671
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTC.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
1
a
178
l'ersian opium. You agree with that, so I need not labour the point; but it is worth recalling perhaps that our Consul General at Bushire in his despatch of the 24th March, 1927, looking at it from a somewhat different angle, emphasized the importance to British trade interests of the methods and agents adopted.
Coming to the question of what ought now to be done, I may say that I have held no brief during our discussions for the agency method which was recommended by the Interdepartmental Conference nor for the method of direct purchase from the Persian firms through the agency of the Consul-General at Bushire, to which you refer in
your letter as my suggestion, but which in fact came from the Consul-General (see in particular the despatches from Bushire of the 1st December, 1926,* and 5th June, 1927). There seems to me, however, to be a danger of making a mistake if the Home Government take a decision in deference to local prejudice without further examination and exploration. Though the agency system was no suggestion of mine, there is much to be said in its favour. It was approved by the expert adviser of the Straits Government as safeguarding its interests and it is not open to criticism so far as I can see from other quarters. On the contrary, it would enable the Government, as it seems to me, to keep a much more direct control over the purchases than will be possible under the system of tenders and might exercise a salutary influence on the Persian trade.
On the other hand I can see no objection in principle, from the point of view of the Home Government in its relation to the general opium problem, to the method of purchase by tender, provided that adequate steps are taken to keep the contract out of wrong hands. As you point out in the draft telegram, it is essential, if that method is adopted, to prevent the Government being involved in any dealings with firms under suspicion of being connected with the illicit traffic
As regards Nemazi himself, I do not think I should be called upon at this time of day to spend time and trouble in debating the matter at length. The remark of the Governor in paragraph 14 of the despatch (the almost insolent tone of which he takes little trouble to conceal) and the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General for the Colony, seem to me to be highly significant. The Attorney-General's memorandum, of course, completely misses the point of the matter recorded by our Consul-General at Saigon in his letter of the 16th March, 1923.§ Nemazi was tried for an attempt to bribe an official. That is not the important point. The important point was that he, a British subject, was engaged in an attempt to smuggle opium from Indo-China into China in violation of Chinese law and of the obligations undertaken by this country. Ilis acquittal on the charge of bribing has no bearing on this point, though the Attorney-General seems to think it had. It is clear from the despatch that there was no doubt whatever about the attempt to smuggle. No attempt was made by Nemazi himself to deny it. The case, however, for not employing Nemazi for the supply of opium to the Singapore Government does not rest on this matter alone. The man is one of the Nemazi family and even if there were no positive evidence to connect him with the opium traffic, the fact that he is in close business relations with the other members of the Nemazi family is quite sufficient by itself to make it impossible for the British Government to agree to his employment. The old Nemazi of Hong Kong has been one of the biggest operators, if not the biggest operator, in the Far Eastern opium traffic, and the evidence for this, as you are well aware, is overwhelming. Apart from all the evidence that came from other quarters, I may remind you of his own admission which he made in his interview with our Minister at Teheran, see Sir P. Loraine's despatch of 6th May, 1925 (No. 222) enclosed with Foreign Office note of 17th June, 1925. The employment of Nemazi in 1926 by the Singapore Government to purchase opium has already, I have been told, provoked a good deal of talk in the Far East.
The question whether others of the local firms besides Nemazi should also be ruled out is a more difficult question. It is clear that we shall only be made to look ridiculous if, while Nemazi is excluded, his associates with and through whom he will.
↑ No. 123.
* C. 30801/A/27 [No. 7]: not printed.
Before a definite decision is taken to abandon the agency proposal, I think it is only fair to Bellairs, Atkinson and Company, in view of the Governor's objec- tion that his Government have no special knowledge of the firm to inspire con- fidence in them, to remind you that the firm acted in the same capacity for the British Government during the War, as buyers of Turkish opium for the National Health Commission.
27775/25: not printed.
$ Enclosure in C. 30801/A/27 [No. 40}: not printed.
179
be able to operate are admitted. You will remember that opinions unfavourable to the Singapore dealers have come not only from other quarters, but also from such a person as Sir Edward Cook, see his letter of the 10th September, 1927, to Waterlow, enclosed with the Foreign Office note of the 24th October, 1927.*
I gather from paragraph 12 of your note to me that Wilson is still in this country. If so, I think it is very desirable that we should have another meeting and go into the question further with him. I should like to ask him what he knows of the relations that exist between Nemazi and the other local dealers.
Whatever the decision about the exclusion of other local firms besides Nemuzi,
I entirely agree with you that the conditions of tendering must not be such as to make it impossible for any but local firms to tender, and it seems to me essential that both the conditions of tendering and the final allocation of the contract should be subject to the approval of the Home Government. In view of the attitude of the Governor, I can feel no confidence that, left to himself, he would really do his best to carry out the wishes of the Home Government. If, therefore, your Secretary of State thinks it hest, without.further examination of the agency proposal, to give it up in deference to the Governor's objections and to allow the Governor to try the system of tenders, I am strongly of opinion that these further stipulations should be added to your draft telegram. I also think it would be better to omit the word "local" before "tenders in the first paragraph of the draft telegram, to prevent any misunderstanding. Further, in the written despatch which is to follow the telegram, it seems to me to be absolutely necessary, if further trouble is to be avoided, to inform the Governor that the Home Government cannot accept his contention that this is a matter which is to be decided primarily with reference to the Colony's financial interests.
One word more. What the Governor means by paragraph 8 of his despatch where he says that his Government considers that the profits of this trade are paid för I should have thought the out of the revenues of the Colony, I cannot imagine. profits of the trade were paid for out of the wages of the Chinese coolies.
C. 53017/28 [No. 19].
No. 134.
Yours, &c.,
MALCOLM DELEVINGNE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL OPIUM COMMITTEE.
MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING, HELD AT THE HOME OFFICE ON 28TH MARCH, 1928. Present:
SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE (Home Oflice), Chairman,
SIR GILBERT GRINDLE,
MR. J. J. PASKIN,
MR. S. CAINE,
Colonial Office,
MR. G. MOUNSEY, Foreign Office,
MR. G. G. WILSON, Superintendent of Monopolies, Straits Settlements
Government.....
MR. M. D. PERRINS (Home Office), Secretary.
THE Committee met at the request of SIR G. GRINDLE to consider the policy to be adopted in regard to the purchase of Persian opium by the Straits Settlements Government. He explained that Mr. Ormsby Gore, when he reached Malaya where he was due in about three weeks, would discuss the matter with the Governor and attempt to persuade him to adopt the agency plan. If the Governor remained opposed to the scheme, the Secretary of State would not feel justified in forcing it upon an unwilling Colony. He (Sir G. Grindle) considered that much of the opposition to the scheme was due to the fact that it had been pressed from Home. SIR M. DELEVINGNE reminded the Committee that the scheme had been preferred by Mr. Wilson, the expert official of the Straits Government, to the other schemes discussed at the previous meeting and the details of it had been worked out by him; the Home Government had not pressed any of the alternatives for none of which was it responsible. SrR G. GRINDLE said that the agency scheme had, however, been recommended by the
* C. 30801/B/27 [No. 1]; not printed.