WHEAT IN AUSTRALIA

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16277, 9 January 1915, Page 8

WHEAT IN AUSTRALIA

GOV EIINM ENT SEIZURE DISCUSSED. RIGHT OF STATE tjUESTInNEI). Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, January 8. 'llu; New Smith Wales Farmers and Settlers' Association is awaiting legal opinion as to whether the Government s action in seizing wheat is ulLra vires as regards the Commonwealth Constitution. Meantime the association lias advised branches regarding the working of compensation claims. So far 150 appeals luivo been lodged against the price paid by the Government, while the association has received 2000 appeals. The Inter-State Commission will to-day hear the Commonwealth's application ior an interim injunction to restrain the New South Wales Government from selling or removing any wheat. THE WHEAT ACQUISITION BOARD. ITS ACTION DEFENDED. SYDNEY, January 8. (Received Jan. 8, at 8.30 p.m.) Mr Ashford (chairman) resents the adiverse criticisms of the action of the Wheat Acquisition Hoard. He said that thousands of people had cause to be grateful to the board for preventing the price of bread rising to 6d per loaf. Regarding the financial jwsition, the chairman states that, after [haying all farmers' claims, the board has a credit of £77,000. TESTING GOVERNMENT POWERS. SYDNEY, January 8. (Received Jan. 0, at 1.25 a.m.) The commonwealth application for an interim injunction to restrain New South Wales from preventing the removal of wheat into another State has been adjourned until Wednesday. FLOURMILLERS COMPOUND. MELBOURNE, January 8. As an outcome of the wheat situation Edward Davey and Sons, flourmillers, have obtained the court's sanction to call a meeting at which the firm proposes to submit proposals to its creditors on a basis of 10s in the pound. The firm's total liabilities are under £30,000. THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS POWER. The fact that Mr Hughes, Federal Attorney-general, stated that he intended to refer to the Inter-State Commission the legality of the action of the New South \V ales Government in acquiring the wheat crop of the State and preventing its transit across the border, was referred to by Mr D. R. liali, State Attormy-general. •'The Federal Attorney-general,' 7 he said, "has not merely expressed lus own opinion as to what constitutes interstate trade, but he has been good enough to set them up in contrast to what are stated to be mv views. I havo studiously avoided explaining what action 1 regard as necessary to bring merchandise within the cai<>gorv of inter-State trade, Relieving that tile necessities of the Government would best bo served by my silence on this point. Throughout the whole of the discussion one feature has been rather overlooked. The whole controversy has ranged upon the question of when would an article become the subject of inter-State trada I cannot admit that this is the end of all the controversy, even though the constitution says that inter-State trade shall be absolutely free. This does not prevent the exeroise of powers immediately possessed by the State which imposes limitations upon their freedom of trade. "Take a simple case: A stookowner whose cattle whilst in transit to another State develops pleuro, might, just as reasonably object to the police detaining his stock because they were diseased. The owner might contend that his stock were entitled to go across the border, but his contention would not help him. Exactly similar conditions prevail with regard to the tick and quarantine regulations, where there is a decided interference with inter-State trade, and it is immaterial what financial losses this interference entails. "Clearly the police powers of the State impose limitations on inter-State trade, and the question has_ yet to be argued as to whether the undoubted right of eminent domain, which still remains with the States, does not, when legitimately exercised, fully justify considerably more stringent action than any yet taken by the State in acquiring wheat. There arc as yet no decisions arrived at. but possibly out of the events of the present war we may have some of these questions thrashed out, and put this State in the position of knowing to what extent it still retains its sovereign powers. "Mr Hughes has decided to submit the matters already in issue to the Inter-State Commission, a body which, if I remember rightly, comprises two laymen and one very eminent legal authority. Personally, I am quite prepared to accept that tribunal, providing, of course, that no attempt is made to deny to the State Government of New South Wales or to any other party interested in the contest their full rights to secure from the High Court of Australia its final judgment as to the powers possessed bv the Statce and by the commonwealth.' I will not be able to give my personal attention to the matter for at least a month, during which time I will be away in New Zealand."