I.—lo.

3

B. SCOTT.

22. That is, twenty-four days in the year?— Yes. 23. There would be a certain loss of time on account of having to sew up a few more bags? — There would be also be the extra time at the threshing-mill. 24. If the Eailway met you by saying, " Instead of 140 of these large-sized bags we will allow you to send on a truck 160 or 170 of the smaller bags," would that not do away with that point?— It would, but there would be a greater number to handle. 25. But do you not know that you can handle a greater number of smaller bags in the same time and turn out the same quantity of stuff? —I do not know that that follows. Say two or three men are engaged in loading a wagon with chaff. Two men throw the bags to the man up on top, who is building. It would not make any appreciable difference. 26. You understand that we are not complaining about the size of sacks for chaff —it is the size of the 2401b. bags for wheat? —So far as I understand, it resolves itself into this: if we have a smaller sack all our produce will be affected by that smaller sack. It will put us to extra expense in having to get different sizes of sacks. 27. When you send wheat away, do you get those sacks back, or do they go to London?— We do not get them back. They are sent into the store with wheat in them, and we are allowed so-much per bag. 28. How much? —About £d. or fd. less than the cost price—something like that. 29. Well, when you <?et your bags back for chaff ? —We order chaff-bags through our agents. 30. You get second-hand bags? —Yes. 31. What do you pay for them? —A certain price that will be quoted according to the quality. For new bags that have been only once filled, well, I have paid as much as s£d. 32. Supposing that instead of getting second-hand bags for chaff for which you pay 5Jd., you got new bags, what would you pay for them? —7|d., I think, this year. 33. I am speaking of an average year? —In an average year I suppose they would run about 6d. 34. We will say 6|d. —that would be a difference of Id. a sack. If you got brand-new bags from Dunedin it would make a difference of Id. a sack? —Yes. 35. That is all the objection that the farmer has, that he would not get a second-hand bag back to put his chaff in, and the difference between a second-hand bag and a new bag to put his chaff in is Id. a bag?— That is about what it would amount to in that way, but even at Id. a bag it runs into a good bit of money. 36. You do not take into consideration at all the effect of handling these 240 lb. bags on men who are engaged in it day in and day out all the year round? —We have not had experience of that. 37. You have not considered that? —We have, but as far as our case is concerned, we think that the 44 in. sack is the most useful sack for all the farming community. 38. What is the size of the 240 lb. grain-sack?— 44 in. Some farmers may use 46 in. sacks. 39. You have no knowledge of this fact: that when the men are handling large sacks such as those, the work has to be done more slowly than if they were handling smaller bags?— When they are carrying them, you mean? 40. Yes? —I should think so. 41. Mr. Hardy.] The farmers would not object to the weight being reduced, I presume, provided the sack were still left the same ?—Well, perhaps they would not have such an objection; but I might point out this fact: that if the sack was still left the same and 200 lb. of wheat were put into it and it was turned down, there would be a difficulty about stacking such sacks. You see the ordinary sack is two in width for one in length. If you double this sack down you will not get the length in the two widths. 42. Have you not generally found in life that where there is a will there is a way? —Yes. 43. Is it not better to reduce the weight in the sack than to injure the men who load the ships? —Oh, yes. 44. Is it within your knowledge that more machinery is now used for loading and unloading sacks than used to be the case when you were much younger? —Yes. 45. I presume you know that most threshing-machine owners have whips which take the sacks up from the stacks and load their wagons? —Yes, a good many have. 46. So the weight of the sack is not now a matter of such great importance to the farmer as it used to be ?—Oh, no. 47. But you are of opinion that it is wise to still keep the sack the same size, even though the commodity in the sack may be reduced in weight? —I am still of that opinion. 48. Are not sacks largely used for chaff, potatoes, carrots, and grass-seed? —Yes. 49. Do you know anything a"bout the rise in the price of jute, which has increased the price of sacks? —No. I understand there has been a scarcity of jute, or something of that. 50. Bag 3 were very difficult to procure last year at 7s. 6d. a dozen? — Yes. 51. You know that? —I know they have been at a high price. 52. And probably they will be Bs. this year? —Yes. 53. You are not surprised at the fact that sacks have increased in value, as other commodities have done? —That is so. 54. You contend that the size of the sack should remain as it is on account of the economy to the farmer in using second-hand bags?—l do. 55. Because all the second-hand bags which he requires are, to all intents and purposes, second-hand grain-sacks? —Yes, his own grain-sacks. 56. In what way do they come back to him? —He may order them for any purpose he likes. If he buys coal he will get a certain number. If he is a man who does not grow potatoes he will get so many with his potatoes. And when he gets flour he will get some. They all come back to the farmer.