2270. Do you not think there is more likelihood of delay occurring when a branch society has to communicate with someone else, say, an acquiring agent, and then that agent has to apply to the Government before definite instructions can be given?—There should not be the necessity for all that. 2271. You think then that the branch society should communicate direct with the Pool?—Not in the way you suggest. We receive all our instructions from the acquiring agents. 2272. Suppose the agent wanted dunnage, he would have to write to the Westralian Farmers and the Westralian Farmers would have to write to the Pool. Do you not think you would be able to get quicker attention by writing direct to the Pool?—Not by my experience of any Government institution. 2273. But this is not a Government institution?—It is controlled, which means red-tape. 2274. This Scheme is controlled by a manager. Therefore, so far as dunnage is concerned or anything else, the Westralian Farmers might require, the manager of the Pool and not the Minister would be communicated with?—I suppose that is right, but in cases of that kind the Westralian Farmers would get an accurate list of every bit of dunnage at every siding in Western Australia, and they would also find out where they could lay their hand on every sheet of iron and everything in the form of covering. 2275. But if your society wanted dunnage?—They would not write to the Government to forward it. 2276. Would you be surprised to know that complaints were made by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., in regard to supplying sleepers for dunnage and owing to some neglect they said they had to take it themselves?—I would not be surprised at anything that happened in connection with the Government department. 2277. Would you be surprised to know that the sleepers were sent in a considerable time before they were required for use?—That would not surprise me because it would be a natural thing to happen. If a wheat-receiving agent requires sleepers a month ahead, he should do his best to get them. In such a case he would have them for some time before he had the need or the opportunity to use them. 2278. You would not complain that the Government were neglectful in supplying dunnage under such conditions?—I do not know the cases to which you are alluding. The position might be clear to you because you have taken a lot of evidence on it, but it is not clear to me. 2279. You said it was regrettable that the Government sent inspectors in addition to the inspectors sent by the Westralian Farmers, and that those inspectors were not required. How do you make out that the Pool inspectors were not required?—I meant to convey the fact that there is no need for two inspectors in connection with the one line of action. The inspector of the Westralian Farmers inspect for the purpose of seeing tha the sub-agent is carrying out the terms of the contract. 2280. And the Government or Pool inspector is appointed to see that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are adhering to their contract?—Yes. 2281. Therefore, if the Pool did not have the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., as middlemen, the one inspector would have done for both?—I do not see where the need of a Government inspector comes in when the Government have an agreement which compels the Westralian Farmers, Ltd to complete certain conditions. 2282. You will admit that when a private agent had the work it was necessary that the Pool should have an inspector to see that the work was being carried out and that the wheat which was paid for was coming forward?—In the days when the private agents had it I saw very little of the Government inspectors. 2283. It was found necessary before the Pool had been working a short time to appoint inspectors?—Yes, but not to the extent that the Government have done on this occasion. 2284. You think that the Government should stand as guarantors for two or three millions of money without sending any persons to see that the interests of the State are protected?—The Government advanced a certain amount of money to us as farmers, but they have no right to act as bailiffs. They take up the position of a mortgagee. When a bank accepts a mortgage over a property it does not take possession; it merely asks you to carry out certain conditions and if you comply with those conditions you will be treated as an honest individual. 2285. When an advance is made against a farming property the security is in sight. It is not so with wheat?—I think it is. 2286. What about the damages?—In most cases the damages have been the fault of the Pool. 2287. You say that any person sharing in a bonus of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., becomes a shareholder in that organisation. How do you explain that?—A person puts certain business through the company, the profit on which amounts to say £10. Bonus debentures are issued for that amount. The person receiving those debentures is entitled to claim 50 per cent. of their face value in cash, or he can convert them into shares of their full face value. 2288. Then it is based on lines similar to those of the British co-operative societies?—I do not know. 2289. You know that it is customary in many private concerns to issue a coupon on your purchases?—Yes. 2290. And that when you get up to £1 you draw commission on that?—Yes. 2291. Is not this merely the same inducement being offered by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.,?—No, because by receiving those ten shares you secure equal rights and privileges with any other shareholder in the company. 2292. By Mr. HARRISON. The object of the movement was that a man might become a shareholder without having to pay cash?—I did not hear anything of that kind. 2293. By Mr. BROWN: A man must be a primary producer to be a shareholder?—Yes. 2294. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You are a farmer. You have handed wheat to the Pool?—Yes, but not this last year. 2295. Did you receive any bonus shares?—No, the system was not in force until on this year's operations. 2296. I notice in the agenda paper of the shareholders' meeting of the Westralian Farmers Ltd., on the 10th October last, a notice of motion to this effect: "Amendment of Articles—To consider and if thought fit adopt with or without amendment a motion to amend the articles to provide for distribution of profits in bonus shares to all customers of the company, non shareholders included, on a patronage basis." That is what you are referring to?—Yes. 2297. The annual report presented on that occasion shows that the directors recommend a dividend at the rate of seven per cent. be paid on the paid capital of the company if the shareholders should adopt the scheme outlined in the notice of motion already mentioned. So the ordinary shareholder would get seven per cent. on his shares and the balance, if any, would be distributed in bonus shares. So the company must make seven per cent. profit before distributing bonus shares?—No, not profit, that is for interest payments. 2298. But out of your profit you pay seven per cent. dividend and the balance, if any, is the amount for distribution on the bonus system. This is the report submitted to that meeting?—Yes, that is right. 2299. And this report wad adopted?—With one or two small amendments, yes. There were only one or two amendments made in the report. 2300. Did that apply to the profits of the 1916-17 season?—No. 2301. It was for future operations, the 1917-18 harvest and onwards?—It applied to the funds receivable after the date of the meeting. It could not have been done previous to that and was not retrospective.

(The witness retired)

SINCLAIR JAMES McGIBBON, Accountant and Farmer, Perth, sworn and examined:

2302. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to make a statement in regard to the handling of the wheat and the Scheme since the Scheme was inaugurated?—I have been asked by the Farmers and Settlers' executive to give evidence on their behalf in regard to the whole of the dealings with the Wheat Scheme since its inception as from the point of view