of roofing. the material would not come to one-eighth of a penny per bushel. I mention that because we recently understood a contract to roof some stacks at siding in areas at one half-penny per bushel, so that if we compare the price that we are doing it for to-day we get this. If we put it into stacks and then roof it and then unroof it and truck it, our remuneration is 1 ⅝ d., plus four-eighths of a penny, which is 2⅛d., including roofing, but we do not provide the material; that is provided for us. That shows that it the present time we are receiving, roofing double-handling, retrucking at 2 ⅛d, by far the greater portion was handled without any roofing being done at 1⅝ per bushel. The commission this year is considerably less than before, especially when compared with what is paid the merchants in the East.

3128. By the CHAIRMAN: In the price that you had previously that included responsibility for some considerable time?—To the 30th September.

3129. In addition you had to get the stacks in good order?—Yes.

3130. That is being borne by the Scheme now?—All the wheat was supposed to be removed to depots by the 30th April.

3131. That is all supposed to be kept in order now?—If there is any to be done.

3132. It has to be done?—We have to put the roofs on.

3133. I am speaking of the depots?—That is nothing to do with us.

3134. Last year you had to ship to the port?—Yes, but we did not have to handle at the port.

3135. Then you had to provide roofing and covers at the port?—The material for roofing was paid for by the Scheme.

3136. Last year?—Yes. Some roofing at some sites we provided. The condition was that they provided the roof and the material at Fremantle.

3137. By Mr HARRISON: How does the impression come about that you had roofing to sell to the Government?—So we had.

3138,In 1915-16 you found the material from the 3d?—So we did.

3139. BY the CHAIRMAN: What would the Dunnage run into? —I could not tell from memory.

3140. The position now is, as far as I can gather, with the exception of dunnage, you are doing for 2 ⅛d. what they are charging 3 ⅞d. for in Victoria?—Quite so.

3141. The only thing to be added is dunnage?—The scheme in Victoria provides dunnage and stacking sites.

3142. Could you tell me the reason why you wanted one halfpenny for roofing this year when you did it at Bunbury last year for ⅛ d? —For this reason, we were never allowed to build our stacks. When you are building stacks to roof them, you build in a certain shape, and when they called on us in April to roof the stacks, we had under their instructions been making temporary stacks which were to be shifted to the depots in April. In spite of our repeated requests to be allowed to roof the stacks, when we had to do it we had to re-form them, which is a pretty expensive process. It is cheaper to roof at Bunbury; than at a place like Wyalcatchem ; the cost of labour is heavier. Further roofing of large stacks at ports works out cheaper per bushel than small country stacks. We are getting for roofing stacks what might have been absolutely a losing proposition to us. It is the first part of the contract we would have had to let go past us. We had definitely made up our minds that we could not touch it.

3143. Will you give us what it cost you for roofing? —Yes, I will send it up . I want to suggest the reason why it was determined by the merchants to exclude us from the contract. When the Scheme started in 1915-16 we saw that it was definitely announced that Darling, Bell, and Dreyfus had been appointed as sole agents for acquiring the wheat. We made every effort to be allowed to acquire wheat, but it was not until three months had gone by that we were given permission to receive a bushel. We had not many co-operative companies formed then. We had agents acting for us in parts of the country and we could not give the agents any satisfaction that we were to receive wheat. We gave them permission to resign from the company and act as agents for the merchants who had been appointed. Coming in three months we had lost some of the best agents and out of the harvest of 16½ million bushels we received under two million bushels. The following year we started off scratch and with the co-operative companies coming into power we started dead level with the merchant firms, and out of a total of 11¼ million bushels we received 5,204,582 bushels. From about one-seventh of the harvest we jumped with our organisation to practically one-half. It was four-ninths.

3144. That is the 1916-17 harvest?—Yes, that was in open competition with the merchants. It was not until we received practically one-half in competition with all comers that this alarm to exclude us started . No one suggested any restrictions; what we had done was by better organisation, by the support of the co-operative movement, and we say, if by equal footing with all the competing firms, we can by definite organisations get one-half, that is the reason why there was a determination to restrict our sphere or exclude us altogether. In that first letter to Mr Sibbald it suggests that our receiving should be limited to the average we had received in the previous two years. We were to take the year when we had started three months late, and add it to the next year when we were fairly well organised, and take the average. It could not be suggested that it was not our fair duty to the people we represented to protest against that and fight it to the death. It was a wrong suggestion to make. Even if they had said "take as much as you had last year," which would have given us nearly half the crop, this would not have shown our natural expansion. I would rather any day that the merchant had agreed to come in at that price, which would have given us a slightly better handling price, with their competition, because I believe we would have received at least 75 per cent. of the crop of the year. I have regretted all along that the merchants did not accept the offer and come in and compete with us.

3145.By Mr HARRISON: You say you were there months late? —Yes.

3146. The receiving period is not more than three months? —No. It was three months after the Scheme was formed. I think it came into operation on the 1st October. Directly the Scheme came into operation it was announced in the Press by the Government that these three firms had been appointed acquiring agents. Between then and the time when the crop came forward they were organising and getting promises of wheat, but we were only admitted in January.

3147. This was three months after the acquiring agreement had been agreed to? —Yes, which was just as vital to us because we had lost many of our agents, and much of the wheat had been promised to these merchants. We could not organise until January.

3148. By MR BROWN: The Farmers' Mercantile Union was excluded? —Yes. If they had applied as a merchant firm they had as much right as Dalgety's to receive the wheat.

3149. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You mentioned three firms? —There were four , Dalgety's, Darling, Bell, and Dreyfus, which were announced. The Mercantile had as much right to come in, as they were a company operating there, but they not a co-operative concern. We were then made full blown acquiring agents for the Wheat Scheme for this year. I want to deal with what has happened since then. The first thing which somewhat alarmed us was the suggestion in the "Sunday Times" that the Minister had appointed Mr Keys as manager of the Scheme. At the time this business was fixed there had been a great deal of hard fighting between us and those merchants, and a good many hard things were said. I did not run into Mr Keys, but I did run into one or two of the others, and during that period things were far from pleasant. Mr Keys was at all times chairman of the meetings of these merchant firms. When the business was fixed a letter was written to the " West Australian." It was drafted at and agreed to by the meeting of those firms of which Mr Keys was chairman. It practically accused the Government of jobbery, and definitely said that we could not possibly carry out the business. It also threatened that steps would be taken through their friends in Parliament to block the Wheat Acquiring Bill. There is an accusation in that letter against Mr. Baxter personally, and the Government, and it practically suggests that the thing was worked by myself with the Government in some way which is not creditable to any of us. I replied to that state-