were loaded immediately. I would ring up the station-master at Yilliminning or the Transport Branch at Narrogin giving the quantity of train tons loaded at sidings and request a removal and a supply of empties. The only satisfaction I got was a reply not to "bust' ourselves loading all trucks one day as trucks could not be supplied. I can bring documentary evidence and also independent witness to prove that loaded trucks were standing in different yards for periods ranging from three to five weeks. To-day (8th inst.) a party of high railway officials made a tour of this line, and I brought the trucking question under their notice, and they said much of the delay was caused through the Wheat Scheme being so slow at unloading at depots. We have had bitter cause for serious complaint, inasmuch that through no trucks our men could get only one or two days work in per week. They have been kept idle three parts of the time. Contractors will not handle wheat unless bigger money is paid in future years , for while they can make decent wages when handling wheat regularly, they cannot make sufficient by working one day only to keep them the rest of the week, I strongly deny the correctness of the statement that "plenty of trucks were available," and would call Mr. Inspector Sabine to bear witness that no trucks were available, and that on every one of his visits representations were made him on this subject. The fault was not ours but the Railways, and the Railways say the fault is attachable to the Wheat Scheme inasmuch as they were slow in unloading and liberating trucks. I trust you will lay the whole of this letter before the Manager of the Wheat Scheme, so that he may see we are not at fault, and so that he may understand some most drastic and needed change may be taken before another year is bungled through by the Railways.

In a further communication our representative writes:—

It seems remarkable that engine and trucks are idle and yet it was only yesterday that 200 tons were lifted from Harrismith by a special. This was the train load, and some of this wheat has been waiting a fortnight to be shifted. My gangs are at the sidings waiting to load. If they get trucks they will soon get going. They are not there for fun; they want to earn money. In telephonic communication I have always, or very often been told trucks are not available, and when it was pointed out they were at sidings waiting transport I was told there were no engines.

Wagin-Kukerin Line.—On the 17th April our Dumbleyung Co-operative Company sent us an urgent telegram reading:—

Arrange immediately regular supply trucks Dumbleyung and Kukerin. Lumpers working average two days weekly, stack exposed weather. Reply.

On the 18th we received a letter from them reading:—

Further to yours of the 4th April re trucking ex stacking from all sidings. The supply of empties coming to the Dumbleyung and Kukerin sidings is so small that it is impossible to keep the lumpers going for more then two or three days per week. Naturally they are becoming dissatisfied and the position would be considerably worse should we commence removing the stacks at the other sidings now. Yesterday we sent an urgent wire to Narrogin asking the District Superintendent to forward us a better supply of empties. He replied that he would do his best but demand for empties was heavy. In view of this, in my opinion, it would be necessary to absolute assurance from the Government that empties will be forwarded regularly before we attempt to cause trouble for ourselves by having complaints daily from all sidings. The Dumbleyung contractors are ready to commence additional men providing trucks are forthcoming, and this would be better than having all sidings working half time or less. We are of course anxious to get all stacks removed as speedily as possible especially in view of the fact that stacks are uncovered, but unless we can get the empties daily, we will be in a worse rather than a better position by commencing the other sidings. The present condition of affairs is deplorable, for wheat is not improving in stacks and the loss will fall on the farmers, whilst we cannot keep the few men supplied with trucks that are at present engaged in removing the stacks. Anything you can do to improve matters will be helpful. Meanwhile we await your instructions.

These are only a few of the appealing communications we received. I can get from our files as many more as you wish. The correspondence quoted is incontrovertible, and it places the evidence given by Mr . Keys in the same very doubtful category as that which I have already dealt with. I notice Mr. Keys suggests that either "the Railway Department or the Westralian Farmers were liars, and he prefers to accept the Railways' statements." I cannot account for his statements. I do not wish to misjudge any man, and can only say Mr. Keys has either been misled or the heads of the Railway department in Perth have been misled; but there is not the faintest shadow of a doubt that the position in the country during the period to which Mr. Keys refers was deplorable, and the loss to the pool was appalling. With regard to the dunnage, 1917-18 season, Mr. Keys suggests that we delayed requisitioning for dunnage and that it was not until the 17th December that we let him have a statement of our requirements, for 37 of the sidings. I would remind the Commission that the last letter from the Scheme definitely confirming our acquiring agency is dated the 10th November, 1917. Under the agreement arrived at, the Scheme were responsible for the supply of dunnage. On the 24th November Mr. Keys wrote us inquiring whether we considered there would be sufficient bush dunnage available at sidings after utilising the sleeper dunnage held by the Scheme at various stations. We replied on the 30th November stating our definite requirements at about 260 sidings out of the 300 at which we are operating. In reference to the 37 sidings mentioned by Mr. Keys, about 20 were insignificant sidings at which 1,000 or 2,000 bags (sometimes not that) might be received. At these dunnage was practically unnecessary. Of the remainder, nine were sidings contiguous to York, and there were large quantities of sleepers available in the York area. The suggestion made by Mr. Keys, therefore, that we were all at fault is without any foundation whatever. The fact remains that a considerable quantity of the dunnage ordered by us on 30th November did not turn up at sidings until, in some cases, the wheat had been received and delivered; and in respect of some unattended sidings where this occurred and where trucks of dunnage were delivered in February without advice to us or our agent, the Scheme calmly debit us with the demurrage. On our remonstrating and pressing that this claim be waived, Mr. Keys advised us last week that the matter had been placed before the Wheat Board, who instructed him to accept 50 per cent. of the demurrage charges. The position is beyond comment.

5108. By Mr. HARRISON: Was it your policy to clean up small sidings with from 1,000 to 5,000 bags?—That is set out in the circular. The desire was to stack only at safe places. There are places at which it might be advisable to keep a small quantity, where the wheat could be properly cared for. Roughly speaking, you can take it as our policy to clean up the small unattended places first. In reference to 1917-18 season's agreement, Mr. Keys says (3937) we verbally agreed to waive our claim for shipping 1917-18 season's harvest, and afterwards "twisted on it." We have never "twisted" on this claim. One of our directors (Mr . Harper) agreed on the 9th April, 1918, to sign an agreement for partial service without a clause providing for shipping being included, but this was in view of the fact that the Wheat Marketing Bill had to be introduced in the Legislative Assembly the following day and he was averse to embarrassing the Government. This was the only matter then outstanding, and Mr. Murray and myself were in the country. My board subsequently, having regard to the fact that the terms of our contract were clearly laid down in the correspondence which passed between us and the Scheme, confirmed Mr. Harper's action, but we still claim we have a right to ship. The quotation under which we have been operating for country siding services was based upon our undertaking the shipping. Mr. Keys' answers under 3860, 3985, and 3986 are tantamount to an admission of our equity herein. With regard to our bond for £20,000, there is a suggestion in Mr . Keys' answers to queries 3990 to 3994, and particularly in the newspaper report, that some fault attaches to us in respect of our bond for £20,000 not having been put up until the bulk of the work was done. The fact that our bond was not put up was simply because it was not asked for.