657
31
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
|ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
150
Enclosure in No. 104.
TABLE I-SEIZURES.
Raw Opium.
Prepared Opium.
1st-16th January
Taels. 1,633.3
Taels.
1st-16th January
225.94
17th January-15th February
606.5
16th January-15th February 3,174.45
16th February-14th March
2,180
16th February-14th March
1,460.41
15th March-30th March
3,386.5
15th March-30th March
4,301.00
1st April-14th April
$33.4
1st April-14th April
15th April-30th April
.8
15th April-30th April
1,728.73 42.25
1st January-30th April
8,610.5
1st January-30th April...10,932.78
TABLE II.-SALES OF GRADE II OPIUM DURINng April, 1928, @ $14.50 Per Taei..
2nd-7th April 9th-14th 16th-21st 23rd-28th
•
30th April
Total
Taels.
$
4,025.2
59,631.40
3,771.3
55,861.10
3,786.5
57,082.50
3,392.8
56,197.30
873.3
12,940,10
15.849.1
$241,712.40
KAMSHAN OPIUM @ $50 PER 3 TAELS.
1st-30th April
C. 52836/28 [No. 12].
1,431 taels $23,850.00
No. 105.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL OPIUM COMMITTEE. MINUTES OF THE 6th Meeting, held at thE HOME OFFICE on Monday, 9TH JULY, 1928.
Present:
SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE, Home Office, Chairman.
SIR GILBERT Grindle, Colonial Office.
MR. S. CAINE.
SIR C. CLEMENTI, Governor of Hong Kong.
MR. G. MOUNSEY, Foreign Office.
MR. M. D. PERRINS, Home Office, Secretary.
THE Committee met at the request of Sir Gilbert Grindle to meet Sir Cecil Clementi who wished to discuss the present opium situation in Hong Kong.
SIR C. CLEMENTI recapitulated the views expressed in his despatches, emphasized the seriousness of the situation and asked what was Hong Kong to do. The situation in Hong Kong was dominated by the smuggler. It was the duty of the Colonial Government to maintain the Government Monopoly but it was impossible to continue to do so without a sufficient supply of opium which they were not permitted to obtain. The alternatives were either to permit the Monopoly to increase its supply of opium or to repeal or at least modify the existing opium legislation.
SIR M. DELEVINGNE said that he had not expected that the purpose of the meeting was to reopen a question already decided by the Cabinet. The Cabinet had decided to ask the Council of the League to send a Commission to the Far East to inquire into • the opium smoking problem on the spot. and all the Committee could do was to con- sider how to further the policy of the Cabinet in this matter.
SIR G. GRINDLE said that it was quite clear that the question of the purchase of Persian opium by the Hong Kong Government to make good the reduction in the supply of Indian opium could be reopened at any moment.
151
SIR M. DELEVINGNE agreed that it was understood that the decrease in Indian pium supplied to the Government of Hong Kong as the result of the decision of the indian Government could be made good by purchase elsewhere.
SIR C. CLEMENTI pointed out that the difficulty lay in the fact that he was per- mitted to supplement his restricted Indian supplies only to meet the normal demands at present prices. As the present prices were within the reach only of the wealthy (the coolie could not be expected to pay more than 2 dollars a tael) the smuggler held the market. He complained that the position of the Hong Kong Government was not fully appreciated. It was required to maintain the Monopoly and to suppress sinuggling, but was not permitted to adopt the only means of carrying out these two duties. He asked for the reasons for the Cabinet decision. He confessed that he could not understand why in this matter a distinction had been made between Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, who were, he understood, permitted to purchase opium from Persia in unrestricted quantities. The present policy, in his view, was The fact that the smugglers were selling opium in great quantities pure eyewash.' and cheaply was well known and this wholesale breach of the law was known through- out the Colony. People were quite prepared to buy Monopoly opium but they could not get it, and in consequence an artificial crime had been created, and to meet this grievance, which he considered justifiable, the Government would be driven to repeal the opium legislation.
SIR G. GRINDLE said that he foresaw that the question would be asked whether the smuggling of cheap opium might not be expected to continue even if the Monopoly did increase its supplies and lower its prices. From what Sir Cecil Clementi had said there was a great demand for opium at a price lower than that of the cheap brands the monopoly had proposed to sell.
SIR C. CLEMENTI thought not, explaining that there was a price higher than the cheapest at which nevertheless the smuggler could not compete, because it would not pay the smugglers merely to smuggle cheap opium. It would not be worth their while unless they could smuggle the good as well as the inferior brands. It was the view of his officials that while the scheme was in operation (that is, while a $6 brand was on the market) there was no smuggling into Hong Kong, even of the cheapest (Sir M. Delevingne mentioned sorts, mixtures of opium and dross, which sold at $2. the experience at Formosa where smuggling is prevalent in spite of the low price.) He also looked at the matter from another point of view. Hong Kong had become a hase for the illicit traffic, e.g., it was used by the traffickers as a port for their exports to the United States of America and elsewhere. If the Monopoly could deprive the smuggler of the Hong Kong market, he would no longer have a sufficient inducement to come there and would move off somewhere else. Sir C. Clementi admitted that His scheme of low prices and increased supplies would have had to go on as long as there was any supply available in China for smuggling.
Referring to the League Commission, SIR CECIL said that it would, of course, be welcome in Hong Kong provided its purpose was not merely to criticize the Hong Kong administration, but he doubted whether it would ever be able to get at the facts as it would not be permitted to see things in China.
MR. MOUNSEY recounted the history of the events leading up to the request for
the League Commission and pointed out that its purpose was to provide data for the Conference in 1929.
SIR C. CLEMENTI doubted whether it would have time to do this unless it started at least as early as the New Year, even then he doubted whether it could get an accurate appreciation of the situation.
Mr. Mounsey was asked by the Committee to endeavour to hasten the replies from foreign Governments to the inquiry whether they were prepared to join in the request for the Commission.
MR. MOUNSEY agreed that the Foreign Office do this.
SIR M. DELEVINGNE asked Sir C. Clementi whether he had ever considered a policy of total prohibition but without extending the present measures against the illegal traffic, that is to say, concentrating on the importers and larger distributors rather than attacking the petty trafficker and individual smoker.
SIR C. CLEMENTI said that such a policy would involve the Colony in expenditure for the maintenance of a preventive service, without any counterbalancing revenue. He would not be able to get such a policy accepted by the Legislative Council. SIR G. GRINDLE thought that a proposal of this nature would be open to criticism as hum- bug, SIR M. DELEVINGNE said that there would appear to be no more humbug in such a policy than in the existing one.
1.
"