14. Every licensee must paint, or cause to be painted, in characters of at least 6 inches, on some conspicuous part of his house or shop, and keep there exhibited, his name with the words "licensed to sell prepared opium."
15. For every breach of any of the above conditions, the penalty shall be a sum not exceeding $500, in addition to any other forfeiture or liability specially provided for under the said conditions.
Council Chamber, Hong Kong, February 21, 1883.
5
inquire whether you can throw any light upon their statement to the affect that you undertook to "adopt means to prevent merchants in any other British Colony exporting opium to Australia and California," in regard to which it appears clear that you must have been misunderstood by the writers.
ARATHOON SETH,
Clerk of Councils.
7471.
SIB,
No. 3.
I am, &c.
ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.
SIR,
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Woo KEE COMPANY to ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY.
Hong Kong, January 27, 1883.
We have the honour to offer the following explanation regarding the conditions of the opium monopoly of this Colony :—
We cannot but feel very grateful to His Excellency the late Governor in Council for having granted us the sole privilege of the monopoly for the current year, but, unfortun- ately, we have lost money by the transaction. As our agreement will have expired on the 28th day of February next it is but just to both the Government and ourselves that we should clearly and explicitly lay the case before you. There are now rich merchants in Penang, who prepare opium there, and export it to both Australia and California; for this privilege they pay to the monopolist of that place at the rate of 50 cents for each ball of opium which they so prepare, being at the rate of 20 dollars per chest. They are thus enabled to place their opium in the markets of Australia and California at a must less cost than we who have to pay such a heavy tax to the Government of this Colony. The reason why we offered to take the existing privilege for the sum of two hundred and ten thousand dollars ($210,000) per annum was because His Excellency Governor Hennessy told us that he would adopt means to prevent merchants in any other British Colony exporting opium to Australia and California; consequently we offered the highest possible price. In other places than Penang opium is prepared and- exported, but not in such quantities as to seriously interfere with our business; our only great rival being the Company of Penang. Seeing that our trade is so bad some of our partners are about to retire from our firm. All this shows that for a firm to take over the monopoly under the existing rules, and at the present high rate of revenue, would be to insure a heavy loss. As we are opium merchants by profession, and the holders of the privilege of preparing and selling opium in this Colony and its dependencies, we feel desirous of continuing to enjoy that privilege. We, therefore, beg to ask that the Govern- ment would kindly grant us a renewal of our agreement under the following conditions, viz. :-That we be allowed to prepare and sell opium in this Colony and its deper- dencies, and export it therefrom, and that for such privilege we shall pay to the Govern- ment the sum of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) per month, payments to be made monthly.
Should the Government see fit at any time to revoke that privilege, that they give us one month's notice, and should we be able to do so, by giving three month's notice to the Government.
SIR J. POPE HENNESSY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
•
12, Curzon Street, Mayfair, May 2, 1883. WITH reference to your letter of the 27th ultimo, you are quite right in assuming that the late opium farmers in Hong Kong are under a misapprehension in thinking that I undertook to adopt means to prevent merchants in any other Colony from exporting opium to California or Australis.
The only conditions on which I sold the farm were those published in the Government Gazette, and in the documents duly recorded in the Colonial Secretary's office.
I have, &c.
7711.
(No. 70.)
MY LORD,
No. 4.
J. POPE HENNESSY.
ACTING GOVERNOR MARSH to the EARL OF DERBY, (Received May 8, 1883.)
Government House, Hong Kong,
March 26, 1883.
I HAVE the honour to transmit for Her Majesty's gracious allowance and confirma- tion Ordinance No. 4 of 1883,† entitled, "The Excise Ordinances (Opium) 1858-1879 Amendment Ordinance, 1883.'
2. I also forward the usual report+ of the Attorney-General and a letter from the Treasurer explaining the reasons that rendered this legislation necessary.
3. The second draft ordinance referred to in the Treasurer's letter was read a first time only, and a suspending clause was inserted. It will, I believe, not be found noose- sary to take any further steps respecting this Bill, which was drafted at a time when it was impossible to foresee clearly what steps might become necessary in consequence of Government undertaking to issue licenses for the preparation and sale of opium direct to applicants.
I have, &c.
W. H. MARSH, Administering the Government.
PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Hon. Fred. Stewart, LL.D.,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
5955.
No. 2.
I am, &c.
Woo KER Company.
COLONIAL OFFICE to SIR J. POPE HENNESSY. [Answered by No. 3.]
Downing Street, April 27, 1883.
Sin,
I AM directed by the Earl of Derby to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter,* addressed to the Acting Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong, by the late opium farmers at Hong Kong, relating to the letting of the farm for the current year, and to
• Enclosure 2 in No. 1,
Enclosure in No. 4.
The COLONIAL, Treasurer to the ACTING Colonial SecrKTALY.
Colonial Treasury, Hong Kong,
March 3, 1883.
SIR,
Ar the recent conference of the members of Executive and Legislative Councils I pointed out that what was known' as the dross farm could be sold at probably $8,000.
I explained that there were nearly 100 of these dross shops, and that the farmer of the opium monopoly had managed to get a fair revenue from them. Although he had the power of granting licenses, another person taking "the dross farm," which is not recog nised in the ordinances now existing, could not legally grant licenses or maintain say action, and it is, therefore, necessary to amend the existing law.
I think I should here explain what the dross farm is and how it is worked.
• No. 3.
† Not printed.
A 3