbury?

6882. The Harbour shed, the same shed?—There has been negligence somewhere. Of course, the damage to a few bags in the handling of millions is practically nothing, because they get their out-turn.

6883. But 20 per cent. of damage is a big margin?—It is very high.

6884. Do the same conditions apply there with regard to stacking sites on the railways as with sites in the country; that is, do the agents choose their own sites?—They had the choice of their own sites at the ports. That is to say the early applicants got preference over the others. I know that was so at Fremantle and that is why the Westralian Farmers in the first year had to put up with the leavings of the other agents.

6885. Would you be surprised to hear that the largest stack of wheat you have in Bunbury is right next to a siding which is used for the purpose of cleaning out the cattle trucks?—I am surprised to hear that.

6886. Would you be surprised to hear that the bottom of the curtains round that stack has rotted away and that the bags have become black through the water and muck which runs from the place where they wash the trucks running beside them the full length of the stack?— That is the first I have heard of it. But how long has that stack been there.

6887. This is 1916-17 wheat. Are you surprised to hear that this stack has been damaged by the dirty water I have referred to and that it is also alive with weevil?—I know from reports we have received that weevil is bad in some places in Bunbury.

6888. Does not the stacking of wheat under such conditions show negligence?—It is really a matter of comparative expense. If you say that 20 per cent. of wheat is damaged, then of course there has been negligence.

6889. Our evidence is that 20 per cent. of the wheat in Bunbury is damaged, but I am dealing with the one particular stack which is alongside the yard where they wash dirty trucks. That is a permanent cleaning yard?—It may have been the choice of two evils; they have to stack the wheat somewhere. You say that the stack should have been picked up when there was a suitable site somewhere else?

6890. It should not have been there at all?—I do not know Bunbury, and I do not know what sites were available or what the conditions were. Is there a better site there?

6891. There is plenty of room in the country without putting the wheat there to be wilfully destroyed by dirty water and muck which flows from the trucks that are being washed. Who is responsible for selecting such a site as that?—The 1915-16 and the 1916-17 sites were arranged for by the agents themselves with the railway authorities or the Harbour Board.

6892. And to find out who was responsible we would have to get the information from the agents?—Yes, or the the officials on the Railway Department or the Harbour Board.

6893. At Midland Junction you have to put up good sheds for the protection of wheat, and you were hoping that the weevil would not propagate so quickly?—That is so, and if they did we could handle them.

6894. You have two large sheds there. Who issued instructions that 300 bags of pick-up wheat had to go in the centre of one of those stacks, wheat which was alive with weevil?—I do not know of any instructions having been issued.

6895. You know there is an alley way in the centre of the stacks to enable the men to go through?—That is the way stacks are built.

6896. Would you be surprised to know that there are 300 bags of pick-up wheat alive with weevil stacked in that alley way?—I am surprised to hear that.

6897. Do the members of the board or the officials of the Scheme visit Midland Junction occasionally?—Yes.

6898. They must have been aware of those bags being there?—I should say so. The inspectors should have been able to detect a thing like that.

6899. The bags were there last Wednesday?—I do not think they were there on Friday. Mr. Keys did say there was a dump of rotten stuff there which should not have been there, and he gave orders for it to be trucked away.

6900. Would you be surprised to learn that we were informed that instructions came from the Scheme to stack that wheat there?—I would.

6901. Does it not show that the officer who gave such instructions was not looking after the best interests of the farmers or the country and that he should lose his position?—It must have been under exceptional circumstances. It would be a remarkable thing for anyone to issue such instructions.

6902. With regard to Spencer's Brook, there has been some trouble there?—Yes, amongst the officials.

6903. The charge has been made that wheat has been stacked there in a wet condition; have you heard that?—Yes.

6904. The members of your board visited Spencer's Brook and could not see any signs of wheat that had been stacked wet?—They said they had a bay opened up and could not see any damaged wheat. They did not say that wet wheat had not been stacked.

6905. This wheat was alleged to have been put in in February and the board inspected it a month ago. The wheat must have been fairly damp, because there were fungus growths on the bags, which were several bags in from the edge of the stack?—Then the wheat must have been very wet.

6906. Wheat was also stacked there by order of the Scheme before the roof was on?—Yes, the wheat was stacked as soon as it came in. A lot of the wheat was not covered for some time.

6907. Heavy rain fell after it was stacked?—I believe so.

6908. The wheat was supposed to be up-ended and dried?—I do not know. They would not necessarily up-end bags after summer rains, but after winter rains they would.

6909. Do you not think you should now have some practical experience?—I am always stuck in the office.

6910. If wheat is stacked in a wet condition, is it not liable to become musty?—If the wheat gets sufficiently damp. In many cases when a bag is supposed to weigh six or seven pounds heavier than normal the weight is in the moist jute.