PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 882
en
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
32
3. So long ago as 1889, my predecessor, Mr. Lister, occupied himself with the drafting of a Consolidation Ordinance, having for its object the simplification of the existing law and the incorporating into it of certain improvements; the chief alteration necessary was the re-defining of the term "loose opium." It had been agreed by the Commission that raw opium should not be exported from Hong Kong in quantities less than one chest. This understanding was supposed to have been provided for by section 6 of Ordinance 22/87 which lays down that "no person except the opium farmer or the licensed retail dealers shall have in his possession, or under his custody or control, raw opium in quantities less than one cheat, &c. &c.," (a chest being defined as "the package with the opium therein, such as is usually imported by merchants in the Colony"), and also by the proviso in the farmer's contract that he was not to part with loose opium. A decision of the Acting Chief Justice to the effect that, so long as an amount equal to what would be contained in a chest was found in possession the requirements of the law were satisfied, and that there was no necessity for the opium to be actually in a chest came as a surprise to the Government and appeared to necessitate or at any rate render advisable a change in the law so as to enable us to continue to carry out the agreement into which we had entered. Other alterations bad suggested themselves, some of which were to be found in Mr. Lister's Consolidation Ordinance. This measure was introduced into Council during the present year. I had not then taken up the opium question, but I was very doubtful as to the Bill proving entirely satisfactory, and, as a matter of fact the purpose which ultimately it was found to have best served, was the eliciting of opinions from all interested in the matter. During the recess, I went very carefully into the whole matter, frequently consulting Sir James Russell, whose intimate knowledge of the subject has been of the greatest assistance to me throughout, I examined the whole of the voluminous correspondence which had taken place since the last letting of the farm in the beginning of 1889, had repeated interviews with the farmer, the opiuin importers, and the dealers, and endeavoured in every way to place myself in a position to advise Government correctly on the question. After much deliberation, it was decided that the advantages attaching to consolidation would be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantage of mixing up of a semi-diplomatic undertaking with provisions for the regulation of a local farm and that it was therefore desirable to leave the existing form of the Ordinances undisturbed.
4. The difficulty as regards exportation of loose opium has, it is hoped, been met by the new definition, which I submit contains several important provisions in a very small compass. Loose opium is now defined as meaning "all raw opium found or "discovered (1) otherwise than in a chest, (2) full, (3) of one quality, (4) of raw " opium;" section VI. of the amending Ordinance confirms what has practically been the custom as to the moving of raw opium at night. The provision contained in section XIV., was inserted at the request of the farmer so as to enable him to keep a check on dealers attempting to extract opium from chests prior to exporting them and then using the amount so extracted against his interests. His suspicion that this infraction of the law was practised, appeared to be a correct one, and to afford a loophole for injuring him, which it was advisable to close.
5. As regards the prepared Opium Ordinance, it will be seen that the new Ordinance contains numerous amendments. It has been drafted with great care by the Acting Attorney-General and myself, and should, I consider, prove of great assistance in securing for the Colony a good price for its farm, while at the same time care has been taken to avoid unnecessarily sacrificing private interests to the augmenting of our
revenue.
6. It may be of interest to enumerate here the principal suggestions made during the last three years with the method in which they have, when deemed feasible, been dealt with by the new Ordinance.
Suggestions by the Opium Farmer.
1. Ships bringing in contraband opium should be liable to a heavy penalty, as in the Straits Settlements. 50 per cent. of the opium smoked in Hong Kong is snuggled in, 35 per cent from Macso, 15 paź cent. from China
Note-Thr is good reason to believe that at least 20 chests a month are smuggled in from Macso, The amount "smuggled from China is uncertain.
How dealt with.
1. In the Straits a ship bringing in 10 lbs. of opium is liable to for- feiture. It has been thought advisable, in the interests of our revenue, to follow this example to a certain extent, but it has seemed preferable to substitute a heavy fine for forfeiture, and to exempt from punishment where it can be shown that every reasonable precaution has been taken to prevent smuggling (Section XXXIII.),
Suggestions by the Opium Farmer.
2. Greater facilities should be pro- vided for the searching of passengers and their luggage.
3. The amount of dross which a man may have in his possession should be limited.
4. Names of informers should not be disclosed.
5. Cases should be tried on their merits without reference to matters of form.
6. Aiding and abetting should be punished.
As it is to the interest of the farmer to smuggle to Canton, and as heavy penalties are imposed by the Chinese Customs on ships bringing in contra-
33
How dealt with,
2. The powers conferred upon the farmer in this respect were limited to the enabling him to take to a police station, to be there searched, any person reasonably suspected of smuggling. As Chinese are inveterate smugglers, the farmer naturally suspected the majority of the passengers by every Canton and Macao steamer of smuggling, and, as neither ho nor they wished to waste time, the searching has taken place on the wharf. The new Ordinance legalises this (Section XXIX. 2), but as there have been complaints as to the manner in which the searches are conducted, the presence of a European sergeant of police has been made imperative, as in the Straits, and compensation by the farmer in the event of the search being unsuccessful has been provided for in certain cases (Section XLVIII.) This arrangement has been very favourably received in the Colony.
8. This has been done (Section IV. (8)), but it has been stipulated that the dross farmer most buy any excess (being the result of smoking on the possessor's premises) at a reasonable rate.
4 and 5. These provisions exist in the Straits law, and have been incorporated into our new Ordinance.
6. Section XLVI. not only provides for this but also for dealing with attempts. This short section should prove very useful.
In ordinary cases the farmer is encouraged by receiving certain pro- ceeds of detected amuggling, but, as it appeared possible that there might be some truth in the River Steamship Company's contention, it has been enacted (Section XXXVIII.), that opium found on board steam- band, no opium found on their steam-ships bound to Canton or Macao, but not appearing on the manifest of ships in course of being smuggled into such steamship shall not be granted to the farmer till the decision of the China should on discovery be granted Governor to that effect had been received. to the farmer.
7. The Commissioner of Customs made several suggestions for the better protection of the revenue of China, but, as many of them appeared to go considerably beyond the limits of the original agreement, as it was not proposed to impose similar restrictions upon Macao, and as China had benefited very largely already by the various concessions made to her, and which were being steadily amplified by us, it was not deemed necessary or advisable to give effect to more than a few.
8. The Bills passed through Council without eliciting any suggestions of much value. Mr. Whitehead, in emphatic terms, attacked the principle of the farm, and finally opposed the third reading of the Bill because the Government would not promise to limit the life of the next farm to three years. He was (as was to be expected from the attitude recently assumed by them vis-à-vis the Government) supported in this opposition by Messrs. Ryrie & Ho Kai. I endeavoured at the time to show the futility of attempting to obtain anything approaching the amount of revenue we were entitled to expect from the luxury, if this recommendation were adopted. I showed that if smuggling takes place when the duty on a chest of raw opium is fixed at $200 (as in China) it would become enormous in amount if the duty were raised sufficiently to secure for us, even nominally, a revenue approximating to that now accruing to the Colony, and that this would necessitate the Government keeping up a large customs staff to replace the body of excise officers now employed by the farmer. During the debates it was pointed out that the misconduct of which the farmer was accused was asserted only, not proved (and I submit that even if smokers are put to some inconvenience now, that hardly seems a weapon of which those who, with Mr. Whitehead, deplore the connexion of Government with opium, can well avail themselves). The searching on the wharves which was declared to be so objectionable has now been placed under control, and if searching sheds are desired by the customers of the River Steamship Company, nothing can be more simple than for the latter to erect them.
9. With every desire to give full consideration to every objection which could be urged against the system of farming out the collection of the opium revenue, I could not regard Mr. Whitehead's speech as other than crude and unsatisfactory, betraying an entire want of knowledge of the subject, and appealing to hysterical sentiment rather than to common sense. A good deal of the objection taken to the present farmer is due, as Dr. Ho Kai naively pointed out, to the fact that he is not a native of the neighbour- ing province of China, and it is quite possible that very little of this opposition will be experienced if the next farmer happens to be a persona grata to the Hong Kong Chinese, E
U 74470.