S.0.140.
Home Office,
Whitehall,
S.W. 1.
23rd July, 1926.
5
My dear Grindle,
Paskin's note of the 19th instant (C.13188/26) to Perrins about the draft despatch to Hong Kong on the case of Nemazee has come on to me. The question of allowing Nema zee facilities being one about which we feel strongly, I have consulted Sir John Anderson in regard to your objection to renewing the instructions which were given to the Governor by the Colonial Office in 1924 on our suggestion, and which were to the effect that "if Mr. Nema zee returned to Hong Kong no travelling facilities which could in any way facilitate his illicit operations should in future be granted to him or members of his family or firm". Your view, I gather, is that because there is no proof to controvert the claim that the Hong Kong firm have gone out of the opium business, and because there is only a mere suspicion that Nemazee may be doing what his son is able to do "openly and lawfully " under another British administration (I presume this is a reference to the branch at Bombay), Namazee should be allowed by the Hong Kong Government complete liberty of action to travel about in the Far East and to Persia, or
where he might be able to do business inopesim and drugs. anywhere else, duzzaszós position seems to us to be indefensible. and other countries have had of Nema zee, he has no claim to be treated as though he were innocent until something definite can be proved against him. The onus of proof should be on him, in our opinion, and not on the Hong Kong Government. It is possible that he may keep clear of anything which could be regarded as illegal under the Hong Kong Ordinances, but our responsibility does not end there. As long as his
This
After all the experience we