5

I—lo.

R. SCOTT.]

87. You are now using a sack that oomes in for heavy and light produce?— Yes. 88. Would it not meet your own convenience if you adopted a small-sized sack for heavy things and increased the size of the present corn-sack for light things—the one would offset the other? —1 think it would be much more convenient for us to have only one size of sack. The present sack is a sack of general usefulness. I have no doubt the thing would work all right, as you say, but it would cause a lot of confusion. 89. If there were only two sizes, and one was very much larger than the other, would there be much confusion ?—I think there would. A mafl would always have to keep two sizes separate and distinct. 90. Do you mean to say that naving a large sack for chaff and a small sack for wheat and other heavy things would be a very great drawback to the farming community? —It think it would. 91. The Chairman.] I suppose you know that when the regulations were gazetted in October, 1903, limiting the sack to 2001b., there were a good many farmers using 5-bushel sacks holding 320 lb. of wheat? —I have just been made aware of that. It was not general in Otago. 92. Regarding the stacking, if the Calcutta people narrowed the width of the web, would it not be possible to shape a bag that would hold 200 lb. and lie stock-still? —Oh, yes. 93. It has been contended that the 200 lb. sack even now can be stacked twenty-five tiers high. Do you think that could be carried out with 2001b. bags?—Do you mean the sack that you are speaking of built in proportion ? 94. No, the sacks at present in use?— With a piece turned down? 95. I -do not know how it is done, but the statement was made that the bags now used containing 200 lb. could be stacked twenty-five tiers high? —It may be done. 1 have had no experience of it. 96. You do not agree to two sizes of sacks, one for carrying lighter stuff and the other for heavier?—l would not agree to that. 97. Then your evidence is in the direction of retaining the present-sized sack? —Yes. 98. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] What sized sack do you prefer for grain generally? —The 44 in. sack. 99. Of what weight? —Well, as farmers we want to get as much in our bags as possible, but we are for 4-bushel bags; that means 1601b. of oats, 2001b. of barley, and 2401b. of wheat. 100. You know the ordinary flour-sacks? —Yes. 101. What is your opinion about them so far as the farmer's using them is concerned, even when they are second-hand? —There are a lot of flour-sacks in use that are, 1 think, 42's. 102. You know that flour is generally sold in 200 lb. sacks?— Yes. 103. That is the universal weight of flour-sacks? —Yes. 104. Do you or do you not find those sacks of convenient size? —Some of them, but some are not. Some are short sacks. 105. You mean to say now that what you want is to get the greatest amount of stuff into the sack, whatever the size may be —that is, you want the greatest result for your money?— Not always. 106. Well, then, give us a case in which you do not want that?— Well, a farmer would fill his bags to run 4 bushels to the bag. There are some farmers who would ram all the grain they could into the bag, but the bulk of the farmers reckon on 4 bushels to the bag right through — that is, with grain. 107. Do you prefer that 4-bushel size right through?—We prefer that size. John Anstbt examined. (No. 2.) 1. The Chairman.] You are a farmer, Mr. Anstey? —Yes. 2. We shall be glad to hear your evidence on this question of the most suitable size for cornsacks : would you like to make a statement, or to be questioned ?—I think I should prefer to make a statement first. 3. You are not representing any association of any kind? —I have no authority to represent any one. 4. But you are connected with an association? —Yes. 5. And you think that probably the opinions you express are the views of the association? — There is a variety of opinion, but I think I can indicate what backing my views would have. I propose to analyse the question rather than give very definite opinions. 1 am speaking to-day as a practical farmer, a man who, all his life, right up to the present season, has actually had the handling of grain-sacks. In addition to actually handling grain, I have also had to pay for the handling of it; I can therefore claim to speak fairly authoritatively on both sides of the question. As a practical man, and speaking from my own feelings on the subject, I should say that there is no necessity for any alteration in the size of the present sack. It is a convenient sack for all farm purposes. From my own personal feeling I do not consider it too heavy, although I recognise that there are quite a number of people less rabust than myself for whom the weight of 240 lb. might be considered rather excessive. Consequently, I think it a mistake to alter the weight of the sack. As a practical man, I recognise that the labourer who has got to handle these sacks has also a right to say what weight is suitable for him to handle; but if it is likely that we are going to make any alteration in the size and weight of the sack, such size and weight must be regulated in such a way as to cause the minimum of cost and the minimum of inconvenience. It must be conceded that whatever alteration is made, there must be some additional cost to the farmer. It is impossible to make any alteration without its meaning an extra cost to the farmer. First of all, I should unhesitatingly condemn a reduction of the weight in the present sack to 2001b. This was tried, as you gentlemen all remember, a year of two ago, and proved an utter fiasco. It increased the cost to farmers. They had to purchase twelve sacks instead of 10, which meant the price of two sacks extra for every ton. The sack, when sewn with 2001b. in it, was an extremely awkward one to handle owing to its awkward shape. I had more complaints from my men handling those sacks during that one season than I ever had in