[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 572
C.
10008
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL,
[May 15.]
REC2
&
REG 16 JUN 11
SECTION 3.
[18351]
(No. 177.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received May 15.)
IN my despatch No. 144 of the 4th instant, I enclosed copies of correspondence in
Peking, April 25, 1911. regard to the seizure at Samshui of thirty-six chests of Indian opium in transit for Kiangsi which were subsequently released.
Messrs. Sassons had also complained of fresh seizures at Amoy, and I stated in my despatch that I was in communication with His Majesty's consul there in regard to the matter. I have the honour to transmit the copies of a despatch and enclosures from Mr. Sundius from which it appears that on the 19th January, three chests of Bengal opium and ten chests of Malwa opium, shipped from Hong Kong to Amoy, were seized in the district of Wing Ting. Duty and li-kin had been paid and the transit certificate taken out. Moreover the Chinese could not urge in this case the usual pretext that the owner had committed a breach of the regulations.
The above main facts seemed to be sufficiently clearly established to justify a protest to the Chinese Government. His Majesty's consul having failed to obtain redress I brought the matter to the notice of the Wai-wu Pu on the 18th instant, in a note, of which I have the honour to enclose copy.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Consul Sundius to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 7.) Sir,
Amoy, March 16, 1911. I HAD the honour to receive your telegram No. 2 of the 14th instant, instructing me to furnish full details by telegraph of the alleged seizure in this district of opium the property of Messrs. Sassoon and Co., and the following day to reply in my telegram No. 3 that I was not in possession of any particulars beyond Sassoon and Co.'s statement that the authorities apparently knew nothing about the scurrence, also that according to Sassoon's own statement the opium supposed to have been seized was no longer their property.
I have now the honour to enclose copies of the more essential correspondence which has passed between this office and the colonial secretariat at Hong Kong as well as with the local and provincial authorities concerned. From this it is evident that the last named have no knowledge of the alleged seizure; it is hard to imagine them carrying on a game of make-believe so long without any adequate motive. When I addressed the enclosed despatch to the Colonial Secretary I believed that the alleged seizure was part of a general national movement, as my writer, who is an enthusiastic admirer of the abolition society, was sure that this was part of their work. subsequent correspondence, telegraphic and otherwise, has caused me to modify
my views.
The
I had every intention of referring the matter to Peking as soon as I had collected sufficient data, but I did not feel justified in submitting the case for diplomatic treat- ment with the meagre information to hand, which, moreover, has not been supplemented.
While on this subject I shall be much obliged if you will tell me at what point opium loses its claim to foreign protection and becomes liable to such imposts or other disabilities as the authorities may think fit to subject it to with a view to its final suppression.
In the present case, according to Sassoon and Co.'s statement to the Colonial Secretary, the opium had already been sold to a native merchant, and had, for all that
[2011 p-3]
B
: