FRIDAY, 12th JULY, 1918. (At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman), Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C | Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. | T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A

JAMES STANLEY JONES, Farmer, Dowerin, sworn and examined:

2186. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to make a statement to the Commission with regard to the handling of the present Wheat Scheme?—i have come here chiefly to refute certain statements made by Albert Maisey, of Dowerin. As one closely connected with the control and the receiving of wheat at that centre last year, I feel that it is only fair to ourselves that I should do so. By ourselves I mean the Dowerin Farmer's Co-operative Company. In the first place, Maisey, although a farmer, has been a receiving agent on behalf of Dreyfus & Co., and later on Dalgety & Co., and I claim that that is his real source of trouble. He alluded to the late start in receiving wheat at the sidings last year, and he would make it appear to persons not knowing the conditions that that was really the fault of the responsible agents, whereas it was purely a matter for the Wheat Scheme. The actual conditions were that the Wheat Scheme expected to have skeleton sheds ready to receive the wheat, and they did not want to dump the wheat at sidings. They expected to be able to lift from the wagons direct into the sheds, and they instructed the acquiring agents and the sub-agents not to receive wheat until a certain date, and that it would be railed immediately to the depôts. Mr. Maisey has further made reference to the way samples were taken. Of course in all his statements he has generalised. He carted wheat to one siding while we—the co-operative company—received at three sidings. He carted his wheat to Dowerin and there our agent was stationed. We had sample scales at the office, and in any case in connection with which, after delivery of wheat, there was a dispute, the dissatisfied party had the right to go into the office and weigh the sample of the wheat. If that did not suit they had a remedy, which was that they could post a sample to the manager of the Wheat Scheme, who would finalise the matter. We had no complaints, except perhaps two, of the fairness of our dockage. Maisey has also made reference to the formation of the local company. This was formed in the most open way. Every farmer in the district was able to become a member by taking up five shares, and he was only asked to pay 3s. per share on demand. All individuals were treated alike with regard to the wheat, whether they were shareholders of the company or not. Maisey spoke about the secretary or manager of the co-operative company having to pass a decision on the quality of the wheat sent in by those who employ him, and in answer to Question 1142 he said, "He is only human and when there is a snug billet hanging on to it for the rest of the winter, and the directors are arriving with wheat which is below f.a.q., he will perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt." Then he was asked in Question 1143, "You say this has been done?" and he replied, "Absolutely." That statement as it reads is absolutely libellous. The secretary is treated by the board of directors in exactly the same manner as any other manager would be treated by his company in Perth or anywhere else. Maisey further made reference to the fact that he thought there should be two companies appointed in each of these places. I think that statement is due to the fact that the same individual is supposed to be trying to form a company at Dowerin at the present time. There never has been any preference given to directors at all. I think that concludes all I have to say.

2187. Do you think Mr. Maisey was trying to show that the secretary or manager knowingly accepted wheat under the f.a.q. standard?—He generalised or insinuated in that direction, and I should say he did so wilfully, without making direct charges.

2188. You must admit that some of the secretaries of the co-operative societies have not had much experience in determining whether wheat is up to the required standard?—Where scales are used experience is not of great moment, for the scales settle the question beyond all doubt.

2189. Have you known cases in which a director of a co-operative society has had to go along and advise an inexperienced or unqualified secretary?—No.

2190. Mr. Maisey did not say that it was at Dowerin?—No, but he insinuated it. I read it all in the Press report before ever I saw this official report.

2191. You must realise that the Press reports give very little information?—That is so. Probably I should not have been here to-day and I previously seen this verbatim report of the evidence.

2192. Then in your experience no favouritism whatever has been shown?—It could not be shown.

2193. Do you think a man, not a member of a co-operative society, would be treated differently from one who was a member?—If there was any differentiation it would be in favour of the outsider with a view to inducing him to become a member.

2194. You know of the Farmer's Mercantile Union?—Yes, but they are not in our district.

2195. They have 1,100 shareholders, practically all farmers?—Chiefly in the Kellerberrin district and along that line.

2196. Do you not think that that organisation should be allowed to participate in the handling of the wheat?—They have been invited on various occasions to co-operate with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.

2197. That is no answer to the question?—Seeing that I know very little about the Farmers' Mercantile I am not qualified to answer your question.

2198. But when Mr. Maisey says that there should be more than one company in the handling you suggest that his reason for so thinking is that he himself is trying to form another company?—Yes, consisting of agents and ex-agents.

2199. The implication is that he wants the new company to take part in the handling?—My opinion is that a cleverer head than his is behind him and that he is being used to pull the chestnuts out of the fire.

2200. I want to know whether in your opinion an organisation like the Farmer's Mercantile Union should not have an opportunity of handling the wheat?—I believe that any truly co-operative company should have equal chance with others.

2201. But were these other co-operative societies co-operative when they got charge of the handling?—Wholly.

2202. The Farmers' Mercantile Union is a limited company?—But I do not understand their constitution.

2203. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., were a limited company at the time they got the handling?—But they are truly co-operative and always were.

2204. They were a limited company?—They must be.

2205. How is the wheat being looked after in your district?—As I have said, the first instructions received were that all wheat would be railed straight off without being stacked. Consequently no provision was made for