DRIED FRUIT TRADE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12866, 21 May 1936, Page 5

DRIED FRUIT TRADE

INTERESTING AUSTRALIAN CASE NOW BEFORE PRIVY COUNCIL. DECISION KEENLY AWAITED. (U.P A. by Elec. Tel. Copy rights (Received Alav 20. 11 p.m.) LONDON. Alav 20. Argument before the Privy Council on tdio Australian Dried Fruits case has ended and judged has been reserved. What is known as the Dried Fruits Case is an appeal which challenges tho right of the Commonwealth Government to regulate the dried fruits trade between the States on a quota system, which compels the growers to send a proportion of their produce to less lucrative markets . overseas, thereby retaining a certain price level locally. w

. Unort the decision of the Privy Council hangs the fate of the quota system as applied to 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 hound by section 92 of the Constitution, which provides for free inter-Statc trade.

Tho outcome of the appeal, wherein (ho Government of South Australia Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vitally concerned, is awaited with tremendous interest by the producers while, should the decision fro against 'the Commonwealth ilie Government, it is oxneeted, will hold a referendum to seek assent to an. amendment of section 92 of the Constitution in order to recover power to regulate the export trade of £4,500.0f, 0 in driend fruits ; £10,000,000 in dairy products and by which it hopes to regulate wheat and other industries. !

Tho litigation originally began in 1928, when tho Government seized a largo consignment of fruit, belonging to Frederick Alexander James, of Berri, South Australia. James, in turn, claimed £35,000 damages. 'Tho litigation finally ended in the High Court. James is now (he appellant before the Privy Council. Mr. Menzies, the Federal Attorney-General appeared on behalf of tho Commonwealth and Victoria Governments, and Mr. H. Manning, Attorney-General for Now South Wales, appeared for that State and Queensland. It should bo explained that th’csc two States adopted tho Commonwealth ease. Sir Stafford Cripps appeared for James and others.