5
of
purpose 8. It is noteworthy that in adopting Dr. Wright's information for the their proposal for a conference the United States Government have somewhat narrowed down his unguarded and unfounded expressions, preferring, for example, to speak of a "conference with full powers to conventionalise the Shanghai resolutions and minor questions arising from them" (vide 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 recognised by Dr. Wright when he finally states (vide the fourth passage quoted)
“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 It was a hopeless two nations working together, are able to destroy the opium vice. 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 Commission is totally without foundation.
is
9. In Extract (B) Dr. Wright states that most of the delegations accepteil the claim of the Chinese delegation that since the ediet of the 20th September, 1906, the internal production of opium had been reduced from 584,800 piculs in 1906 to 367,250 picus in 1908." This statement is not only unfounded, in the sense that there was no- expression in the recorded proceedings of the commission 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.
The Chinese delegate, when first presenting the statistics, while claiming to have made the best use of the data available, was careful to bring to notice their meagre and untrustworthy character. This is sufficiently illustrated by the passage from the report quoted in Appendix 1, which was confirmed by the Chinese delegate's remark when introducing the report, that "owing to the absence of any proper Government machinery it is well-nigh impossible to obtain reliable statistics of the area of land under cultivation, and no attempt had been made to arrive at any conclusion in that respect." In replying to questions on his report the Chinese delegate expressed his apologies to the British delegation and to the commission as a whole for the Chinese "shortcomings" in regard to statistics, adding: "In China, where for long ages no reliable system of keeping statistics has been followed, we unfortunately have practically nothing but estimates to rely upon
"(vide also the fuller quotation in the appendix). Sir Alexander Hosie, on behalf of the British delegation, elicited the fact that the estimates of production in 1906 had been compiled in 1908 at the same time as the estimates for that year, and quoted examples in which the 1906 figure had been directly deduced from the 1908 figure on the assumption of some given diminution in production, which diminution it was the ultimate purpose of the statistics, when obtained, to demonstrate. Dr. Tenney, on behalf of the American delegation, while expressing the view that the progress made. had been "very decided and satisfactory" and with few exceptions "ahead of the edict," observed: "It has been quite impossible for our fellow-commissioners of China, as they have frankly admitted, to furnish us with accurate statistics from all parts of the Empire." Finally, on the British delegation moving the resolution referred to above regarding the inadequacy of Chinese statistics and the necessity for more systematic methods, the Chinese delegate (in a passage quoted in full in the appendix) declared that the resolution was "couched in most reasonable and just terms ";" added that “it was impossible for us to produce satisfactory statistics"; and gave a promise to draw the attention of his Government "to the fact that the lack of such proper statistics will. give rise to a certain amount of difficulty when we come to adjust matters with Great It is an Britain." On this undertaking the British resolution was withdrawn. inevitable conclusion from these admissions that no single delegation or delegate was finally left with the impression that the Chinese statistics could be accepted as trustworthy. The correct conclusion as to the degree of success attained by China- a conclusion not based on admittedly untrustworty statistics, but on general and indirect evidence-is that which the commission placed on record in their first resolution, namely, that the Chinese Government were sincere, that their efforts were being increasingly supported by public opinion, and that "real though unequal progress" had
been made.
10. In Extract (C) Dr. Wright states that the commission "practically" denounced
purposes.
The
by their third resolution the use of opium for other than medical resolution itself undoubtedly goes far in the direction stated, and might conceivably be interpreted in this sense by an ordinary reader who neglected to observe the marked difference in tone between this resolution and resolution No. 2 (definitely recommending the abolition of opium smoking), and who was unacquainted with the intentions of the commission as expressed in their discussions and recorded proceedings. A member of the commission, purporting, as Dr. Wright does, to expound the true significance of their resolutions, should have been careful to note that the resolution deliberately stopped short of a pronouncement in favour of the absolute restriction of the use of opium to medical purposes. A proposal in this sense was actually placed before the commission by the American delegation, the words used being: "That a uniform effort should be maile by the countries represented, at once or in the near future, to confine the use of opium to legitimate medical practice in their respective territories.' This proposition was opposed by the British delegation, whose views were unmistakably summarised in the sentence: "To put it perfectly plainly and to be entirely frank, the British delegation is not able to accept the view that opium should be confined simply and solely to medical uses." The American resolution was accordingly withdrawn and replaced by the resolution mentioned by Dr. Wright, in which any definite pronounce- ment to this effect was deliberately avoided.
Sy
11. In Extract (D) Dr. Wright gives a graphic description of the passage of the fourth resolution which calls upon all countries haudling opium to take reasonable measures to prevent its export to prohibitionist countries. He states that this resolution " was the most difficult to carry," and suggeststhat it was resisted by several of the delegations on the ground that if China were to secure a revision of treaties in a sense which would enable her definitely to prohibit the importation of opium the acceptance of the resolution would tie the hands of Powers which might not be unwilling, in spite of such prohibition, to let opium be passed on to China from their ports; and he ends by the statement: "However, the appeal of the American delegation broke the opposition, and resolution 4 was passed unanimously." I have extracted and placed opposite Dr. Wright's remarks the relevant portion of the commission's proceedings. It will be seen that, as in other cases, the Portuguese delegate reserved his vote, while the British delegation at once accepted the resolution, subject to one amendment extending its application, and to a purely verbal amendment substituting for the words "to prevent" the words "to adopt reasonable measures to prevent"; and that there is no trace in the proceedings of any opposition of any kind, or of any appeal from the American delegates, or of any delay in the immediate passing of the resolution, the two amendments referred to being at once accepted.
12. In Extract (E) Dr. Hamilton Wright passes judgment ou certain earlier phrases of the Anglo-Chinese opinn question in terms which (1) clearly imply that the views stated were placed before the commission by the Chinese delegation; and (2) would naturally be read as implying that the correctness of these views was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the commission. As regards these suggestions, I may note in the first place, that the commission carefully refrained throughout from discussing the historical aspects of the opinn controversy or recording opinions upon them, following in this respect the advice given by the chairman in his opening speech in the words "in seems to me that it would be extremely wise if we were to rule out of our deliberations what might be termed useless historical questions boneath which a great deal of controversy lies hidden, and which would only tend to fog the issue." Secondly, the views which the Chinese delegation did place before the commission have been somewhat freely paraphrased in the process of reproduction by Dr. Wright. In the summarised report of the Chinese delegate's speech introducing the report on opium in China and in the verbatim report of the fuller speech made subsequently by the same delegate (vol. I, pp. 65-70) no reference at all is made to historical controversies, and in the Chinese report itself the historical section only distantly alludes to them in the passage which I have extracted and placed opposite Dr. Wright's remarks.
Similar observations might be added regarding Dr. Wright's reference to the opium problem as having caused war and other evil consequences not outstripped by the evil consequences of slavery." This passage appears to be an echo from the speech in which he himself introduced the American resolutions in the commission, and may be But the presumed therefore to be authorised by the American delegation as a whole. statement is misleading in so far as it purports to represent a view expressed by the
commission.
13. I have only to add as regards the foregoing criticisms that I am unable from my private notes or personal recollections of our formal or informal discussions to supply
C [2860 k-3]
81
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.