3
2
sentence in which he purports to give the general effect of the findings of the Straits Settlements Opium Commission. All that Dr. Wright finds to say of their striking report is that it was "somewhat favourable to the contin- uance of the opium farm " (the abolition of which the Commission had in fact recommended) and that by means of this farm" the Government disposed of opium and acquired a large revenue," a phrase which can hardly fail to convey the suggestion-repudiated by the Commission-that the question of finance had been the determining factor in their deliberations.
5. As regards the Shanghai Commission Dr. Wright asserts with reference to the question of its capacity to conduct a scientific investigation into anti-opium remedies, etc., that opposition was "waived for the sake of harmony," but omits to state that the views which his delegation supported on this question had been already twice put to the vote and negatived.
I may notice also his repeated adoption of loose popular phrases in stating the general effect of the Commission's carefully worded and carefully guarded conclusions, as when he speaks of their "condemnation of the opium vice," or in the statement that "the opium question has been studied, discussed and roundly condemned In another place he hints not obscurely that the British delegation introduced a comparatively "weak" resolution on morphia (a judgment which that dele- gation would certainly not endorse for they held the strongest views on this question) but that it was toned up by American amendments (of which I may note that the Commission's recorded proceedings contain no trace). In the same spirit, referring to the reductions in the Indian production and export- ation of opium, he speaks of the "sincere effort" which is being made, a term which very inadequately acknowledges the large reductions already effected or the Indian Government's assured capacity to enforce any further reductions to which they may be committed. At the same time, as I have observed above, he presses, on behalf of his own Government, claims for pre-eminence, down to the smallest details, which somewhat strain the literal facts: as for example in the repeated assertion (apparently made on the strength of assistanco privately given in the drafting) that resolution No. 9 (which the Chinese delegate intro- duced) was introduced by the American delegation; or in the similar state- ment that resolution No. 4 which was moved by himself was passed "in its original form," whereas it was twice verbally amended.
6. Above all, and to this is mainly due his gravely misleading treatment of the larger questions, he permits himself to make unqualified statements of fact for which no authority can in the nature of the case be produced, as when he attributes opinions to the Commission which they neither placed on record nor at any time collectively pronounced; and he fails in his report to bring out clearly the extent of the real difference of opinion which was disclosed in dis- cussion, and to enforce the consequent lesson that the resolutions must be interpreted strictly as they stand, as expressing the utmost to which the represent- atives of the different powers found themselves able to agree. On this subject the remarks of the President in Volume I, page 42, of the Commission's pro- ceedings are much in point. In illustrating these points I may first take up the question of further international intervention in the opium problem to which Dr. Wright's report leads up.
7. In the first of the series of passages quoted in extract A of Appendix I, Dr. Wright points out, correctly enough, that if the Commission had failed to arrive at a substantial degree of unanimity the United States Government could not hopefully have presented "further proposals for international action". Expand- ing this last phrase, he states that, as things were, the way was left open to his Government to propose "further international co-operation for the placing of the production and traffic in opium under international law ". correct; the way to the submission of such proposals was perfectly open because the Commission steadily refused to regard such questions as within their com petence and consequently neither arrived at nor recorded any opinion on the merits. Still keeping the idea of international jurisdiction over every aspect
This is also
This passage and others referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 are reproduced in Appendix II enclosed with this memorandum. Passages connected with more important questions are reproduced in Appendix I.
It was with the object of making their draft as effective and practical as possible that the British delegates in- troduced into it the specific reference to the necessity for control over manufacture.
;
}
i
2
of the opium question in his mind, Dr. Wright proceeds (in the second passage quoted) by another transition to the proposition that:-
"Although no formal declaration was made as to further international action in regard to opium production, traffic, and misuse, it was nevertheless recognized that such action was necessary before the powers could congratulate themselves on having solved the problem that has loomed so large and so long in the Far East."
At this point Dr. Wright goes unmistakeably beyond the ascertainable facts, and directly contrary to all reasonable presumption. Though the resolutions of the Commission may, as regards certain specific points and at some suitable time, involve international action, the larger conception of what for convenience I have called "international jurisdiction" is completely absent from them; and if it appeared in their discussions it was only mentioned to be dismissed. In replacing the American delegation's resolution on the subject of morphia by an alternative draft the Commission omitted the reference to the desirability of "strict international agreements ". Another American resolution stating "that no Government represented may by its national laws wholly solve its own opium problem without the joint aid of those Governments concerned in the production and manufacture of opium was opposed and was ultimately withdrawn. Yet another American resolution declaring "that the Commission as a whole record its sense in favour of the principle of an international con- ference for the solution of the problem" was similarly opposed and withdrawn. In none of these cases did the American delegation venture to put its views to the vote. The American and Chinese delegates also raised the treaty question, but on the question of the Commission's competence to discuss this matter being put to the vote found only a single supporter (Germany). The reluctance of the Commission to make themselves parties to proposals for international interference, even in a special and defiuite case, was indeed so strong that the British delegation felt compelled to withdraw a resolution suggesting that international advice should be proffered to China with a view to the ini- tiation of more systematic methods of dealing with the question of opium production.
8. It is noteworthy that in adopting Dr. Wright's information for the purpose of their proposal for a conference the United States Government have somewhat narrowed down his unguarded and unfounded expressions, preferring for exam- ple to speak of a "conference with full powers to conventionalize the Shanghai resolutions and minor questions arising from them" (ride the second and third of the passages quoted); but the agenda actually suggested to the powers show that the larger policy of international control or censorship is still the object in view: and this is recognized by Dr. Wright when he finally states (vide the 4th passage quoted) :—
CC
Our Government has invited the powers to such further co-operation as will place the production, trade in, and use of opium under the control of international law. It has been historically demonstrated that no nation working alone, that no two nations working together, are able to destroy the opium vice. It was a hopeless task."
As I have observed above the statement or the suggestion that this policy possesses the sanction, whether expressed or only implied, of the Shanghai Com- mission, is totally without foundation.
9. In extract B Dr. Wright states that most of the delegations accepted the claim of the Chinese delegation that "since the edict of September 20, 1906, the internal production of opium had been reduced from 584,800 piculs in 1906 to 367,250 piculs in 1908". This statement is not only unfounded, in the sense that there was no expression in the recorded proceedings of the Commis- sion of any such opinion, but it is practically negatived by the view which the American delegation itself expressed to the Commission, and it is shown to be untenable even as the expression of a reasoned personal opinion by the fact that the Chinese claim was in effect abandoned by the Chinese delegation itself.
580
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.