100 are slightly under while the remainder would pass any standard in the world, it is a pity that, simply because I segregate the inferior bags I should be docked. 5020. Do you think it would be against the farmers ' interests to receive inferior quality into the pool? —If it were lightly dealt with, yes. But the Pool would take 60lbs. of the inferior quality just the same; it is not as though the Pool were accepting 581lbs. 5021. Would your plan necessitate the taking of an enormous number of samples at each centre? —No. In normal years not one-twentieth part of our crop is under f.a.q. 5022. You do not think there would be any difficulty in administering your system? —No. Only in a year like 1914; or if rust came badly. Rust ought always to be docked. 5023. By the CHAIRMAN: do not you think the system which has been suggested would be a good one —that instead of fixing a uniform standard throughout Australia, each State should be paid in accordance with quality of what wheat it sells? —I think that would be a good thing. It has not been done in the past. The price ought to be based on the quality. 5024. It would not make much difference, then, to the farmer of one state if his f.a.q. standard were fixed higher than that of a farmer in another State? —Possibly it is the best to have all the wheat in the Pool. there may be other considerations of which I am not aware, of course. But if the wheat had not been all in the one Pool, you would be quite right, Mr Chairman. I may say I have had nothing docked; I feed to my pigs anything that is No.2; I do not bring it in. At the same time, one wants to be very careful that the dockage is not going to press unduly; that the Pool is going to take it as though there were no dockage. In that case the poor the poor felloe who put it in would be paying toll to the rest of the people in the pool. VICTOR GEORGE COUNSEL RISLEY, Editor of "The Primary Producer," the official organ of the Farmers and Settlers' Association, sworn and examined: 5025. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you want to place some information before the commission in regard to the Wheat Scheme? —My main reason for coming here is to wipe out what may have been an impression gathered by Mr Keys' evidence with regard to certain information which he alleged was given by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd, to editor of the "Primary Producer," which he considered should not have been given and which the Wheat Scheme itself was not in possession of and which he considered was unexampled in commercial morality. I want to say I consider was unexampled in commercial morality. I want to say I consider it my duty to offer this evidence, that I as editor of the "Primary Producer" have never received any information whatever from the Westralian farmers, Ltd., and Mr Keys is obviously wrong; it is an untrue statement. I may add that from my experience of Mr Keys, what may be constituted good taste in journalism or the highest authority on what may be considered commercial mortality. The remark was uncalled for. 5026. If my memory serves me right he was pointing out that information was getting out from the departments, and I think I said at the the time it is surprising how it does get out? —The Westralian Farmers he said communicated information to me as editor of the "Primary Producer" which the scheme itself was not in possession of. It seems an absurd statement to make. 5027. The statement was made when Mr Keys was dealing with a question asked by Mr Harrison in regard to Doodlakine and Meckering. He said: —We also found they were giving confidential information to the public. the editor of the "Primary Producer" has come to the office and wanted a statement on certain matters concerning which we know nothing about ourselves. the editor wanted to know if we would make a statement.