r.—l2

4

42. But what about the special manures? —I am afraid that would represent a considerable difficulty. 43. Supposing the Act required you to tag these bags and put down the ingredients ?—lf you say that would satisfy you lam quite agreeable. Although I have come here and taken certain exceptions to the Act, I have not come to try and make difficulties in the way of the Department. I want to have, as in the past, pleasant working with the Department, and for that reason I want to avoid the possibility of any difficulty. Any suggestion which Mr. Bitchie makes in that or any similar way I shall only be too glad to meet. B. C. Aston, Chief Chemist of the Agricultural Department, examined. (No. 2.) 44. The Chairman.] You are acquainted with the Bill before the Committee ?—Yes. 45. You have heard what the other witness has said?—l have heard Mr. Dick's evidence. 46. Will you in the same way proceed and give the Committee any information you can with regard to any clause which you think attention ought to be called to ?—I am only at variance with Mr. Dick on, I think, three points. With regard to clause 3, subsection (b), he wants us to state the amount of phosphoric anhydride present in terms of tricalcic phosphate. That is already done. The clause says, " Phosphoric anhydride soluble in water, and its equivalent in tricalcic phosphate made soluble by acid." That means that the amount of each constituent will be stated side by side—that is, phosphoric anhydride so-much, equal to tricalcic phosphate so-much. Mr. Dick's objection is that a farmer will *iot understand what "phosphoric anhydride" means, but that is for the benefit of the analyst. 47. And you think it will not perplex the farmer ?—I do not think so, because he sees what the term is equivalent to in tricalcic phosphate, which he has been accustomed to. " Dipotassic oxide " has the popular term put in after the scientific term —namely, " potash " —and in the same way has its equivalent in sulphate of potash. In the same clause we provide no way in which the percentage of dicalcic phosphate present in a fertiliser is given credit for. Now, all the previous analytical chemists who have given evidence before this Committee have decided that such an inclusion would lead to endless confusion. Mr. Dick himself said that a fertiliser with superphosphates in it changed very rapidly. Well, if you sent a sample to one analyst, and a portion of the same sample to another analyst, and the two samples arrived at different periods from the date of sending, and the chemist used different methods, you can easily see that the results would not be uniform. This is precisely what we wish to avoid, so Ido not advise that Mr. Dick's suggestion on this point be accepted. Clause 5, subsection (3): Mr. Dick has proposed that the words "in branded packages "be inserted after the word " fertiliser "in line 28. I think the words " branded with the vendor's seal or brand " would be better, because there may be another brand on it. I recommend that the vendor's brand be inserted there. 48. Mr. McLachlan.] You agree with Mr. Dick ?—With that addition. If a man were buying, say, Lawes's superphosphate, he would then have Lawes's brand; but if it is the vendors own brand the Inspector can step in and take a sample. 49. Are you quite prepared to allow, say, Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co. to sell Lawes's superphosphate on his analysis ? —No. What I propose is that the vendor shall have his own brand in order to prevent the Inspector going to the factory and taking a sample of a brand that does not belong to the vendor. It might be a sample which had just come in from the Old Country to, say, Messrs. Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co., and if the Inspector went in and took a sample of that it would not be the vendor's manufacture, but Lawes's. Under this Bill it is not for sale until it is sold under the vendor's brand. The Bill says that every fertiliser must be branded, and the brand registered by the Secretary for Agriculture, and if it is a special mixture it must be tagged. Section 7 will have to be altered in a similar manner; "branded with the vendor's brand " will have to be inserted there. Subsection (3), (b), of section 7 says that " Where the fertiliser is in bulk, portions are to be taken from different parts of the fertiliser and thoroughly mixed as aforesaid." I think that subclause should come out altogether. If a sample is in bulk in the warehouse and an Inspector goes in, he may mistake that sample for a sample which is in process of manufacture, or mistake a sample which is in process of manufacture for a sample that is in bulk; so I think parcelled goods only should be inspected. Section 10, subsection (2) : This is the main point on which I am at variance with Mr. Dick. This section provides that a sample may be taken within ten days from any purchaser's premises. Well, I think that the vendor should be represented there, as provided by the Bill, and that the following clause be added : " Provided that the vendor's representative shall be entitled to object that the sample is not in the same state as it left the vendor's premises, and the Inspector shall take a note of such objection." Supposing Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co. sent out a sample of manure by rail to some distance : under this Act the buyer notifies the Inspector that he wants a sample of that manure taken. The Inspector, under this Act, then notifies the vendor that he is going to take a sample. The vendor then has the opportunity of going out with the Inspector and seeing that the fertiliser has been properly treated —that is, that it has been properly stored, or kept away from the wet, and that the bags have not been opened. But there is no provision made for taking an objection that a sample is not a good one. If the vendor is allowed to make that objection at the time when the case goes before the Court, of course the Court will take cognisance of it. The vendor is, of course, entitled to seal the bags before they are sent out from the warehouse, and his representative may satisfy himself that these seals have not been tampered with. I think that does away with Mr. Dick's objection. Another objection of Mr. Dick's is to the words in section 15, "materially to the prejudice of a purchaser." That also occurs in a previous section, No. 9, where the words are " whether or not such difference was materially to the prejudice of the purchaser." Now, I think the analyst is the best judge as to whether such difference is materially to the prejudice of the purchaser, and therefore that sentence should remain, both in section 9 and in section 15. I think that is all I have to say.