I.—lo.

[J. TALBOT.

22. Wheat being the heaviest class of grain, do you not think it would be better for the men who are handling the sacks and for every one to have the grain in packages like that?—l should not like to say that, for the reason that we have been collecting our information on the other basis. I think a 200 lb. sack would be the most acceptable. 23. Supposing you had to adopt a 1001b. sack for wheat, it would be easy enough to get sacks suitable, and it would be easy to get sacks suitable for chaff or grass-seed?— Yes. Our trouble is that oftentimes a farmer gets a few more than he fills, and I suppose he generally has the right to return them if he cares about it; but they are liable to be left about on the place. It would be a great advantage to the farmer if the same-sized sack could be used for everything on the place. 24. What-sized sack, do you use for new potatoes?— The 48 in. 25. Before they are properly matured for taking up?—l have never had any experience of that. They would be taken away for immediate sale. 26. There is a large quantity of new potatoes sold in the South Island before they are sufficiently matured to take up ?—I think they would be put into any bag that was handy on the place. 27. You do not put them into small bags? —I do not think so. 28. Mr. Hogg.] Can you suggest any reason why the sacks in use in Canterbury should differ from the sacks in general use over in Australia ?—I think it is quite likely to have been accidental from the start. Ever since I knew anything of Canterbury these large sacks were in use. I think it was merely the accident of some importer at the first, probably, bringing them in, and we have got into the groove. When I first knew about the wheat there were two sizes ruling, and that was considered objectionable. There used to be a 3f-bushel sack, and then there was this great objection to the two sizes, and the importers found that farmers would not take the smaller sack at all on account of the mixing of the two, and they dropped it. From that experience comes the difficulty now; the farmers are so very much afraid that they are going back to the old system of two or three sizes. 29. Do you know of any difference between farming in New Zealand and Australia —the weight of grain or the bulk of chaff, or anything like that—that would warrant two differentsized sacks being used in the respective countries ?—I know of none. 30. Then, if the smaller sack that you have been referring to is in general use in Australia, you have no reason to assume that it would not be equally convenient if it were adopted here ? — I see no reason whatever. 31. Do you know of any place where a larger sack than the one used in Canterbury is in use amongst the farmers I —l have not heard of it. 32. Are you aware of any place outside of New Zealand where an equally large sack is in use? —Well, I have been told that this large-sized sack is practically confined to Canterbury. 33. Has any instance ever come to your own knowledge where men have suffered in any way through carrying those heavy sacks ?—'Not any special instance. I could not speak of any special case. 34. You have not known any instances in Timaru or elsewhere in which men have been incapacitated for life through injury to their spine? —I nave not heard of any. No special cases have come under my notice. 35. Do you think the smaller sack would be equally convenient for the miller? —No, I do not think it is. They say they have to press their flour to get 2001b. into the bag, and it is injurious to it. 36. I think you mentioned that the chief objection to the smaller sacks came from the millers? —That is so. 37. They refused to receive the wheat unless they got it in the larger sacks? —Yes, so it was stated. 38. Mr. Aitken.] Do you know what-sized sack they use in Great Britain?—l was a boy when I left there ; but they had sacks that held 4 bushels, and they were manufactured to last for years. The usual practice where I came from was to send the sacks to the mill and deliver the wheat that was then offered for sale, and get back those bags again, year after year. 39. They used to go through the process of washing every year, did they not? —They were kept with the farmer's plant. 40. Do you know the measurement of the sack used in Australia? —No. 41. 44 in. by 26| in.: would that fit in with what you know?— That is a squat sack. 42. Would that fit in with what you know takes place in Australia? —I should think that a narrower sack would have suited them better. 43. But the question of the.loom comes into the width far more than into the length. They can make the sacks any length they like, but not any width. The loom has to be made for a certain width. You do not know of your own knowledge about the width of the sack in Australia ? —No. I understand it is the same width. 44. It is 26J in. Is the Australian wheat heavier than the New Zealand wheat? —On the average it may be; but this year it is not as heavy. The difference would be very slight. Our average here runs from 62 lb. to 64 lb. the bushel, and theirs will run 66 lb.; but this year we have beaten them in weight. 45. Would you consider it a feasible thing for the Legislature to legislate in this matter without saying anything about what the size of the sack was to be, but simply laying it down as a stipulation that no sack should contain more than 2001b. weight of anything? —That would seem to me to be the simplest way. That was the form of the last regulation—just that the weight should be 200 lb., exclusive of the sack; that there should be 203 lb. allowed. 46. You mentioned the flour-millers. We have had evidence here from farmers who also strongly objected to the smaller sack because of the chaS question. There may be reason in their argument and there may not; but, on the whole, you think that if there were a regulation issued saying no sack should contain more than 2001b. weight, that would be a regulation that could be easily worked? —I do, because there would be no harm if the importers brought in two sizes of

22