A. KAYE.]

17

I.—lo.

ever in turning out whatever sack you like to say. It is only a matter of fixing the looms accordingly. But you have to pay proportionately more for a special size. 6. What is the arrangement now, supposing you buy wheat from a farmer, and he sends you down so-many hundred sacks of wheat: do you credit him with the price of the sacks—does he get any allowance for the sacks?—Oh, yes! It really costs him about -|d. for the use of the sack. If the price of a sack is 7d., he is debited with that amount, and when he brings the sack in he generally gets 6|d. 7. Then, if he wants the sacks baok again to put chaff in, what is he charged? —He is generally charged the same price. The farmer, as a matter of fact, generally gets his sacks pretty well free. It might cost him Jd. a bag; but he is well served as far as the sacks are concerned, because we have to run the risk of importing and when the sack comes back to the merchant it is only a second-hand sack, and the merchant has to sell the bag in. It only costs the farmer Jd. a bag for the use of bags. 8. If he wanted a larger sack for putting his chaff and bran into ?—He would not have it. He would have to import a special size for that purpose alone. 9. Or pack his chaff into a smaller-sized bag? —Yes. Well, of course, that could be done. 10. In loading up the lighter bags for the Cape at the time of the Boer War, did you find the men were able to shift a given number of tons of produce quicker with the lighter bags than with the bigger bags?—l think they could. Those small bags were loaded up very quickly. 11. In South Australia, when the wheat came down, did it go into stores, or did it go rightto the ship?—As a rule it went right to the ship. On the stations, as a rule, there are huge stacks, and there they so seldom have heavy rains in January, February, and March that they to a large extent run the risk of rain, and leave these practically uncovered; and when the ships are in port the trucks are loaded straight alongside the stacks and sent down to the ships. 12. How long does the season last in South Australia'?—lt is over by March, as a rule. It begins in December, as a rule. Sometimes there is a little shipped in November. 13. Mr. Bollaid.] What is your individual opinion about the cental system? —I am inclined to think that it would be the best if we had only to consider the wheat; but in this country we want to know what to do with our empty bags. We have come to the conclusion that the 44 in. by 26i in. sack, taking it all round for all purposes, and despite the fact that it is an awkward sack to handle, is the best sack to continue to import. 14. Are you aware that, with regard to chaff, the American system of preparing chaff for export is to put it in 180 Ib. bales?—Oh, yes! compressed fodder. I had a lot to do with that in Australia, but we here have not got to that system yet. 15. Do you not think it is time we did commence it here? —I "think it would be a very good thing indeed; but it is more for export purposes than for local use. Ido not think it would pay with chaff for use in New Zealand. It increases the cost a good deal, it is done really to reduce the freight. 16. Take potatoes: do you not think they would be easier handled and quicker managed in 1001b. sacks?— That is one way of looking at it; but rhen these 1001b. sacks are very thin. If a farmer left these sacks out in the paddock all night, and there was a frost, the potatoes might all be frost-bitten in the morning. There would be great liability to that. Farmers will not cover the potatoes at night, as they should. That is one of my objections to the 100 lb. sack. It would not be a success in that sense. 17. You are speaking about potatoes in the South? —Yes. We have a lot of frosty weather in April and May, now and then. 18. Mr. Flatman.] You spoke of the heavy weights carried in Australia: are you aware that the question of the size of the sack is being considered in Australia at the present time?—Oh, yes! I saw in the Australasian that a member of the Ministry had been approached, and that he was awaiting the decision of the Parliament of New Zealand on this matter. 19. Do you think it would be wise for this Parliament to approach the Australian Parliament or Parliaments on this matter, and so have established a universal size for bags ?—I think it would be most desirable —the very best course that could be pursued. That is what I advocate right through—to keep on the same lines as Australia. 20. The 44 in. sacks are not generally used in Canterbury at the present time, are they? — No. They are very little used. They are used at the Bluff. 21. Would the 44 in. by 26J in. sacks stack as well, if they contained 2001b., as the ordinary sack containing 2401b.? —Oh, no! I have had practical experience of that in our stores at Lyttelton. 22. Then you would object to them on that account? —I would object to them on that line. They do not stack at all well. 23. Of course, the wheat being drier in Australia, 4 bushels would easily go into a 44 in. sack, generally speaking —the drier the wheat the less space it iakes?-—That is so. Practically a 44' in. sack never holds less than 240 lb. of Australian wheat. 24. You have known it happen in Canterbury that you could not get 4 bushels into a 44 in. sac k? Y ou are supposed not to be able to do so, but you can do it with this year's wheat easily. 25. How is grain bought in Canterbury —by the bushel? —Yes. 26. Is it bought in the end? —Yes, as it is weighed on the railway weights, as a rule. 27. So it would not matter how much, practically, was in a bag, from that point of view—■ although paid for by the bushel it would be paid for at the Railway weight or at a weight?— That 28. So that grain is practically sold by weight at the present day?— That is so. 29 You were speaking of potatoes, and you said, so I understood, that the 100 lb. bags would be of thinner material, and that the farmers would not cover the potatoes up, and that they would be liable to frost?—l take it the bags referred to by the honourable member were the

3—l 10.