W. Wigfald
Let me know how you are sure. I am not guests 9 & perhaps 35 of & mean that the Ordinance should be amended. I am afraid, as pointed out by Lord Rifen, that if the proviso suggested by zm, even as amended, is added, the presumption will be in favour of opium not covered by a permit (found in these ships) was generally going to the Farmer, provided in other cases under S. 35, and that such a provision will simply suggest to the Farmer to change his smuggling tactics.
(Please see the Attorney General's Remarks, para. 9 of Enc. 3 in 569/9112)
Under the amendment, which I suggest, he will try the plan of smuggling opium not covered by a permit, I trust the Government would find it difficult, perhaps to refuse to deliver up the opium to the Farmer, if he manages to shut such opium in and perjure himself to prove that the attempted smuggling was not done with his connivance.
If the amendment suggested by me were made in S.38, but S.39 were left as it stands, it would still be in the discretion of the Governor to give up the forfeited Opium to the Farmer if he is really satisfied that the Farmer is not acting in collusion with the smuggler.
As stated on p. 10 of the printed correspondence attached here to, I suspect that the smuggler is at the bottom of all the smuggling and that the Government seldom, if ever, give him the benefit of their discretion if it is (as in S.39) left unfettered.
G. W. 7.1576.
The fear is that under the present discretion, the Governor might give up the opium to the Farmer if the latter promises that it was covered by a permit and was not smuggled. He can do so under S.39, and this seems to me rather mischievous.
Yes. I did not gather that zm intended to amend S.39 in this respect. I submit draft despatch 15/2.