8222. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Would you advocate the erection of a storage bin at any siding over a third of the wheat received at that siding?—I can conceive of circumstances which would warrant the storage capacity at a particular siding being more than the third of the yield at that centre, because that centre may be getting in wheat from a place further out.

8223. But , generally speaking, you would take that as a rule?—That is the usual rule for a unit anywhere; but while the thing is growing it might be desirable to have that increased capacity.

8224. But as a general rule?—Normally, yes. I am speaking from what I have read, and not from personal experience. Your view is the view always put forward, except that I consider the word district should be substituted for siding.

8225. Then, normally, one would not have a silo of a greater capacity than 40,000 bushels at any siding which did not receive wheat to the extent of 40,000 bags for a season?—That is so.

8226. Have you any idea how many sidings in this State receive anything like 40,000 bags per year? Do you know that during the 1917-18 season only about 16 sidings in this State exceeded the quantity of 40,000 bags?—Having regard to the way in which you put the matter, and not having seen the papers or investigated the area, I am not prepared to accept the information that there are only 16 places at which, even allowing your general principle, it would not be warrantable to put up at the present time the capacity I suggest. I do not think that putting it forward in this way establishes the fact, unless a person has an opportunity of investigating the matter.

8227. You have said that you have looked into the matter and that there is only a small number of cases in the State where there would be a single unit of 40,000 bushels capacity?—I said I would not limit the erection of a silo to a particular siding. I was referring to a district and not dealing with centres with a yield of 40,000 bushels or over. I was dealing with a district which could conveniently meet the requirements of the people producing the wheat in that area.

8228. By the CHAIRMAN: You mean a district embracing several sidings?—Yes.

8229. How would you bring the wheat to that centre from the outside district?—I am not in the position to say. So far, I would be prepared to adopt the suggestion of the advisory board, that is of ramps and open trucks and tipping the wheat in.

8230. I suppose you did not discuss the matter with Metcalf & Co?—No.

8231. Would you be surprised to know that a representative of Metcalf & Co. stated to the previous Government that it would never be a payable proposition to handle wheat twice in and out of the silo?—If wheat once goes into a truck for transport it should go straight to the coast for shipment. If it is put into trucks from a ramp it should not go into a country elevator.

8232. That is what I understood previously in discussing the matter but it is not in evidence?—Can you not get that from the files?

8233. That was stated by Mr. Durrant to Mr. Drew, that it would not pay to do that. That is why at ports they are recommending large elevators, and wheat being taken in at the sidings which are not important enough to have silos erected there. With regard to weevils and silos, did you discuss the question with Mr. Carter?—No. I have seen the evidence given on the subject by Metcalf & Co. They do not look upon it as a method of preventing weevil. In my view it affords an opportunity of dealing with weevil to a certain extent which is not available in other methods, a shed for example. I notice in the Press the position in regard to South Australia, but we have had so many canards about weevil that we are sceptical about this.

8234. That costs about 2d. a bushel?—Yes.

8235. You do not look upon the silo as something that will keep us free from weevils?—It is going to help us to keep the wheat in a better condition.

8236. If it is put in dry?—Yes.

8237. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: In what way?—You have a close vessel into which you can put gas or disinfectant, or something which will destroy the life or germ which is there. To get rid of the trouble you must either treat it with heat sufficiently great to sterilise it, or sterilise it by some chemical means. In order to do that it is necessary to have a closed vessel. Another point in favour of the silo is that when it is emptied it can be purified, and that this cannot be done to the same extent in the case of a shed which has become affected. Then there is its permanence.

(The witness retired.)

WILLIAM BURNET, Secretary Fire Underwriter's Association of Western Australia, sworn and examined:

8238. By the CHAIRMAN: The Commission has been making inquiries into the handling of wheat in this State, and during its investigations it has been told that there is a very large difference in the rates for insurance on wooden and concrete silos. Has your Association gone into the question?—Yes, the difference is about one-third more for wooden silos. That is to say, if it cost 4s. per cent. for concrete silos then it would cost 6s. per cent. for wooden. That is roughly speaking.

8239. By Mr. ALLEN: that is 50 per cent. more?—Yes.

8239A. By the CHAIRMAN: It has been stated in a report submitted to the Commission, that the rate of insurance on wooden silos would be 1 per cent. on the buildings and one-third per cent. on silos constructed of concrete. Is that correct?—That is not how it would work out. Under the rates applying to Government business (unless special arrangements were made) it would cost 4s. 4d. per cent. for concrete silos and 6s. 8d. per cent. for wooden.

8240. That is a third more?—It is a third on.

8241. So it is two-thirds?—Yes, but according to the statement that you have handed to me it would cost considerably more.

8242. The charges will not be as stated there?—No. There is something wrong with them.

8243. That statement has been put in as evidence by an officer of the Wheat Scheme in connection with a report dealing with the relative costs for the erection of wooden and concrete silos, and according to that statement the rate of insurance on wooden silos is considerably more than that for concrete?—Taking the capital cost as stated here for wooden silos as £500,000, the actual cost for insurance would be £1,670 and not £5,000 as stated. I would like to explain that the figures I am quoting are for the Government. We make special concessions to the Government.

8244. The Government officials should be aware of that?—Yes, they should come to me for information. The figures I have quoted do not represent what it would cost the individual farmer if he wanted to insure his farm. When you are doing a large business spread over a large area you can of course do it at a cheaper rate, and in regard to the Government there is no moral risk.

8245. By Mr. HARRISON: Would the risk be the same for the co-operative societies?—Yes if we could get enough of it. If we could get the whole State we could arrange terms.

8246. By the CHAIRMAN: The subject matter of this inquiry would be a Government scheme?—Approximately the cost for insuring concrete silos with a capital cost of £666,666 would be within a few pounds of the cost of insuring wooden silos at a capital cost of £500,000.

8247. That is by the increased cost in the erection of concrete silos?—Yes it is balanced by the reduction in the rate.

8248. The insurance would be approximately the same?—Yes.

8249. How would that affect the contents?—They would be the same.

8249A. By Mr. ALLEN: The same rate would apply?—Yes.

8250. By the CHAIRMAN: you will notice that in the statement placed before the Commission, it is stated that the annual cost of insurance on timber silos would be such as to make the silos constructed of cement much cheaper?—It is stated here that "although jarrah is less easily attacked by fire, the risk generally arises from overheated bearings, and places where the timber may have become saturated with grease and oil from these bearings." Of course that is a matter I cannot speak upon, but so far as the insurance rate is concerned there would be no alteration. It is quite possible that if it was decided by the Government to establish silos for the storage of wheat, the figures I have quoted might be improved upon.

8251. By Mr. HARRISON: Is it not usual to charge the same for contents as the structure?—We charge that as a rule, but in this instance we look upon them as grain stores. In the case of concrete silos the contents would cost a little more than the structure itself, but in the wooden silos it would not be. There is no difference between wooden buildings and their contents so far as fire hazard is concerned, although in a lath and plaster building we would make an allowance.

8252-7. By the CHAIRMAN: In wooden silos there is not much danger of fire?—We do not charge any more for the contents. In the case of concrete the extra cost