510
No. 1563.
(6)
GENTLEMEN,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 3rd November, 1888.
Adverting to your letter of the 23rd ultimo, respecting the recent seizure of Opium on board the S.S. Hankow, I am directed by the Governor to inform you that His Excellency is advised that the law requires that the Excise Officer into whose possession the Opium was given should hold it subject to adjudication by Magistrate.
His Excellency is further advised that it would be well if the China Steam Navigation Company were represented when the case is brought up at the Magistracy, to see that the facts stated in your letter are brought before the Magistrate.
I have the honour to be,
Gentlemen,
Your most obedient Servant,
FREDERICK STEWART.
Colonial Secretary.
Agents, China Steam Navigation Company, Limited.
Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE,
a.
OFFICE OF THE HONGKONG, CANTON & MACAO STEAM-BOAT COMPANY, LIMITED.
HONGKONG, 24th September, 1889.
STR.
Referring to our joint letter to you of the 22nd September last year and to a letter addressed to you by Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE on the 23rd October last, both dealing with the subject of the smuggling of Opium on the river steamers plying between Hongkong and Canton; we have now the honour to forward for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor, reports, cut from recent numbers of the Daily Press of two cases tried in the Police Court, one before the Honourable Mr. WODEHOUSE, C.M.G., and the other before Mr. ROBINSON, illustrative of the same subject and phase of the subject, to which we last year took leave to call His Excellency's attention.
In our joint letter of 22nd September we mentioned the then quite recent increase in the number of the attempts to smuggle prepared Opium to Canton by the river steamers. We stated, unhesitatingly, that from the information in our possession, we were satisfied that the licensed Opium Farmer was the principal offender. We pointed out the grave difficulties we had in defending ourselves against these attempts, and the risk of heavy loss (even of confiscation of our steamers) that we ran in Canton from the growing irritation of the Chinese authorities at this great increase in smuggling. We suggested some possible remedies and asked for the consideration and protection of the Government.
In Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE's letter of the 23rd October they reported a case in which prepared Opium found by the Officers of the Hankow, on board of that vessel, was claimed within an hour or two by the Opium Farmer, under the provisions of Section 2 of the Opium Ordinance of 1884.
C
C
(7)
To neither of these letters did we receive any satisfactory reply: to the first mentioned the answer was, that one of our proposed remedies was impracticable; to the other that we had better attend at the Police Court and get the matter investigated.
We have now the honour to call your attention seriously to the state of affairs. Prepared Opium is being constantly smuggled hence to Canton by our steamers: our Officers do their best to check it: we employ an ex-Customs Officer and staff of six men as a private preventive service; we instantly dismiss from our staff any man against whom there is even a shadow of suspicion; and all without effect, because the Opium Farmer and his Excise Officers, who ought to be our protection, are themselves the smugglers or in league with them.
Consider first that it is absolutely and undeniably the Farmer's interest that as much as possible should be smuggled. He has no trade with China in prepared Opium unless it is so introduced: the more that can be passed into China the more he is called on to supply and the greater his profits. Even if not actively engaged in the traffic, it is unreasonable to suppose that he will actively oppose it. But we are confident that he actively assists in the smuggling by himself and his officers. First, no one has ever heard of any seizure by his officers of prepared Opium going out of Hongkong, so that it passes freely in the streets or in boats and elsewhere: the smallest portion attempted to be brought in however, is seized remorselessly. Secondly: if prepared Opium is found on board any steamer in this harbour on its way to China, it is seized by the vessel's officers in the performance of their duty: the Opium Farmer hears of it at once; his officers claim it; the Opium is declared forfeited by a Magistrate, and under the existing Government understanding with the Farmer, it is entirely given up to him, so that there is no loss either to the Farmer or those interested in the smuggling.
The first of the two cases sent herewith, tried before Mr. ROBINSON on the 18th and 19th instant is conclusive. Mr. LOGAN, our preventive officer here had information that Opium was to be put on board the Honam for conveyance to Canton. He searched for it; found it; and gave it to the Captain, who secured it in a locker. Within an hour of the occurrence, the Opium Farmer himself had notice, not of the original conveyance on board, but of the seizure by the Captain and Officers, and his Chief Excise Officer went on board, not to search for Opium generally, but to demand the delivery to him of that specific Opium, actually knowing where it was locked up. We retained Mr. Frantis, Q.C., to assist at the investigation of the case, and the Magistrate practically declined to hear our evidence as to where that Opium came from as irrelevant to the question before him. He held Captain LEFAVOUR's possession of the Opium, although found by him on board of his steamer and brought there under circumstances that might involve the steamer in the greatest risks, unlawful. The Opium, 24 tins, was confiscated, and although the Magistrate refused to make any order, the Opium Farmer asserted in open Court that he "would get it, anyhow."
We forward declarations by Mr. LOGAN, and by three Chinese, most carefully taken, which will show conclusively whence this Opium came, and should leave no doubt in your mind that it was conveyed from a licensed dealer and was under the Opium Farmer's protection.
The second case we hand you does not directly affect us, but it shows, in active operation, exactly the same tactics in regard to raw Opium. It proves the Opium Farmer to be the biggest smuggler of those engaged in the traffic, both of raw and prepared Opium, or that he is in league with those who are.
Now, we complain that the strict supervision which the Export and Import Office should exercise over the Opium Farmer is not exercised. He is not called ...
510
No. 1563.
(6)
GENTLEMEN,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 3rd November, 1888.
Adverting to your letter of the 23rd ultimo, respecting the recent seizure of Opium on board the S S. Hankow, I am directed by the Governor to inform you that His Excellency is advised that the law requires that the Excise Officer into whose possession the Opium was given should hold it subject to adjudication by Magistrate.
His Excellency is further advised that it would be well if the China Steam for adjudication Navigation Company were represented when the case is brought up at the Magistracy, to see that the facts stated in your letter are brought before the Magistrate.
I have the honour to be,
Gentlemen,
Your most obedient Servant,
FREDERICK STEWART.
Colonial Secretary.
Agents, China Steam Navigation Campany, Limited.
Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE,
a.
OFFICE OF THE HONGKONG, CANTON & MACAO STEAM-BOAT COMPANY, LIMITED.
HONGKONG, 24th September, 1889.
STR.
Referring to our joint letter to you of the 22nd September last year and to a letter addressed to you by Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE on the 23rd October last, both dealing with the subject of the smuggling of Opium on the river steamers plying between Hongkong and Canton; we have now the honour to forward for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor, reports, cut from recent num- bers of the Daily Press of two cases tried in the Police Court, one before the Honourable Mr. WODEHOUSE, C.M.G., and the other before Mr. ROBINSON, illustra- tive of the same subject and phase of the subject, to which we last year took leave to call His Excellency's attention.
In our joint letter of 22nd September we mentioned the then quite recent increase in the number of the attempts to smuggle prepared Opium to Canton by the river steamers. We stated, unhesitatingly, that from the information in our possession, we were satisfied that the licensed Opium Farmer was the principal offender. We pointed out the grave difficulties we had in defending ourselves against these attempts, and the risk of heavy loss (even of confiscation of our steamers) that we ran in Canton from the growing irritation of the Chinese autho- rities at this great increase in smuggling. We suggested some possible remedies and asked for the consideration and protection of the Government.
In Messrs. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE's letter of the 23rd October they reported a case in which prepared Opium found by the Officers of the Hankow, on board of that vessel, was claimed within an hour or two by the Opium Farmer, under the provisions of Section 2 of the Opium Ordinance of 1884.
C
C
(7)
To neither of these letters did we receive any satisfactory reply: to the first mentioned the answer was, that one of our proposed remedies was impracticable; to, the other that we had better attend at the Police Court and get the matter investigated.
We have now the honour to call your attention seriously to the state of affairs. Prepared Opium is being constantly smuggled hence to Canton by our steamers: our Officers do their best to check it: we employ an ex-Customs Officer and staff of six men as a private preventive service; we instantly dismiss from our staff any man against whom there is even a shadow of suspicion; and all without effect, because the Opium Farmer and his Excise Officers, who ought to be our protection, are themselves the smugglers or in league with them.
Consider first that it is absolutely and undeniably the Farmer's interest that as much as possible should be smuggled. He has no trade with China in prepared Opium unless it is so introduced: the more that can be passed into China the more he is called on to supply and the greater his profits. Even if not actively engaged in the traffic, it is unreasonable to suppose that he will actively oppose it. But we are confident that he actively assists in the smuggling by himself and his officers. First, no one has ever heard of any seizure by his officers of prepared Opium going out of Hongkong, so that it passes freely in the streets or in boats and else- where: the smallest portion attempted to be brought in however, is seized remorse- lessly. Secondly: if prepared Opium is found on board any steamer in this har- bour on its way to China, it is seized by the vessel's officers in the performance of their duty: the Opium Farmer hears of it at once; his officers claim it; the Opium is declared forfeited by a Magistrate, and under the existing Government under- standing with the Farmer. it is entirely given up to him, so that there is no loss either to the Farmer or those interested in the smuggling.
The first of the two cases sent herewith, tried before Mr. ROBINSON on the 18th and 19th instant is conclusive. Mr. LOGAN, our preventive officer here had information that Opium was to be put on board the Honam for conveyance to Canton, He searched for it; found it; and gave it to the Captain, who secured it in a locker. Within an hour of the occurrence, the Opium Farmer himself had notice, not of the original conveyance on board, but of the seizure by the Captain and Officers, and his Chief Excise Officer went on board, not to search for Opium generally, but to demand the delivery to him of that specific Opium, actually know- ing where it was locked up. We retained Mr. Frantis, Q.C., to assist at the inves tigation of the case, and the Magistrate practically declined to hear our evidence He as to where that Opinn came from as irrelevant to the question before him. held Captain LEFAVOUR's possession of the Opium, although found by him on board of his steamer and brought there under circumstances that might involve the steamer in the greatest risks, unlawful. The Opium, 24 tius, was confiscated, and although the Magistrate refused to make any order, the Opium Farmer asserted in open Court that be "would get it, anyhow."
you
We forward declarations by Mr. LOGAN, and by three Chinese, most care- fully taken, which will show conclusively whence this Opiurn came, and should leave no doubt in your mind that it was conveyed from a licensed dealer and was under the Opinn Farmer's protection.
The second case we hand you does not directly affect us, but it shows, in active operation, exactly the same tactics in regard to raw Opium. It proves the Opium Farmer to be the biggest smuggler of those engaged in the traffic, both of raw and prepared Opium, or that he is in league with those who are.
Now, we complain that the strict supervision which the Export and Import He is not called Office should exercise over the Opium Farmer is not exercised.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.