3
Actually quoted by rice!
(1) Although on a smaller scale, it is
in principle the same as that rejected in
1927 and there is no particular reason to
reconsider the decision then taken.
(2) The situation in the Far East is
about to be investigated by a League of
Nations Commission which has now been definitely
appointed and is expected to start its work
in the Autumn. (Hong Kong were not aware of
this when the despatch was written but have now
been informed by telegram).
(3) The Governor implies that he was
promised permission to supplement his supplies
of Indian Opium with supplies from elsewhere,
meaning in practice from Persia. This is not
strictly accurate. We only promised to allow
the purchase of Persian Opium to supplement the
decreasing supplies of Indian Opium so far as
these are not sufficient to meet the demand for
Government Opium at present prices (see No.4
on 52836/28). It was never laid down that
1927 was to be taken as a standard year and
that Hong Kong supplies were to be fixed at the
amount imported then. This might in fact be a
dangerous principle from Hong Kong's point of
view in case the demand for Government Opium
even at present prices considerably increased
and they wanted to import more than the 1927
standard.
The arguments for this proposal are:-
(1) The expect ed increase in revenue, As
sis
13 on 302
30236/27
the
Mr. McElderry suggested in 1927
Hong Kong's principal reason.
It is a good
one