HECTOR STEWART , Member of the Legislative Council , sworn and examined:

8139. By the CHAIRMAN : You have had a visit to the Eastern States recently ? — Yes.

8040. While there you made inquiries as to the bulk handling and the storage of wheat?— I saw each of the State Ministers of Agriculture and Senator Russell.

8141. You refer to the States of New South Wales , Victoria and South Australia ?— Yes, and I saw Senator Russell. I had letters of introduction from the Honorary Minister here in charge of the Wheat Scheme. I also saw Metcalf & Co. and their engineer and manager, owing to a letter which the Honorary Minister volunteered to give me.

8142. Would you mind placing any views which you have gained before the Commission ? — In general, after I came back, I sent to the "Primary Producer" certain remarks so as to make them public while they were fresh in my mind. It was in two parts, the part dealing with bulk storage is contained in the " Primary Producer" of the 4th October. That is the groundwork. There are other matters I can amplify on examination by you. In the article there are a few printers' errors and if you care about it I will hand you a corrected copy of the article.

8143. Would you like to put that report in as evidence dealing with bulk handling? — (Report read by secretary.)

8144. I notice you stated that Senator Russell said that the State was free to administer and control the silos when erected?— I think Mr.Hughes made that statement and Senator Russell repeated it to me.

8145. Would you be surprised to know , according to "Hansard" that Mr.Hughes said to the contrary? — In the discussion on the Wheat Storage Bill I read that Mr. Hughes said that when silos were erected they would be handed over to the Wheat Marketing Commission. I believe he included, it would be within the power of the commission to hand over the silos to any particular State.

8146. Did not Mr. Hughes also state that he intended to keep control of them until they were paid for. I am merely asking that question to show how Senator Russell misconstrued what Mr. Hughes said ?— Mr. Hughes indicated earlier that it was proposed that the silos should be paid for by a sinking fund within a period of ten years and he said that he saw no reason why the time should not be largely extended to something like 20 years.

8147. You pointed out also that the weevil had been a menace and that you thought the building of silos would be a means of dealing with the pest ? — Partially.

8148. Did you interview any other agents or representatives of any other firm who have put up the greatest number of silos in different parts of the world? — I did not know of any other firms. The reason why I went to Metcalf & Co. was that in the House I made certain objections to certain phases of the agreement and the Minister said he would like me to see Metcalf & Co. when I went to Melbourne. I did so. The Minister had stated that Metcalf & Co. would agree to no other terms than that they should be given a lien over future work. Messrs.Cox and Carter of Metcalf & Co. said they were quite content to enter into an agreement for the preparation of plans and specifications for the then projected expenditure and to leave the future to take care of itself. Having put before me certain outlines of the Scheme that they had elaborated for Western Australia, I still think from the point of view of the future of the State, that whoever gets a scheme like that , we want a continuity of plan in its development once it has been introduced. So that there is a good deal to be said for the way Bill was submitted to Parliament. Still I contend that if a firm gets the original work, then they unquestionably have a preferential position with regard to the future, and I should not think that any Government would break a continuous system like that. I saw Metcalf & Co. because of the attitude the Minister had adopted and I found this firm said they were quite prepared to take the present projected work without having a five years' guarantee.

8149. Did not the Minister let you know when you were going over there that there were other representatives of firms who claimed to have put 90 per cent. of the elevators and silos throughout the world?— No. I did not know of other firms, but evidently from the work Metcalf &Co. had done and from their method of carrying out the work, they gave me the impression of being a competent firm.

8150. I am not saying anything about their competency. Are you aware that there are other English firms represented in the Eastern States who are prepared to do this kind of work in Australia ?— What amount of bulk handling has been done in Australia?

8151. I do not mean in regard to bulk handling, I mean firms who are prepared to carry out the work that Mecalf & Co. are doing? — I am not au fait with the question.

8152. At any rate the Minister did not inform you that these firms had representatives over there ? — No.

8153. And therefore you did not have an opportunity of interviewing anyone excepting Metcalf & Co. so as to ascertain whether their scheme would be the best or otherwise? — I did not know of the other firms.

8154. You went to the firm who were financially interested in the Scheme in Western Australia?— That is correct.

8155. And a firm who would be likely to make statements which, had they not been financially interested, they might not have made ? — Having had experience of men and affairs elsewhere, I can only say that Metcalf & Co.'s engineer treated me as one professional man would treat another. I believed in his good faith. I would have been in the position to query anything that may have been put before me. I would have known if he had been trying to blind me or if he had been trying to tell me of anything which would have been to the firm of particular advantage.

8156. In all probability if the Minister had given you the names of other experts you would have interviewed them ? — Yes. I shall be going over to the Eastern States again early next year, and I will be glad to make further inquiries then.

8157. Did you see the works that have been erected in New South Wales?— No. Unfortunately I could not make my movements fit in with those of Metcalf's engineer, while he was in Sydney, but later on in Melbourne he pressed me to make the trip to New South Wales and he offered me every facility to see the works in any stage. He offered to do the same for anyone from Western Australia who was interested in the matter. I had a talk with the State Minister and he informed me that one of their stations in the northern part of the State had been completed and filled and the whole thing was eminently satisfactory. He gave me the figures for the contracts which had been let. The capacity was 13,000,000 bushels and it has been let at 10½d., while the 3,000,000 bushels capacity which involved machinery in connection with handling at the terminal elevators was let at 1s. 3d. Then there was a further 3,000,000 for permanent bulk handling which they have now decided to adopt. That takes into account machinery and the cost is 3s. 10½d. Lumping the whole lot it works out including permanent machinery and plant to put the wheat into ships holds, at 1s. 3d. a bushel. There are certain portions of the report of the advisory board on bulk handling to which I would draw attention. In regard to farm granaries, the advisory board reported—

There are no difficulties in the direction of constructing simple farm granaries, and though their construction would involve additional capital expenditure on the part of the farmer, it is not anticipated that there would be any difficulty in financing the erection of such structures, seeing that they would last for many years and that it is not likely that their cost would exceed what is now spent in, say two years for the perishable bags.

Then I want to point out that Mr.McManus, who first handled his staff in bulk to the Northam mill, handled 11,000 bushels, and the saving was £62 10s., or one-third of a penny per bushel, in addition to which he had his plant left for all future use.

8158. How did he save it ? — From the official figures given — but let me read the paragraph as follows:-

Altogether he had about 20,000 bushels of wheat to send away. To deal with all this in bags he would have had to purchase 6,500 bags. He , however , only purchased 4,200, so that he saved — 1st , The initial cost of 2,300 bags , £65 2nd value of 1,335 bags which of the 4,200 bags purchased he still has on hand , and which as second hand bags are vauled £22 10s. Total gross saving £87 10s.; Less cost of wagon "tanks" - 1st , £20; 2nd, £5 ; leaving a total of £62 10s.

It works out at one and a -third of a penny per bushel , and he has his plant left , which cost ½d per bushels handled.

8159.Mr.McManus delivered his wheat at the mill?—Yes.

8160. He had specially favourable conditions ? — Still , I fail to see that there would be any appreciable amount of difference in the saving that would result.

8161. You believe there is a big saving to be made in the bags ? —Yes.

8162.It that one of your principal reasons why bulk handling should be adopted ? — There is a number of small savings , and bags is one of them.

8163. Bags represent the heaviest expenditure ? — It would not be the only one. Throughout the system there are various savings which mount up.

8164. Give us some of them? — Even of the wheat is acquired at the sidings , if the cost in handling that and in