f
566
,
now od
*'. bo bora ér. 11
*tael of morphine and $3.00 per tsel of opium". There is no
correspondence on record showing why this change was made while
the bill was in the press, and on the 10th October, 1908 the
Crown Solicitor wrote:- "I wish to draw attention to the fact,
*which may have been overlooked, that the proposed royalty of
*$30.00 per tael of morphine is extraordinarily high. Mr. Frank
*Browne (The Government Analyst) informe me that the cost of
*morphine is 8/6d (say $5.00 per tael), so that the proposed
"duty is at the rate of about 600%. As chemists are obliged to
"keep morphine in stock for the purpose of making up prescriptions
# and this drug is, I believe freely used by the local medical men,
"the effect of imposing auch a royalty will be to increase the
"cost to Europeans of all prescriptions containing morphine, and
as there will be no royalty on patent medicines, if they are
"exempted, the net result would be to encourage the consumption
"of patent medicines in preference to medicines prepared by
"qualified medical men, a result which hardly can be intended
"by the promoters of this bill."
Upon thie the Acting Colonial Secretary, Mr. Sercombe
Smith minuted on the 11th idem:- *The question of the royalty
*on morphine was discussed in Executive Council and it was
"advised that there was no substance in the point about chemists'
"charges. I notice, however, that in China the tariff is 3 taels
"an ounce and Japan Yen 4.854 per kin of 1.38277 lbs avoirdupois”.
Sir M.Nathan decided in a minute of the same date to
make no change in this section: and the bill was passed by the
î Legislative Council without discussion on that date and assented
to by Sir M.Nathan on the 8th November 1906. (Ord.No.15 of 1908).
I have examined both the minutes of Executive Council
and the Hansard reports of debates in Legislative Council for
the year 1906 and I cannot find any mention in them the royalty
on morphine or any statement of the reason why it was fixed at
EM A NUMMER
$30.00