W. Wigfald
Let me know how you are sure. I am not guests 9 & perhaps 35 of & mean that the Ordinance should be amended. I am afraid, as pointed out by Lord Rifen, that if the proviso suggested by zm, even as amended, is added, the presumption will be in favour of opium not covered by a permit (found in these ships) was generally going to the Farmer, provided in other cases under S. 35, and that such a provision will simply suggest to the Farmer to change his smuggling tactics.
(Please see the Attorney General's Remarks, para. 9 of Enc. 3 in 569/9112)
Under the amendment, which I suggest, he will try the plan of smuggling opium not covered by a permit, I trust the Government would find it difficult, perhaps to refuse to deliver up the opium to the Farmer, if he manages to shut such opium in and perjure himself to prove that the attempted smuggling was not done with his connivance.
If the amendment suggested by me were made in S.38, but S.39 were left as it stands, it would still be in the discretion of the Governor to give up the forfeited Opium to the Farmer if he is really satisfied that the Farmer is not acting in collusion with the smuggler.
As stated on p. 10 of the printed correspondence attached here to, I suspect that the smuggler is at the bottom of all the smuggling and that the Government seldom, if ever, give him the benefit of their discretion if it is (as in S.39) left unfettered.
G. W. 7.1576.
The fear is that under the present discretion, the Governor might give up the opium to the Farmer if the latter promises that it was covered by a permit and was not smuggled. He can do so under S.39, and this seems to me rather mischievous.
Yes. I did not gather that zm intended to amend S.39 in this respect. I submit draft despatch 15/2.
W. Wigfald
me how you
te sure
Jam not guests 9 & perhaps 35 of & mean that the Ordiname a
should be amended. I am afraid
by Lord Rifen, that if they proviso suggested by zm, even as amende is added, the presumption will be Javour of opium not covered by
QL
a permit (found in these ships) wa generally going to the Farmer, provided in other cases under S. 35, and that such a provision will simply suggest to the Farmer to his smuggling change his s
a
tactics
(Please see the Att mez
Remarks
کیں گی تو بری
feueral's
39 of the Ord.
3 in 569/9112)
arp. 9 of Enc. My Under the
sunggle opnim that is
hearts allies),
عد
overed stop the forfeiting of permit, & manages to shut such oprin
Jan
Evidence
Under the amendment, which, suggest, he will try the plan of emnggling opinen not covered by a permit, I trust to perjured to prove that the attempted smuggling was not done with his connivance,
the fovemer would in which case the fovem Find it difficult perhaps to refuse to deliver up the opium totiin.
If the amendment suggested by me were made in s.38, £5.39 were left as it stands, it would
Ihre
till be in discretion
2
fin
L
Govenor to give up the forfeited Opium to the Farmer if he is really satisfied that the Farmer not acting in collusion with the Suggler.
487
apstated on p. 10
But I suspect, attached here to
the printed corress.
that the
Januar
is at the bottom of all the smuggling
would forg
and that
the fovens
seldan, if ever, give kim the Sprin if his discretion is (as in 5.
unfettered
unde s
39
39) left
G. W. 7.1576.
the fire,
e
Lor
a
much
hoder disaitin then I pupore
to for hemm
- he can of under by amendment for the operim to the farmer if the former proms that it was and comedy a permit and woon then be mug uper & gin
Login
it
in bis Micrtin he sees pt
unders se he might fir the opric
shif amer
to the shif
aus
***
ebe
and the ship-sumers in fort ach that. at that she juin of to them which seems to me priti mad missille
Eas
1571
Yes. I did not gather that zur
to amend 5.39 in
in this respect. submit draft des jug 15/2
beaut
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.