[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.j
со
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[27094]
No. 1.
525
25501
[July 2019 AUG 10.
SECTION 1.
Sir,
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received July 26.)
India Office, July 25, 1910. I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 19th July, 1910, relative to the prepared opium regulations of the province of Kwangtung,
In reply, I am to say that it is understood from the papers accompanying Mr. Max Müller's despatch that the tax for the levy of which the regulations provide is levied from prepared opium merchants, whether settled within the limits of the treaty port or outside those limits in other towns in the province.
As regards prepared opium dealers within the treaty port, the levy from them of the tax would appear to be a clear infringement of the Chefoo Convention, according to the interpretation placed upon its provisions in the past. Viscount Morley concurred in Sir Edward Grey's proposal to approve the terms of the In February 1909 note of the 2nd January, 1909, addressed by Sir J. Jordan to the Wai-wu Pu, in which this interpretation was maintained (see letter dated the 18th February, 1909). Viscount Morley agrees that there is no reason for departing from the position then taken up.
As regards prepared opium dealers outside the limits of the treaty port, Viscount Morley concurs with Sir Edward Grey that articles 4 and 7 of the regulations seem devised to get round the stipulation in the Chefoo Convention that no local tax shall be levied on opium so long as it is in unbroken packages and under seal. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that in practice these articles may indirectly interfere with the wholesale trade between the raw opin dealer and the prepared opium dealer.
I am to return the letter dated the 14th June of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, and, with reference to the copy of a letter dated the 18th July of Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. accompanying your further communication dated the 21st July, to suggest that it should be ascertained from Mr. Max Müller whether, as reported by Messrs. Sassoon and Co., the Wai-wu Pu has undertaken to inform the Viceroy that the tax is illegal. If the illegality of the tax has been admitted, it should be within the power of the Imperial Chinese Government to make the repeal of the illegal tax effective, and it may be properly pressed to do so.
I am,
&e.
R. RITCHIE.
[2812 cc-1
-1]