way Department might want to put in cattle races on the sites of the sheds.

7162. The floors would be much better, and much higher up from the ground?— Floors would be better than dunnage.

7163. And with floors there would not be so much liability of weevil?—That is so. Grainproof floors are better than the rough timber from the weevil point of view. But in 12 months' time, even with floors, you would find yourselves in the same predicament as I was in when I joined the Scheme; and that is that you would be wanting to bring the new wheat down at the same time as you were railing the old wheat.

7164. I see that one of the reasons that you give here why depots should be used is the saving in drainage. You are aware that you are not going to use again the Spencer's Brook site which was used previously? — Quite so. But the drainage would serve just the same although we did not use the same site; we would drain in the same direction still.

7165. But would not you be on the other side of the Northam line? — No. The drainage goes through that paddock of the Chief Justice's, on the same side of the line as the shed is now. We would use the same drains again. The Spencer's Brook drains were pretty costly.

7166. But you will be nearer the river, where you are, than at the other place?— But a certain amount of the drainage has to come back, although we are near the river. We would not drain across the road.

7167. Do not you think there is a possibility, if you have a number of small sheds in various districts, that you might get those sheds put up more quickly through local contractors?— Possibly; but local contractors are pretty scarce. It is hard to get two or three men to shift a stack of wheat at present. Then there is the risk that local contractors would make a bad job. No matter what work one lets on contract, one has to watch the man who does it.

7168. But there would be no difficulty, surely, in building sheds?— It is easy to get contractors to build sheds, but you have to watch them.

7169. Then you disagree entirely with the evidence of such witness as Mr. Piesse, of Katanning, Mr. Evans of Bell & Co., and others?— I will not say I disagree with them, but I will say that under the special circumstances of the present time depots are better than sheds.

7170. You think, then, that by shifting the wheat from the sidings to the depots, you can control weevil much better?— I am sure of it. I wish to state here that I am at the present shifting all my country stacks, before a bag of new wheat will be ready to be brought down. I am getting all my 1916-17 stacks cleaned out of the road as quickly as possible.

7171. You are putting the 1916-17 stacks into the mills?— Yes.

7172. The new wheat will become infected with weevil?— We are going to do our best to clean the sidings.

7173. While treatment is being administered to the ground on which the sidings are situated, and the wheat is being kept there, would not you run the risk of infecting the other wheat?— I think that, by using the siding just as a means of taking the wheat say, from the farmer's wagon to the truck, there is less risk of weevil than if you leave the stack there for, say, 12 months.

7174. Do you think there would be much difficulty in taking the weight going into the sidings?— I do not see how you could possibly check the wheat going into the sidings; you would simply have to take the agent's word for the quality and weight.

7175. I see you have been communicating with the Eastern States on this matter?— I do not recollect that.

7176. I will say, then, that the Wheat Scheme office have been in communication with the Eastern States on this matter?— Well, I am usually very closely in touch with what is going on.

7177. The following wire was sent to the Sydney Wheat Board, Handling new season's wheat. Please advise immediately whether in your State you propose taking over wheat from agents on trucks at depots or ports, thence assuming full responsibility?— That is on a different matter altogether.

7178. Wait a bit. That telegram is dated the 3rd September, and the reply from Sydney, dated the 4th September, reads, Board not yet decided, but do not anticipate any alteration in last year's conditions. The same telegram as your office sent to Sydney was sent to Melbourne, and Melbourne's reply reads, Propose taking over all wheat at depots, after wheat has been stacked by agents under commission independent roofs. Check and quality condition must be instituted, but system not settled?— Victoria is referring to depots.

7179. But this will all be depots?— The telegrams sent from here did not refer to country sidings. They were sent in a different connection altogether. Some time back, at the last meeting of the Australian Wheat Board, it was decided that an attempt should be made to secure more uniform conditions as between the various States. The officers of the Australian Wheat Board were to draw up a scheme on the matter. In regard to next season's work with the acquiring agents here, I thought I would get the views of the other States, and see exactly what they were doing as to whether they were taking delivery from the agent at the depot, or if the agent had to put the wheat into the depot. Those are the replies I got.

7180. Adelaide's reply was almost similar, Propose taking over wheat from agents on trucks at depots, thence assuming full responsibility for care and all subsequent handlings? — Here we take control when it arrives at the depot. Those wires which you have read were not sent with regard to sheds and sidings. I recollect in reading the evidence it was stated that it was the system which was adopted in the Eastern States. That is not so. The only State that did something like that was South Australia; they put up sheds as various sidings. They still have big depots at the outer harbour, Wallaroo, Taylem Bend and elsewhere.

7181. The suggestion was that a third of the wheat should be so stacked? — I doubt very much whether it would be practicable. The greater number of the sidings in Western Australia are liable to be flooded. Take Doodlakine. There has been considerable damage done there through the siding being flooded.

7182. By Mr. HARRISON: With regard to that siding, do you know that the roads board have drained the township from the north and have carried the water east of the railway yard?— I do not know.

7183. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Is not Spencer's Brook also liable to be flooded?— We had the engineer-in-Chief up there and he had an officer sent up to take levels. They told us it was a safe site.

7184. Is it not subject to flooding?— Yes.

7185. The Railway Department did not advise you that it was subject to flooding? — I do not know that they were consulted.

7186. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGregor has handed us a list of sidings which would be suitable for skeleton sheds, and which a total of 2,026,000 bags could be stored, leaving 1,323,000 bags for depots? — A number of those places have been under water.

7187. By Mr. BROWN: With regard to the carriage of wheat, has an arrangement been made with the Railway Department so far as the incoming crop is concerned on the same basis as last year, namely, 2s. 6d.?— This matter has not yet been discussed.

7188. Was freight charged to the depots and then the 2s. 6d. more for the privilege of having the journey broken.

7189. The charge is made from the point of loading to the depot, irrespective of where the depot is? — Yes.

7190. So that wheat coming from Tambellup to Fremantle would only be charged another 2s. 6d.?— You would have to take it from the proper zone point.

7191. What about Narrogin?— From Narrogin you would have to pay an extra 2s. 6d. to ship it to Bunbury. If we wanted to ship it from Fremantle we would have to make special arrangements with the Railway Department.

7192. Have you inspected most of the outstanding stacks?— No.

7193. Who is the chief inspector?— Mr. Pearce.

7194. By Mr. HARRISON: With regard to the amount of £1,173 for drainage, do you think there would be more permanent value for that expenditure in connection with the sheds as suggested at