I.—lo.

18

[A. KAYE

cental bags that we used for the wheat, and that when they were emptied of wheat they would be used for potatoes. Those bags are entirely unsuited to be exposed to any kind of weather. 30. Why?— Because the material is, comparatively speaking, so thin. 31. But why should a sack holding 200 lb. be made of thinner material than the present 48 in. bags?— The one that holds 200 lb. is a jute bag; a cental bag is a hessian bag. 32. The Chairman.] The question is, why should they not make the smaller bag of the same material ?—You would have to be making a special size. They are not made of this other material in Calcutta. 33. Mr. Flatrnan.] But you think they could be made?— You can make any size, but then it would be a special size. 34. Mr. Aitken.] At extra cost? —At extra cost. Anything special you would have to pay specially for. 35. Mr. Flatman.] Do you think there would be extra cost if it were a bag that was really adopted for future use?— Not if it were adopted by all Australasia, no. 36. Mr, Barber.] Do you think it would be inconvenient to the farming community if two standards were adopted —if it were recognsied that there were two different sizes in general use, a large bag for light materials and a small bag for heavy weights?—As far as the farmer is con-, cerned, he, in a way, does not come into the consideration of inconvenience, because he does not suffer any inconvenience as long as the merchant goes to the risk of importing what the farmer requires. The farmer does not have any risk or trouble at all. 37. The Chairman .] Mr. Barber means this : Would it not be inconvenient to the farmer if there, were a small bag and a large bag in use? 38. Mr. Barber.] A small bag for heavy weights, and for chaff and bran a larger bag could be used? —Of course, in Australia now they import hessian bags for their bran. As you all know, here in New Zealand the farmers use their corn-sacks for bran. Ido not suppose it would be any inconvenience at all to the farmer to use them in that way, only it would be inconvenient to the merchant to have to import two different kinds of bag. 39. Do you think it would be a very material hardship to have to keep in stock two different sizes of bag—half of each size instead of the whole quantity in one size?—Of course, dealing with threshing-machines, and so on, it would be very inconvenient if you had different-sized bags to fit on to the receivers. You all remember why the 48 in. sack came in at all—to get over the Government regulation of twenty-five years ago that there should be ten sacks to the ton. 40. Mr. Aitken.] Some of the farmers that came here made a point of this, that while, perhaps, not objecting altogether to putting only 200 lb. of wheat into a sack, they would rather adopt the 48 in. sack and sew it down, because then the sacks would come in useful for other produce. Do you, on your own account, or on account of your Chamber, think that would be a way out of the■ difficulty l —Oh, yes! We have had that thoroughly threshed out —in fact, it was only at our last meeting, in August, that we had an animated discussion on that very point. Some of the farmers are very strong on having a 48 in. sack, but you can see yourselves what a tremendous amount of turning-in it would mean. 41 . On the other hand, if they must have a bigger sack for their chaff and lighter materials, they spoke of the very great expense it would be to them to have to buy new sacks for these lighter materials, as well as for the wheat. You, however, make out that the cost to the farmer is nothing -- that it all falls on the merchant?— That is so. 42. Supposing two sizes of sack were imported, would that cause the merchants to change their methods and make the farmers pay for their sacks ?—Buy, sacks in 1 43. Yes? —What I want to convey to the Committee on that point is that the farmer does not in reality suffer in that way. I saw that when the deputation waited on the Minister in Melbourne they made out that the farmer, because when he sold he sold sacks in lost the full value of his sack, except the weight of the sack. Well, that is not so. That is quite an erroneous impression. 44. The Chairman.] You will never alter the farmer's impression on the poiat?—-No. If , the price is 4s. 6d., sacks extra, the farmer gets nearer 4s. 7d., sacks in. 45. Mr. Aitkem.] Leaving the question of merchant and farmer out of view altogether, would it be very much more costly to insist upon two sizes of sack—one for wheat and one for lighter material ?—lt would be more costly in the sense that a merchant would require to import two kinds of sack, and he has to order those goods, as a rule, a long time before it is possible to judge as to what the season is going to be. We find from experience that the bulk of our corn-sacks should be bought in April and May. 46. The Chairman.] The question, as I understand it, is this: whether it would be a costly rnattei' to the farmer if there were a sack for holding, we will say, 200 lb. of wheat, and a larger sack for holding lighter produce? —I would not say it would be very much more costly. It would be more costly. 47. Mr. Hardy.] You spoke of the loss to the merchant and not to the farmer in connection with sacks: where does the loss to the merchant come in, and not to the farmer. Simply because the merchant has, first of all, to run the risk of the market. He buys the bags. 48. Speculating for profit?—lf he can get it. He always speculates for profit, but he has to buy for a long way ahead. The price is usually fixed for the season on the price at which he has bought. He has got to send the bags out to the farmer. He actually does not get paid. When the sack comes back again, the farmer, in some instances, insists on getting the full price that he has paid for his sacks, and the whole risk in connection with the sacks, therefore, practically, comes back on to the grain-merchant. 49. Does the grain-merchant not buy sacks for the purpose of making a little profit, and for the purpose of keeping his grain business together ?—For the purpose of keeping his grain business together, but not with a view to making what you may term a profit. He may make a little profit or a little loss; it is, comparatively speaking, infinitesimal.