In
any
further communication
on this subject, please quote
No. F 7183737/10.
and address-
not to any person by name,
but to-
The Under-Secretary of State,''
Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.
Sir,
CIVED
A. 031
88
6
FOREIGN OFFICE.
S.W.1.
19th January, 1931.
With reference to the inter-Departmental
discussion at the Colonial Office on the 8th January on the
subject of the proposed Hongkong-China Customs Agreement, I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Henderson to inform you that the
wording of Article 12 (d) has been the subject of further
consultation between representatives of this Department and of
the Board of Trade.
2. It seems unreasonable that the Hongkong authorities,
acting on behalf of the Chinese Customs, should have power to
seize large ocean-going vessels on the ground that some salt
may have been secreted on part of the vessel by a member of
the crew or even by a passenger. The general international
practice is to confine powers of seizure to the type of small
craft on which, if smuggling takes place, it is likely to be
with the cognisance of the master or owner or owner-master.
example in England, by virtue of Section 1 of the Customs Act,
1890, the dividing line is drawn at vessels of two hundred and
fifty tons. In the case of Hongkong and the Treaty Ports of
China the type of vessel in question would appear to be that
covered by Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement.
For
3. It would therefore appear that the Article in question
should be amended by the addition after the words "if any vessel"
of the words "falling within the categories described in
"Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 above."
I am,
Sir,
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Your obedient Servant,
Caw Orde