AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CASE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 200, 21 May 1936, Page 9

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CASE

Privy Council Reserves

Decision London, .May .19. In the fruit case arguing that section 92 was a dominant section of the Constitution, Sir Stafford Cripps, K.C., said that, in dealing with words like “absolutely free,” which were capable of more than one interpretation, it would be dangerous to assign to them any meaning other than that the Australian people, in their conception of freedom, intended them to possess. They meant freedom without conditions, but the Commonwealth Government had interpreted them in a restricted sense and had seized James’s goods, which were sent from one State to another. In interpreting rigid Constitutions regard must be had to the circumstances surrounding their creation. Liberal interpretations ought, not to override specific language. He instanced the American Supreme Court’s rejection of the National Recovery Act legislation. Argument, before the Privy Council has ended, and judgment was reserved. IMPORTANT ISSUE Right to Regulate InterState Trade TREMENDOUS INTEREST (Received May 20, 11.40 p.m.) Sydney, May 20. What, is known as the dried fruits case is an appeal which challenges the right of the Commonwealth Government to regulate the dried fruits trade between the States on a quota system which compels growers to send a proportion of their produce to less lucrative markets overseas, thereby retaining a certain price level locally. Upon the decision of the Privy Council hangs the fate of the quota system as applied (o dried fruits, dairy products and future wheat marketing.

The Privy Council has been asked whether the High Court of Australia was in error in holding that the Commonwealth Government was not bound by Section 02 of the ConstitUlion, which provides for free interstate trade. Tiie outcome of the appeal, in which tiie Governments of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vitally concerned. is awaited with tremendous interest by producers while, should tiie decision go against the Commonwealth, the Government, it is expected, will hold a referendum to seek assent to an amendment to Section 92 of the Constitution in order to recover power to regulate the export trade of £4.500.000 in dried fruits and £10.000.000 in dairy products and by which it hopes to regulate wheat and other industries.

Litigation originally began in 1928 when the Government seized a large consignment of fruit of Frederick Alexander James, Berri, South Australia. James, in turn, claimed £35.000 damages. The litigation finally ended in the High Court. James is now appellant before the Privy Council. Mr. R. G. Menzies, Federal Attorney-General, appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth and Victoria. Mr. I-I. Manning. Attorney-General of New South Wales, appeared for that State and Queensland. and explained that these two States adopted the Commonwealth case. Sir Stafford Cripps appeared for •lames and others.