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. In view of these circumstances we had to put a special clause in our agreement to provide against these contingencies. No mercantile firm of any standing would do such a thing. It is outside the code of mercantile morality.? —That is the statement. In explanation of that, I may say that the "Primary Producer" has only approached the Wheat Marketing Scheme for information on two occasions. On the first occasion I attended to see the minister, because we had had rumours that there were changes to be made in the personal of the Wheat Marketing Committee. We heard that Mr Sibbald in the first place was about to resign. I went to Mr Baxter and he professed to be profoundly surprised when I suggested that there were changes about to be made. I already knew from other information I had that Mr Sibbald had resigned, and Mr Baxter, as I said, expressed surprise and invited me to come along and see him in the afternoon. He made an appointment. He did not keep the appointment, and press men are not in the habit of dealing with Ministers, as you know from your experience Mr Chairman, who do not keep appointments, so I wrote my article headed, "Sibbald must go." Subsequently in the House I think it was mentioned by yourself. Sibbald had gone in the meantime and I think you mentioned that the "Primary Producer" says "Sibbald must go, and he goes." As a matter of fact, Mr Sibbald had resigned. the second occasion was in connection with wheat dockages, and probably this is what Mr Keys refers to. It was when Mr Baxter announced through the "West Australian" a scale of dockages to be applied to Western Australian", and the Farmers and Settlers Association and its official organ "The Primary Producer" immediately took up the question, because it knew the scale of dockages fixed by Mr Keys and agreed to by the Wheat Marketing Scheme and endorsed by the Minister was higher than in any other part of Australia. Mr Stainstreet, the General Secretary of the association, wired to all the other States inquiring their scale of dockages, and we then had confirmation of our previous view that the scale of dockages Western Australia was higher than in any of the other states without exception.