I.—lo.

6

[j. ANSTEY.

my life before, all put together. Every man condemned the 2001b. sack as an awkward thing to load. To explain this I may point out that it is very often the shape of a package rather than its weight that increases or decreases its convenience of handling. When a man goes to take a sack up on his shoulders, from the tail of a dray or any other place, a long sack overbalances itself and thus helps in the lifting, and 1 have no hesitation in saying that it is much harder for a man to get 200 lb. of wheat in the existing sack on to his shoulder than 240 lb. Once on his shoulder it is easier to carry, but it is harder to get there. To get a 200 lb. sack on to a dray is much harder than to get a 240 lb. one. One man can easily load a 240 lb. sack on to a dray, but to load a 2001b. sack on a dray I had to get two men. The result of that regulation, which was afterwards withdrawn —and this made things worse than they were when it was there —was that a whole lot of us had to buy these extra sacks, and having gone to all this additional expense we found that it was quite nullified—that we had simply wasted our money for absolutely nothing. Some farmers managed to save a little by purchasing a sack of 44 in. instead of the usual 48 in. When these sacks were delivered to the millers with grain in them they refused to pay for them, because these sacks would not hold 200 lb. of flour. The farmers were thereby again caused quite an unnecessary additional expense. 'So I hope that any alteration that is likely to be made will certainly not be in the direction of a simple limitation in the weight in the existing sacks to 200 lb. I also very strongly condemn the proposal to limit the weight of wheat-sacks to 100 lb. Limiting the weight to 1001b. would involve the importation of a special sack which we do not now have. That sack would be utterly useless for any other farm purposes than wheat; consequently, when the wheat was sold, the sacks would Rave to be given in. There would be a very large increase in the cost of handling these sacks. To prove this I will point to what happened a few years ago when very large orders for oats in sacks of 80 lb. each came from Africa. At that time the merchants gave us the sacks without any charge. They also gave us a halfpenny a bushel more for oats put in that sack than if they were in 4-bushel sacks. On making a calculation I found that the extra cost to me was not made up by the additional halfpenny, plus the sack given me. That, I think, you may fairly take as meaning that if you insist on the 100 lb. sack it will cost the farmer fully a halfpenny per bushel dead loss. We had to employ an extra man at the mill to fill these small sacks, and even then it was a most unsatisfactory process, and caused a lot of unnecessary feeling. Having condemned the two systems that, I think have been proposed, let me now suggest, if there is to be an alteration at all—which I have already stated I oppose—a system which I think might be adopted with some advantage and with about the minimum inconvenience to the man who will have to pay for it. If it is necessary to reduce the weight of the sack to 2001b., it is essential that the sack should be reduced in width so that the full sack when sewn up shall be twice as long as it is wide. In order to accomplish that, steps must be taken to introduce a sack of that description. To introduce a sack of that description it will be necessary for the Government themselves to undertake what I am afraid is rather a big undertaking. At present all the corn-sacks made in India are made 26J in. wide. They can be cut to any length you please, but the width cannot be altered except at considerable expense and some trouble. From communications received from India we found that this narrow sack cannot be imported at present, but that the sackmakers in India were quite ready to supply sacks of that width, provided they got an order sufficiently large and sufficiently continuous to warrant their altering the machinery for the purpose. To import sacks such as I suggest, about 24J in. wide, would at present, or under any circumstances we now think of, cost very considerably more than to import the present larger size. But if an order such as I speak of, sufficiently large and sufficiently continuous to warrant the alteration in the machinery, were arranged, then this narrow sack could be imported at a price possibly a fraction less than the present sack. Now, in order to introduce a system such as I speak of, it would be necessary for the Government here to act in conjunction with the Governments of the Australian States and arrange for the introduction of a standard sack such as I speak of. If we had such a sack it would be a fairly long step in the direction of introducing the cental system. This sack would hold 2001b. of wheat; it would hold 1501b. of oats —both a step in the direction of the cental system. This sack would be used for other farm purposes, such as coal, potatoes, chaff, flour. In the case of potatoes, coal, flour, we should use twelve sacks to the ton instead of ten. It would have this advantage: that you could sell a quarter of a ton of either of those things. You cannot sell a quarter of a ton now, because sacks make a quarter of a ton. That is one slight advantage you would gain by such an adoption. This 200 lb. sack, although not quite so convenient as the present one, would be found to be useful for all farm purposes. For instance, it would be used for chaff. At present one of the most inconvenient products that we have to handle is a sack of oat-sheaf chaff. To my mind it is infinitely harder to load than a sack of wheat, strange though this may seem. To load one of the present sacks of oat-sheaf chaff you have to take the sack into your hands and lift it over your head on to the dray. A sack of wheat is over-ended and only part of it is lifted. Personally I consider that a sack of oat-sheaf chaff is the hardest and most dangerous bag that a man can lift. To that extent, at all events, a 200 lb. sack would be, I think, an advantage. There is really only one very serious objection to the introduction of such a sack on a farm, excepting its additional cost; that is that our chaff-cutters —many of them, at all events —would have to be altered in order to enable them to be properly filled —I mean the barrels of our chaff-cutters. Some of them, at all events, are too large for this reduced-size sack, and would have to be altered. Ido not think that would be a very serious thing. I think that is about all I have to say. I will just recapitulate. Do not make this alteration to 200 lb. in the existing sack. If you do you will arouse no end of opposition. If an alteration has to be made, let us have a definite alteration, and have it in a form that will entail a minimum of inconvenience. So far as the small extra cost is concerned, I think quite a number of farmers would be ready to meet it if they could thereby meet the wishes of those who have got to handle sacks; but bear in mind that whatever you do will mean some small addition to the cost. I may say that there are a considerable number of farmers who would favour a reduction in the size of the sack on this ground: There are quite a number of our lads of