284
}
(Translation.)
Sir,
4
Enclosure 6 in No. 1.
Governor-General of Canton to Consul-General Jamieson,
Canton, August 27, 1910.
I HAVE the bonour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, in which you informed me that you had learned from his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong, of two cases in which foreign raw opium, after payment of duty and li-kin, had been illegally seized by the Kuang yuan office and the owners thereof fined, one being outside You the customs station at Samshui, and the other in the Hsin t'aug district. accordingly requested me to secure the release of the opium and the remission of the fine.
Not being at that time in receipt of a report on the circumstances of these seizures, I at once instructed the Opium Prohibition Bureau to cause enquiries to be made, and furnish me with a report, of which I now have the honour to enclose a copy.
I note that the seizures of opium by the Kuang yian office at Samshui and Hsin t'ang were due to the fact that the individuals, who had purchased the drug and were conveying it inland, had failed to obtain trading licences, which is an infraction of the regulations laid down by the board; the seizures wore in no way connected with the prepared opium licence tax.
At the present time, when the prohibition of opium is being energetically enforced, the board's regulations must be complied with, and rigorous investigations be made, so that nothing way postpone the time when prohibition shall be complete.
You are an official of great experience, and cannot fail to agree with me in this.
(Translation.)
Enclosure 7 in No. 1.
I avail, &c.
(Seal of Governor-General.)
Report by Opium Prohibition Bureau.
THE recent institution of licences was due to the fact that at the present time the use of opium is being suppressed. Ou more than one occasion we have reverently received Imperial rescripts instructing us to make enquiries as to the true number of opium smokers in every place within our jurisdiction. We have, accordingly, drawn up strict regulations, which enact that, in conformity with the board's regulations, every raw opium hong must obtain a trading licence before heing allowed to import and sell raw opium. Similarly, every prepared opium shop, which purchases raw opium and boils it down, must report the number of balls it is proposed to buy and obtain a "boiling opiumi certificate before being allowed to prepare opiumu. Any infraction of these rules was punishable by heavy fines. The original object of these rules was mainly to further the work of supervision, in the hope that, within the prescribed period, prohibition would be complete. At the time a proclamation was issued and posted up everywhere, so as to bring these regulations to the knowledge of the most distant villages and the most secluded districts.
**
According to a report by Liang Chao-tang, of the Kuang yuan office, after its establishment, on the 2nd August, twenty balls of foreign opium were seized at the mouth of the river at Samshui. They had been bought in Hong Kong and had not passed through the Samshui Customs, but had travelled by a devious route to Wuchow in Kuang hsi, at which place, after having passed through the Customs, the original packages were broken; the opium was then brought into Kuangtung and there retailed.
With regard to this case, we find that, although the Wuchow Customs had stuck on sealed labels, they did not issue a transit certificate allowing the owners of the cargo to convey it to Kuangtung. On this occasion, when passing through Samshui, the Customs, after holding an enquiry, imposed a fine; the owners of the opium, however, did not report to the Samshui branch office of the Opium Prohibition Investigation Department that the opium had been brought there, but engaged another boat and took the opium into the country. The branch office of Samshui followed them, and, on enquiry, learned that the owners had no trading licence. The men in charge of the
5
opinun at once decamped, and there was nothing to do but seize the twenty balls of opium and convey them to Canton, furnishing a report on the matter to the Canton Prohi- bition Bureau and asking for instructions. We therefore issued orders to the following effect Until the persons in charge of the opium have been arrested and severely punished for their infraction of the regulations in not having obtained a licence to buy and import, the opium in question is to be kept in store and not confiscated. These are the true facts of the seizure of twenty balls of foreign opium at Sanshui.
The merchaut Liang again reports that on the 3rd August, at Hsin Tang, seventy- nine balls of foreign opium were seized. The persons in charge thereof, on examination, stated they had not a trading licence; the opium had been bought at the Hung Fa shop in Hong Kong and conveyed to the Chien Chang shop in Hsin Tang. The opium and the men in charge of it were then sent to Canton with a view to being examined by a magistrate. As, however, the men repeatedly begged, and expressed their entire willingness, to be fined 2,000 dollars, instead of being sent to the magistracy to be dealt with, enquiries were instituted at the time, but it was found that there did not exist at Hsiu Tang any shop of the style of Chien Chang; while from first to last the men in charge of the opium were unable to produce a trading licence. As, however, this occurred so shortly after the introduction of the new regulations, and in view of the offenders' repeated entreaties for exceptionally lenient treatment, the opium was returned to them to be conveyed to Sheklung, and there entrusted to a prepared opium shop, holding a trading licence, to be sold on their behalf, after which they were to pay, through the shop undertaking to receive the opium, the prepared opium tax amounting to 568 dol. 80 c.
The restrictious on opium are numerous and stringent. Apart from the trading licence there is a licence for the purchasing of raw opium and a licence for preparing opium, which were instituted with a view to controlling the amount of sales. Their chief aim and object was the suppression of the drug, and not the levy of taxes. The men in charge of the opium in question were conveying opium to the interior, and, not having trading licences, were guilty of a very grave offence against the regulations, and should properly have been sent to the magistracy to be dealt with in an exemplary manner. As, however, this occurred so soou after the regulations came into force, they were allowed to escape with a moderate fine, and we have issued instructions to this effect.
To sum up, the present system aims at a genuine prohibition of opium by instructing every Chinese merchant conveying opium to the interior to afford every opportunity for examination, and not to conceal anything.
Circumstances have changed. Before the prohibition of opium came into force any opium bearing sealed lables could go anywhere without being subject to further examination. In the two cases referred to above the offending partics were fined for importing and selling without holding licences, thereby infringing the regulations. This in no way affects the opium which has passed through the customs and paid duty. The line of demarcation is clear, and there is no breach of treaty. The repeated protests of the British consul-general are undoubtedly due to his not having understood the system of prohibiting opium. As, however, he has written in this sense, we have been compelled to issue instructions to the head and branch offices that, should they in future detect persons without trading licences or others, holding licences, who are clandestinely importing and selling unbroken packages of foreign opium without reporting the fact, they should severely deal with the individuals guilty of offences against the regulations, but should refrain from confiscating or finding the opium in the charge of such persons, so as to avoid any misunderstanding.
With regard to the consul-general's statement that, on a receipt for raw opium sold by the Kuang Jung Yuan firm, it is clearly indicated that the money, pledged as security for the tax, was received at the same time as the purchase money, we would point out that we have already issued stringent orders prohibiting this practice. Moreover, we have issued instructions to the Investigation Department to call for the production of the receipts issued by the Kuang Jung Yian firm for careful scrutiny; as a matter of fact none of them bore the impress of a wooden stamp stating that the tax and purchase money were paid simultaneously. The British consul-general bas now reaffirmed this stateinent, and we can but conclude that this is the work of those individuals who are trying to put obstacles and difficulties in the way of the work of prohibiting opium. We should be glad, however, if your Excellency would request His Britannic Majesty's consul-general to send the receipt in question to this office in order that searching enquiries may be made and the truth sifted out.
[957 »--2]
C
ov