IMPORTANT PRIVY COUNCIL FINDING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 169, 18 July 1936, Page 9

IMPORTANT PRIVY COUNCIL FINDING.

DRIED FRUIT CASE. Decision Against Australian Federal Government. FAR-REACHING EFFECTS. j United Press Association. —Copyright. (Received 12.30 p.m.) SYDNEY, this day. A London message says the Privy | Council has upheld the appeal of, Frederick Alexander James, of Berri, South Australia, against the Commonwealth Government in the dried fruit. case, and the matter was remitted for trial by the High Court of Australia. I Respondents are to pay appellant's costs, bear their own costs of the ! hearing in the Court below and of this appeal, and the State interveners t are to bear their own costs.

Their Lordships expressed the opinion that section 92 of the Constitution bound the Commonwealth, therefore the Dried Fruits Act, 1928-35, must be held invalid. The Commonwealth has thus failed in its attempt by the method adopted under the Dried Fruits Act, to control prices and establish a marketing system even though the Government was satisfied that such policy was in the best interests of the Australian people.

Such a result could not fail to cause regrets, but these inconveniences were likely to flow from written Constitutions which take no account of changing circumstances. Mr. James, Interviewed, said that lie was relieved, after a 10 years' light, at the result of which he had never doubted. The final stage will be application to the High Court of Australia for damages, probably at least £25,000, for which he is returning to Australia. "My business is almost wrecked by the Government's actions in the continued seizing of goods. It is a victory for the rights of the individual citizen and the smaller States, and re-establishes the original intention of the Constitution. It restores rights which tlic Commonwealth and State Parliaments have been steadily and increasingly filching." Governments Concerned. Mr. J. A. Lyons, commenting on the decision of the Privy Council, said the matter was of such importance that it would receive the immediate attentioi: of the Government. The Premier of Victoria, Mr. A. A Dunstan, said the decision is regrettable Its effect from the point of view oi organised marketing will be most unfortunate. Other steps will have to be taken to meet the decibion as soon at possible. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Forgan Smith, said the result woule have a serious effect on the marketing legislation of the Commonwealth anil al the States, anel unless the Constitutioi was amendeel farmers would be at the mercy of speculators.

The "Daily Telegraph" says the Privy Council ruling is recognised as the most important ever made concerning Australia. It is described as "a death blow to the orderly marketing of primary products."

What is known as the dried fruits case was an appeal which challenged the right of the Commonwealth Government to regulate the dried fruits trade between the States on the quota system, which compels growers to send a proportion of the produce to less lucrative markets overseas, thereby retaining a certain price level locally. Upon the Privy Council's judgment, hearing for which was completed on May 20, hangs the fate oC the quota system as applied to dried fruits, dairy products and future wheat marketing. The Privy Council was asked whether the High Court of Australia was in error in holding that the Federal Government was not bound by the Constitution's provision for free inter-State trade. The judgment, in which New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland were vitally concerned, was awaited by producers with tremendous interest. The Federal Government intimated that in the event of the decision going against it, a referendum would be held to seek assent to an amendment of the Constitution in order to recover power to regulate the export of £4,500,000 worth of dried fruits and £10,000,000 of dairy products, also wheat and other products. The litigation started in 1928 with the Government's seizure of a consignment of dried fruits belonging to Alexander Jam-es, of Berri, South Australia, ' who took his claim for £35,000 damages to the High Court and then to the Privy Council. The Federal Attorney-General, Mr. R. G. Menzies, appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth; the New South Wales Attorney-General represented his State and Queensland, while Sir Stafford Cripps represented the appellant, James.