} S #waofonk of ewavlone-du?
noktalanerT
ansit ads to Istanɔd-tortovéð gattoa,nBuy Cons[Isoxt Bik
• Laroned-Ivano0.M.E.H,noastret .IM of gneux
.OIQI FI VINT (notus)
.££ . .II .I.H
#glasst add sybelwomiss of two nos sɗt ovad I
betujitent vitaeɔer erit to toeldva add no dodaqash woy to
em yaltaespor muigo bersqorq no trei oft gatanovog zaoitalUEST
dotdw‚amoitsinger esoft ni seenalo Ila awatbitiw staj od
GOULITOS Mifp tue querdo conacufton®
mutqo ods betouttant yibojaoqez gatved rattA
Bu datoriʊt bra rejtem ani otni extupna of usewƐ kottidir[or¶
I dalite to „troger a battlindua won asd ybod tadt Vigez a dtiw
‚“Onst såð voy of etsoinummos of wonon eft avad
add to IsteNSH=10NISVod to Ise2)
(.gnaux gnelI
•Y COLOPY.
"B."
Translation.
433
Report by Opium Prohibition Bureau to Acting
Governor-General.
CO 20883
Rec 22 AUG 10
The extended levy in the province of Kuang-
-tung is one collected on prepared and not on raw opium. It
does not, as we have already frequently pointed out, conflict
with the Treaty nor involve differential treatment.
H. B. M. Consul-General now writes to say
that the obligation on the prepared opium shops to have the raw opium they purchase boiled down within three days, prescribed by the regulations, constitutes an interference with trade. This stipulation was introduced with a view to guarding against the storing of opium by the merchants for long periods. If the time limit is held to be oppressive, there can be, no object- -ion to extending it slightly, but under no circumstances can the boilers be permitted to postpone boiling iæİZLİXİNİYİ in- -definitely. We would therefore propose, out of consideration
for those concerned, to alter the three days to ten. This does
away with a repetition of the argument that the levy is in
effect one on raw opium.
As regards the case of a certain native buyer, who is said to have purchased a ball of raw opium on
June 10 and, according to the receipt, to have been made to pay $7.20 in respect of the prepared opium tax at time of pur- -chase, which the Consul-general cites as proof of his con-
-tention, we would remark that he does not know that the ball
was purchased on June 7, and that the levy was not paid until
June 10. The account books of the seller and the registers of this office afford proof that it was not until after the expiry
of three days that the levy was collected. The statement made
is, therefore, not in accordance with fact.
We now come to the complaint of the Hongkong
Government that, as the Kuang Jung Yuan firm are still carry- -ing on their business, the grant to them of the collection
of