object to the Governor being instructed to withhold
travelling facilities.
Circumstances have however now changed.
He
claims to have gone out of the opium business and to
have no intention of engaging in any transactions
contrary to the Hong Kong law, and so far as we can
see there is no evidence that this is not the case.
Moreover, it seemed to us that the Hong Kong law is
now so stringent that if he or his firm in Hong Kong
should start dealing in opium again there ought not
to be any great difficulty in bringing him to book.
There was the further consideration (which
I mentioned to you) that we do not up, ear to have any evidence that the Hong Kong Nemuzi has any responsibility
for the transactions conducted by the businesses run
by other members of the family; but that, on the other hand, there are indications (e.g.the recent telegram from singapore) that the various concerns are independent
and not branches of one business
K
though of course
each concern no doubt has branches of its own.
In these circumstances it was submitted to
our