DRIED FRUITS CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 21 May 1936, Page 7

DRIED FRUITS CASE

RIGHT TO REGULATE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHALLENGED IMPORTANT PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL DECISION RESERVED AFTERARGUMENT (United Press Association— By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Received 21st May, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON, 20th. May. , Argument before the Privy Council on tiie Australian dried fruits, case has ended, and judgment was reserved. 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 Status 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 to dried- fruit, dairy products, and the future of wheat marketing. Tiip 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 92 of the Constitution, which provides for free inter-State trade. IMPORTANCE OF DECISION The outcome of the appeal, in which ; the Governments of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vitally concerned, is awaited with tremendous interest by. producers, while should the decision go against the Commonwealth, the Government, it is expected, will hold a referendum and seek assent to the amendment of section 92 of the Constitution, in order to recover the 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 the wheat arid' other industries. ;;

Litigation originally began in 1928, when the Government seized a large con-' signment of fruit of Frederick Alexander James, of Berri, South Australia, James in turn claimed £35,000 damages, and litigation finally ended in . the High' Court, James is now the appellant before the Privy Council. *• ' The lion. R. C. Menzies, Federal At-torney-General, appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth and Victoria. Mr H. Maiming, Attorney-General of New South Wales, appeared for that State and Queensland, and explained that those two States adopted the Commonwealth- case. Sir Stafford Cripps appeared for James and others.

DOMINANT SECTION OF CONSTITUTION

Arguing that-section 92 was a-dorniii-ant section of the Constitution,. Sir'Staff'd Cripps said, in dealing with words!'? -; like absolutely free,” that they were, capable of more than one and it -would be dangerous to assign 1 thereto any meaning other than'the !„.j Australian people in their conception of freedom intended them to possess. They meant freedom without conditions, but the Commonwealth interpreted them in a restricted sense and seized James’s goods which were sent from one state to another. In interpreting ■ ngul constitutions regard must be had to the circumstances surrounding their creation. Liberal interpretations ought not to override specific language, and Sir Stafford instanced the American Supreme Court rejecting national recov- 7 cry legislation. . ... u ~