down to the position that some day I shall wake up to find that what I have got down on paper is no good to me. I could not sell my farm, and I am keeping on to try and make the farm liquidate itself. I want sympathy so far that what I can do I shall be permitted to do. I can see emancipation for the farmer, not by the spoon-feeding of the farmer, but making the way open for the farmer to emancipate himself. I told them in Melbourne I reckoned the day was coming when Western Australia would grow more wheat than any of the States except, perhaps, New South Wales, and I am looking forward to it, although it seems that one is growing older every year. 4947. By the CHAIRMAN: Not only seems, it is a fact? —It is a fact. I see I have a note about dockage. I have had talks with the Honorary Minister and Mr. Keys on this business. I do not think any explanation can excuse the Honorary Minister or Mr Keys for persisting in dockage when West Australia was in the Australian Pool, the same as the other States. That is to say, Western Australia was an integral part of the Pool, and I believe the Minister did his best to bring about uniformity as to dockage, but he did not succeed. Has he done his best for the farmer? The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., were receiving the bulk of the blame for the unfair dockade, whereas no blame should attach to them. It emanated from the Wheat board under the management of Mr Keys. The Westralian Farmers had to force the position, and it was not fair for us to be putting in wheat under severer dockage than Sydney or Melbourne. 4948. Would you deny the statement made by Mr Keys when he said that he advised Mr Taylor that the dockage should not be fixed, and that they should go on as previously? — I would not deny it, but it does not alter the point. That might have given the Westralian Farmers even a bigger knock than was done. 4949. But you are blaming Mr Keys for doing something which he advised should not be done? — He should have done it on a basis which would have put us on a parity with the Eastern States. 4950. Mr Keys, in the evidence he gave, pointed out that the dockage was made a considerable time before the harvest was gathered and he was within half a pound of what was arrived at afterwards by the f.a.q Committee which fixed the standard? — I am not disputing that. As they were agents for the Wheat Pool they wanted Mr. Keys to set down the standard on which to work, and that standard was fixed by him after Mr. Baxter stated that he was trying to bring us into line with other States. Yet Mr. Keys went on with that which was the highest. That was not acting in the interests of the farmers of this State. 4951. Do you not think that a man forming an estimate at a time when he could not get the actual position so far as the f.a.q. standard was concerned and getting within half a pound of it, displayed good judgement? — Yes, but he was in possession of the dockages of the Eastern States he still kept asking the Westralian Farmers to dock at a higher standard, and some of our farmers were docked under the higher system and will never get their money back. I notice that Mr. Keys also stated in his evidence that when Dreyfus & Co. came here to operate the farmer got 2d. a bushel more for his wheat. If that was the correct value, I want to say that the agents who were operating before Dreyfus & Co. came were exploiting the farmers of Western Australia to that extent. Then, before Deyfus & Co. were here very long, all the agents were on a parity with regard to their buying. Dreyfus & Co. did do some heavy buying when they came first, but afterwards there was no difference between that firm and any other. Then, did Dreyfus & Co. come down to the figure of others, or did the others go up to that of Dreyfus & Co.? After all said and done we feel that we are best capable of handling our own wheat, and if we make a profit we take it, and if we make a loss we have it. I think the Pool might be more economically run, and that there should be a man in charge who would have more reason to be impartial and freer from the possibility of criticism, or at any rate giving the farmer reason to think so. There is another matter I wish to refer to. I have spoken about it to others and I have mentioned it to Mr Baxter, who suggested writing to the Wheat Board. In view of what Professor Lefroy has told us, that our wheat may be in this country for from three to five years before it can be removed, even though the war be ended before that time, the storage of it is a big problem. We have put up huge storages at Spencer's Brook this year, and reasonable arrangements could have been made to have those storages available earlier. However, the storage will have to be provided again next year, and so on until normal times return. Bags are at a tremendous price, and under our present system I have to pay 10d. or 11d. for a sack to put the wheat into. The Government take it over and they put it into a stack. Then they are ordered to shift it in one, two, or three, and have to find a new bag to shift it in. Therefore, there is often double bagging. When Mr. Scadden was premier he was asked in the House in connection with I.A.B. who was to bear the expense of all the management, and he replied that the farmer would have to bear every penny of it. That was a complete and full answer. The farmer therefore should have a say in these matters. In connection with the storages there is all the iron and timber at sidings of value only for removal purposes. I was intrepid enough to think that if I could put up effective holders on my farm which would carry 8,000 or 10,000 bags of wheat, holders of solid jarrah, I could do that at very little greater cost than one year's bags. The wheat then would be more effectually stored than at the present time. I thought also that a few other big farmers might do the same thing and thus greatly relieve the responsibilities of the Pool. The wheat could remain stored on the farms and it is unlikely that it would be so much affected by weevil. I wrote and asked that permission be granted to the farmers to erect approved silos on their properties and that advances be granted as though the silos had been on Government ground. I have not the letter I wrote to Mr. Keys. but this is the reply which I received from him dated 28th June, 1918:— Further my letter of the 4th I have to advise that the suggestion put forward that wheat should be stored on the farms was brought before the last meeting of the Wheat Marketing and Bulk Handling Advisory Board. I asked in my letter that I might be allowed to meet the board. Mr Baxter thought that this could be arranged, but they did not see me. It was decided that the storage of wheat on the farms was impracticable in view of the fact that Commonwealth loan money could not be made available for the purpose of erecting silos on farms. I did not ask them for that. I want to build the silo. It would really be a private bond store. I would have the wheat loose, and the cost of the bags would thus go into the provision of permanent storage. That would be an all-round advantage. 4952. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Have you ever had weevil on your farm? — Not until this year. The new wheat of course would be stored away from the weevil. there was nothing in my letter to lead Mr. Keys to believe that I wanted to use Federal money. Again, Mr. Keys in his reply said that the banks would not be prepared to pay advances on the wheat so stored. Personally I doubt that. My proposition would save money to everybody because it would save the loss of money. Again the provision of these silos on the farms would give the farmers storage for chaff when we return to normal times, and as a result the chaff market could be more readily regulated. Under the present system all the farmers cut chaff during a spell of fine weather, with the result that they glut the market. Then comes a wet spell and all the farmers cease cutting chaff, and in consequence the market is starved and the prices rise. On getting that reply from the Department, I rang up Mr.Keys and expostulated with him. He said that Mr Pearse, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Paynter were on the premises just then and he invited me to come round and talk with them. I think I convinced them that my proposal represented a distinct advantage. Mr. Hall, who has never grown a blade of wheat, raised the point that it would be more expensive than the present system. I