T
be many and should entail considerable
expense for a preventive service. Mr. Stubbs in his minute on Gov/21888/12 suggested that this is unsound: "If the farmer can pay a preventive staff and still make a profit, why can't the Government?" I think Kr Stubbs overlooked the fact that the farmer didn't care twopence if chandu were smuggled from Hong Kong to
China (he had sold it to
profit, even if he dion'
the smuggler and made his
smuggle on his own account
as is believed); that there would not be much smuggling from China to Hong Kong; and that consequently he would only need a small preventive staff to prevent smų:ling overseas into Hong Kong which alone was likely to hit his pocket. The Government
on the other hand, is morally bound to stop smugling into China from Tong Hong and that is where the expense and loss will come. However the estimates of the proposed Department make allowance for 64 preventive officers in addition to those now employed in the Liquor duties some thirty and I presume that the Governor and Mr. Hutchison think that this number of
men will be able to cope with the question. I have some doubts: but we shall le rn whether more are "anted very soon after the system is introduced. In any case the experiment is well worth trying, especially in view of the possible abolition of the traffic and the uncertain continuance of the farm.
There is one point which does not appear to have been considered. The Straits Government her taken into its own hands the sole right of importing opium. I am not sure whether Hong Kong propores to follow suit, but I think they should. The trade with China is dying out and very shortly opium will only come to ong Kong for local consumption and for
export
+
But
on the stren
showing the fort in underst
an equal moral
Migation to prevent
pagling with China what
under the fac
or the monopuchy system.
Rus
ys. Ш
:
*
39.000
no. su Calcutta
auction pricin
273
export to places which still allow it. As the Hong Kong Goverment propose to take a monopoly of preparing a andu for export they should I think also exercise the monopoly of import.
and
The figures supplied are interesting to compare with the present system. The farmer pays $1,183,200 for his monopoly. He can boil 540 chests for local con- sumption; and it is calculated that about 1100 taels of chandu go to the chest. The figures given in enclosure 2 allow 1080 taels to the chest only 40 chests a month. The price is fixed at $5.50 a tael and the gross revenue is thus $2,851,300. Against this there is the cost of the new Department ($108,751); in the first year the special expenditure required for purchasing factory fistings, &c.; and the cost of the raw opium $1,014,940.
So far as I can make out this last sum works out
at about $2110 a chest which is roughly £310; this is high for uncertificated opium but is of course due to the fact that it is based on Sassoon's prices.But taking this figure as about right, the nett revenue
But they must kay from chandu sold locally should be ±1,797, 509 as at least three contig stock, as chandur.
1
against $1,183,200 now paid by the farmer.
hut neskall meters It is not quite clear whether the forty chests
it is two month old
at least. We
* /did it make myself
das. to Sassoons Last fornered the market the Skatta hice with he
But they choose to maken.
JK
ium
nonth, on which the figures re bared includes
repared for export. If not, bu revenue could be
rati.er more.
I think the scheme should be approved; the Superin-
Lendent wil re a diimis job, and i' should, I
aree, be des Plass II part.
Permanent