APPEAL UPHELD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22475, 20 July 1936, Page 9

APPEAL UPHELD

DRIED FRUITS CASE PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright LONDON, July 17 The Privy Council has upheld the appeal of F. A. James against the Commonwealth, and the matter has been remitted for trial before the High Court of Australia. Respondents have been ordered to pay appellant's costs and bear their own costs of the hearing in the Court below and of this appeal. The States who intervened arc 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 to lie 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 a 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 took no account of changing circumstances.

Mr. James, in an interview, said he was relieved, after a 10 years' fight, the result of which he had never doubted. The final stage will be an application to the High Court of Australia for damages, probably at least £25,000, for which purpose he will return to Australia.

"My business is almost wrecked by the Government's actions in the continued seizing of goods," said Mr. James. "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 the Commonwealth and State Parliaments have been steadily and increasingly filching."

The litigation in the case referred to in the cablegram originally began in 1928, when the Commonwealth Government seized a large consignment of fruit from Frederick Alexander James, of Berri, South Australia. Janres in turn claimed £35,000 damages. The litigation in Australia finally ended in the High Court, which held that the Commonwealth Government was not bound by section 92 of the Constitution, which provides for free inter-State trade. The outcome of the appeal, in which the Governments of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vitally concerned, was awaited with tremendous interest by the producers. The appellant 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 their produce to less lucrative markets overseas, thereby retaining a certain price level localiv. The Privy Council was asked whether the High Court of Australia was in error in giving judgment for the Government. Mr. R. G. Menzies, Federal AttorneyGeneral, appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth and Victoria. Mr. H. Manning, Attorney-General for New South Wales, appeared for that State and for Queensland, and explained that these two States had adopted the Commonwealth's case. Sir Stafford Cripps appeared for James and others. SERIOUS VIEW TAKEN

COMMONWEALTH'S POWERS REFERENDUM PROPOSED (Received July 10, 5.5 p.m.) SYDNEY. July 19 Following the Privy Council's decision in the dried fruits case the Commonwealth Government intends to seek an amendment of section 92 of the Constitution by way of a referendum, probably in January, in order to give the Commonwealth power to control trade between the States, which is denied by the Privy Council's decision. The Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, said the matter was of such importance that it would receive the immediate attention of the Government.

The Premier of Victoria, Mr. A. A. Dunstan, said the decision was regrettable. Its effect from the point of view of organised marketing would be most unfortunate. Other steps would have to be taken to meet the decision as soon as possible. The Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, said the result would have a serious effect on the marketing legislation of the Commonwealth and all the States, and unless the Constitution was amended farmers would be at the mercy of speculators. The Daily Telegraph says the Privy Council's 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."