451
(and Nemazee in particular) the Hong Kong opium laws
were strengthened by the passing of the 1923 and 1924
Ordinances under which no person or firm in Hong Kong
may procure or deal in opium except under licence
issued by the Governor and no opium may be brought into
or taken out of the Colony except under a permit
issued by the Superintendent of imports and exporte.
In
In September last (45540) when the amending
Ordinance was passed, the Governor suggested that
licences should only be issued for individual consign-
ments and on his being satisfied that import is approved
by the Government of the country of destination.
November (52983) after consultation with Foreign
office and Home Office, it was suggested to the Governor
that he would probably find it sufficient in the first
instance to issue general licences to firms of known
probity and good standing. As a safeguard it was
suggested further that such general licences should
be limited to purchases on Government account.
(N.3. Nothing was said about refusing licences
for individual transactions by firms not sufficiently
respectable to be given general licences).
In the meantime (52147) the Formosa Monopoly
ordered 200 chests of Persian opium from the M.B.K.
who wished to purchase from another Hong Kong firm
(presumed to be Nemazee), and Governor enquired by
telegram on the 6th of November whether licences
should be granted.
He was told in reply on the 8th
of November that a Japanese import certificate should
first be demanded; and a week later was given the
general ruling mentioned in the preceding paragraph
52983).
On the 28th of Novencer a despatch dated 20th
of
A
ЭН
of October was received from the Governor (55807) : (1) referring to the Secretary of State an applica- tion by the H.B.K. for licence to buy 100 chests
Karang Tung of opium from emazee for Fakta¦ (This despatch was on its way home when the Governor's telegram of 6th November
it.) was sent; yet that telegram/referell to a de
does not
(2) sending copy of a licence granted to Mackinnon, Mackenzie and Company.
This despatch was referred to the Home Office who replied on the 14th January (2113/25) that a licence might be issued to the H.B.K., but presumed that Yemazee would not be permitted to engage in any form of transection in opium or drugs.
The present despatch (4143/25) (like the tele- gram of 6th November 52147) does not refer to the Governor'e despatch of the 20th of October (55807)
Zhis is very curious, and though the broad facts nee 1-think-sufficiently siens, it is impossibl
Groentengia ties comisteirbut pres
'esumably the
Governor regards the ruling given on 52983 28
settling his reference in 55807.
There are now two questions which seem to
require consideration;-
(a) Whether (as the Governor and Home Office
have understood) Nemazee is not to be given any
licence at all even for clearly legitimate trans-
actions?
This seems to be going rather further than
my conception of what was intended. I had assumed
in fact that it was only the general licences which
would be confined to the "firms of known probity
and good standing," and that individual legitimate
transactions would be licenced even when carried
out by Nerazee.
(b)