2
25
trate any opium forfeited under the provisions of section 35, I may call your Excellency's attention for a moment to the fact that section 38 did not give power to forfeit opium at all; it only provided that if opium were forfeited which had been found on board a steamer without being entered on the manifest the Magistrate might reserve it for the disposal of the Governor, but it could only be forfeited under the Ordinance as it then stood, that is, if it was not protected by the Opium Farmer's certificate. It was not an offence involving any penalty simply to have had opium on board a steamer which was not on the manifest. The only offence which gave rise to forfeiture was its being unprotected by a licence. Therefore if that was introduced with the idea that it empowered the Magistrate to forfeit opium simply because it was on a steamer and not on land, there was a mistake somewhere, and a recent decision of the Supreme Court decided that question. Opium could only be forfeited under section 35, and all such opium was the property of the Opium Farmer. There were certain conditions attached, but you will see none of these affect the present question. Now, the tender of the Hau Fook for the Farm was accepted and they gave very substantial security for the carrying out of their contract, and shortly afterwards a formal grant was made to them. (The learned counsel then read the grant, emphasising the words by which the Farmers were granted "all the benefit and advantage of the said Ordinance.") The Opium Farmer under that grant has for the last two years and three months exercised those privileges unquestioned and has paid a very considerable sum into the Colonial Treasury in respect thereof. Now, what is the defect in the conditions under which the Opium Farmer holds and exercises these privileges which it is sought to remedy by the Bill now before the Council? The complaint is that very valuable steamers which run between this port and Canton and Macao are exposed under the revenue laws of China to very grave risk of forfeiture and to the possibility of being subjected to very serious fines, because people in this colony will attempt on board those steamers to smuggle prepared opium—and I confine myself entirely to prepared opium, because the present Ordinance and the Farm have nothing to do with anything but prepared opium—will persist in endeavouring to smuggle prepared opium from this colony into Chinese jurisdiction, that they bring prepared opium on board, concealing it on board the steamer, and that in spite of all the exertions of the officers such hidings very frequently cannot be discovered before the arrival of the steamer in Chinese waters, that they are probably discovered by the activity and zealous endeavours of the Chinese Customs, and that the steamer is exposed to grave risk, even of confiscation, that there is no provision of law which makes it a penal act to endanger these steamers, and that some remedy ought to be found. Now, I will take the liberty to point out to your Excellency and this honourable Council that the complaint that there is no remedy, that the steamboat Companies are powerless in the matter, is entirely unfounded. They have a perfect and complete remedy in their own hands, and it is a remedy of which they have in past times frequently availed themselves. If prepared opium is found on board one of their steamers they simply have to take possession of it and deliver it to the Customs in Canton or the first officer who comes on board, and neither the Opium Farmer nor anyone in Hongkong will get any benefit from it. And the Customs were prepared to pay, and did pay until the Company refused to allow their officers to accept it, a reward to the officers who discovered and gave up that opium. If the discovery is made bare and the opium is in large quantity they may land it and there is no harm done to them or anyone else. If they discover it after they have got to sea they can put it on the manifest and state the facts when they arrive at Canton, and they will be allowed to land it and get their freight on it, or they can give it up to the Customs. If they do not find it before the Customs find it, neither this Ordinance nor any Ordinance will help them in the slightest degree. Now, assuming they have no remedy, and the law ought to help them in some way, what assistance is it proposed to give them and what effect will it have on the Opium Farm? We have caused inquiries to be made from the
0
Imperial Maritime Customs of China and what I have stated as the former practice is, we have been informed, still the rule and practice of the Customs But the Imperial Maritime Customs at Canton or Macao will not interfere in the least degree with any man who has a supply of opium with him not exceeding what he may require for his own use on the voyage or for a day or two afterwards. They may make him pay the duty. We who have travelled are aware of the practice in all civilised countries. If a man has in his baggage or on his person a reasonable quantity of dutiable goods and does not attempt to smuggle them, but declares them and offers to pay the duty, the Customs will simply collect the duty. There is no liability attaching to the man in possession of the goods, much less to the steamer by which he is travelling. The Canton Customs do not interfere with any passenger carrying a small quantity of opium; we have ascertained that to-day. If there is a large quantity it is forfeited, but there is no punishment on the individual, and it is only when large quantities are found concealed in the steamer that any questions arise as to the steamer's liability to fines or forfeiture; and if any quantity is found by the captain or officers and handed over to the Customs it is forfeited and the Customs are prepared to give a reward for it. But the most important matter for me at present is this, that the Harbour Master's returns show that over 600,000 Chinese went from Hongkong to Canton and Macao last year, and the greater portion of them in steamers, only about 12,000 going in launches and junks. Anyone who has travelled on the steamers has seen that nearly every Chinese passenger has opium with him and is smoking. The supply of that 600,000 is a very important item in the Opium Farmer's business and materially affects his ability to pay the Government the amount agreed upon; and this Bill makes every bit of opium, whether on board the ship as cargo or in the possession of the poorest passenger on board, liable to forfeiture. I say, assuming for a moment this Bill ought to be allowed to pass in any form, its provisions ought to be modified, and modified to a very serious extent. And in connection with that I would call your Excellency's attention to section 33 of Ordinance 21 of 1891, which deals with the case where steamers arrive in this colony having prepared opium on board in violation of the Opium Farmer's privilege. If a steamer comes into this harbour and has on board less than 50 taels' weight of opium there is no penalty under this Ordinance, even for the protection of the Opium Farmer here. Now, if this Bill is passed, I say some similar limitation should be introduced into the third section, which professes to amend section 38 of Ordinance 21 of 1891, and that it ought not to stand as it stands now. Under the section as it stands a man having a tael's weight of opium for his own use on the voyage, or there and back again, has got to enter it on the ship's manifest or not have it at all. Practically that would amount to preventing any person about to travel to Canton or Macao purchasing or taking any opium with him for a voyage. Secondly, I venture to ask your Excellency whether the word "ship," which in the definition clause is stated to mean
any steamer or sailing vessel, junk, boat, sampan, or any kind of craft used for the conveyance of persons or things by water, or which may be so used," should not be amended. As it stands, any man going to Canton by the smallest fishing junk and having on board a little opium for his own use will be required, if this Bill is passed, to enter it on the ship's manifest, and if he does not do so it is liable to forfeiture. But your Excellency will please understand that on behalf of the Opium Farmer we are formally protesting against the passing of this Ordinance in any shape or form, that even if there should be a limit of 10 taels as regards the weight of the opium liable to seizure, that even if the word "ship" should be altered to "steamer," the Opium Farmer is persuaded it will interfere very seriously with his sales of opium. And there is another consideration, that under the provisions of his grant he has sold to a number of other people, not the power of preparing, because he himself prepares all the opium, but the power of selling opium, for which they are paying him under contracts very considerable sums of money, and these contracts are running up to the end of his term, and if they who have taken these contracts and agreed to pay him these sums of money!