CO129-369 - Acting Governor May Governor Sir Lugard - 1910 [10-11] — Page 175

A

173

* Tah

asslo badani ugao

riademark bra

if (doqab an-

A

un stift a

A

arle al ed Xileranno

wa mab ra's-cl wild noqu ne zuino atdd to it Ledera

to da Lev bra til no

bar wit、rovewod

de hood a chal

as this opium has been boiled down and as the time limit has already been exceeded by a month, the deputy must exer naturally hold this firm responsible for the lovy. How can Teo Chi shirk

this obligation? A letter was sent to them by the deputy re- primanding them for their conduct, but the firm has not taken the slightest notice thereof, and up to the present time has not com- plied with the deputy's requests. These are the true facts of the letter sent by the Chao-ch'ing branch office to the Tso Chi firm calling upon them to press for payment of the tax due.

As regards the Sanshui case, I received a petition from the merchant Liang in which he stated that his detectives had informed him that they had seized 1,269 taels of Chinese opium, the pro- perty of the two Samshui firms Pao I and Kuang T'ai Lung, the storage of which in their godowns had not been reported; and

further that these two firms had altogether sold, in contravention of the regulations, and illicitly stored in their godowns 118 balls

of Patna opium. I forthwith proceeded in person to Samshui to hold

an enquiry into the matter. I caused the native opium that had been Beized to be conveyed for the time being to Canton. Large numbers

of the gentry and merchants of Samshui came to Canton and pointed

out that the amount of Patna opium held in stock by the Pao I nd

Kuang T'ai Lung firms was much greater, and that recently the

prices quoted therefor had flugtuated considerably; and they/ex-

pressed anxiety lest heavy losses should be incurred. They explained

that, if a prepared opium merchant bought on credit, the seller

could only make an entry in his books, debiting the purchaser, and

record this as a sale; and that for this reason the firms concerned

had failed to report such transactions. It was not an intentional

infraction of the regulations nor an illicit sale to unlicensed

persons. This was

an offence which may ought to be condoned, and

therefore, on behalf of these firms, they implored for mercy and

asked for exceptionally lenient treatment and that no fine should

be imposed.

Again, though these firms had infringed the regula-

tions,