1247. At the non-stacking station of Dreyfus & Co. were you supplied with dunnage and sufficient quantity and time for the purpose of protecting the Stacks?---I supplied my own and paid for it. That was part of my charge. 1248. Do you find at the present time, at any of the non-stacking stations, any omission on the part of the local agents to do that; are there any temporary stacks not protected?---I saw one stack where there was no dunnage at all; I think the Government inspector can tell you that too. 1249. Generally speaking, you think they do take the necessary precaution to afford protection at these non-stacking sidings?---I do not think there has been any actual neglect. It is only a question of not having a knowledge of building the stacks.. 1250. To-day that dunnage is supplied by the Government and yours is supplied by yourself. You say that you had your dunnage in sufficient time and quantity- I very often had to buy.I looked forward. 1251.Did you notice at any of the sidings that the agents had difficulty in securing that dunnage?I was not through sufficiently. In my time we had to supervise our sidings continually.At the present time they are often sublet, and very often the man in charge is not seen. 1252. You have had experience at the York mill; did you ever have weevil there?- Never to any extent, but we got it in the flour and pollard one year very badly, and it cost us £200 to dress it. 1253. Have you ever taken the trouble to study where the weevil came from?---No. 1254. By Mr. HARRISON: Would it have required a new siding or a length of road at those sidings which you mentioned as having flooded recently, to have got to a drier piece of road?---At Quairading it would not have taken much to put it in the place we recommended. 1255. What would have been the length needed at Badjelin?---That is a very bad place. It is at the bottom of a sand plain where a big wash from the lakes comes. 1256. Do you think in connection with future storing that the sidings should be removed?---Certainly, if it could be done. 1257. Suppose we recommended the removal, would it interfere with settlement?---It is very bad country there. The settlers would have to put their wheat inside the rabbit-proof fence. 1258. If you were running the railways as a private enterprise, would you consider it a good business proposition to remove the siding from its present site?---No. 1259. Then it would be better to raise the present yard?---Or with the tension it could be worked and no wheat should be allowed to go away from Quairading or Yoting. This year only 18,000 bags came in there and they could have been got away comfortably. 1260. You said you thought there should be sheds at more places?---If they could have built them at bigger places where an eye could be kept on them, it would have been much more profitable. 1261. That would mean that you would have agents at attended and unattended sidings and you would shift the wheat at the earliest moment?---Yes. 1262. And placing the wheat where there were sheds would save handling?---Certainly. They would take it straight from the wagons and stack it and the wheat would stay there until the mills wanted it or until ships were available to take it away. It would be properly covered, and there would be no possible chance of damage, barring, of course, a plague. 1263. Do you notice there is much difference between handling from the stack to the trucks than from the farmers' wagons to the stack?---There is a lot of difference. This year a contractor made the remark to me before I left, after just having finished a 20,000-bag stack, how well it had stood up. 1264. Then in handling the stack, after it has been there, the cost would be more apparent to the agent than to the novice outside?---Certainly. 1265. Do you think it would be nearly double the cost?---It should not be. The worst stack I paid out on after one harvest was that at Badjalin, which was flooded. My men took it at a penny a bag, and finding that they only earned tucker, I gave them a penny farthing. 1266. Do you think that in putting down dunnage there should be a solid floor?---If you could get sleepers, yes. 1267. What do you think about putting sleepers in close together, and then putting in floor boarding spragged at the outside edges?---I think it would be better to put down a solid floor in the first place. 1268. Do you not find that the sleepers are not secure and that the wheat gets in between them?---I never had a solid floor in my stack; very little wheat finds its way through. 1269. Do you think that one man having more than one sub-agent?---It would be better for the man himself, but not as good for the farmer. 1270. There would be no rejecting by one agent and then the other agent receiving the wheat?---It would be better for the Scheme. 1271. When speaking of dockages, you said that before this season, if one agent rejected wheat another agent would take it?---There were cases where that occurred. 1272. That would eventually go into the Pool?---As it turned out, it would. 1273. If any dockage were on it, it would lower the standard of the whole stack?---Not necessarily.. If a man brought me wheat, and if I were determined not to lose his business, I would put the wheat which I did not consider f.a.q. into a separate stack. 1274. This year if the sub-agent found that you had not docked, and then he put a higher dockage on the other coming in, would the farmer have any redress?---Certainly, he would refuse to accept the dockage and ask for his wheat to be placed on one side, and submit a sample. 1275. Has that been done?---I cannot say. I had it in my own case twice, and I said that I would send a sample to head office, and then asked, Will you abide by their ruling? 1276. Do you not think that is being done this year?---There have been cases. You cannot make a wheat acquiring agent in five minutes and many of the men were new to the business. They tried to blame the manager of the Wheat Scheme, which I considered was not right. 1277. You think the acquiring agent was to blame rather than the Scheme?---The dockage system had to be very strict, I admit , but the farmers' representative is at Spencer's Brook, I understand, and he is there when the wheat is docked. Therefore, there cannot be a question of anything one-sided about it. One of the smartest men in the game is at Spencer's Brook, a young fellow named Lawrence. 1278. You had a bigger harvest in 1915-16 than in the following year?---Yes, a little more. 1279. You stated that it was lifted quicker. The Minister in charge was able to start us in the first week of December. In the following year we were considerably delayed. 1280. Have you any idea what is the cause of the delay?---We were informed they were not ready. 1281. Had you any word as a sub-agent that you were likely to stack that year at Spencer's Brook?---No, we were told we were likely to have to stack in the country. 1282. Suppose wheat has to stand for, say, three years before it can be shipped, what will be the effect on it?---I do not see why it should not if it is stacked on proper ground. Provided, of course, proper attention was given to them and the bags patched. 1283. It would largely depend on the bags and their attention?---Yes, and the stacking. 1284. By Mr. Brown: When you were agent for Dreyfus 7 Co., you acquired, sampled, stacked, trucked, and consigned?---Yes, and patched and looked after the stacks; when they fell down I had to pay them. 1285. What did you get for those services?---In 1915-16 I got 1¼d. For anything I put direct into the trucks I got ¾d. In 1916-17 they gave us an extra farthing as they saw that we were likely to considerably more work. 1286. That covered the wheat from the time you took it from the farmer until you had consigned it?---Yes.