2
We were under the impression that on receipt from you of the copy of our letter of the 21st November last, the consul-general would make further representations to the provincial authorities, with a view to obtain the release of the two chests, but from Mr. Jamieson's letter in question it appears that nothing has been done in the matter, which we much regret.
As a severe hardship is caused to the dealer we sincerely trust that his Excellency the governor will be good enough to ask either for the release of the two chests, or for the proceeds thereof, to be handed to the consulate-general for payment to the
owner.
With regard to the statement in His Majesty's Minister's despatch to his Excellency the governor, of the 9th ultimo, that the owner agreed to be fined rather than prolong the enquiry, and that we have not rebutted this statement, we need only point out that as far back as the 6th September last we wrote you as follows:---
From enquiries made from the interested dealer, we find there are several mis- statements in this report (namely, the report of the Canton Opium Bureau). "The dealer was forced to sign an undertaking to pay a fine of 1,850 taels. The document was dictated by the Kwong Ning Yuen general office.
As to the twenty balls seized at Samshui, we were emphatically informed that the balls were accompanied by transit certificates, and that all the balls were at the time unbroken packages in the meaning of the additional articles of the Chefoo convention. There was therefore no omission of any formality required by treaty as suggested in his Excellency the Minister's despatch.
Sir,
We have, &c.
D. SASSOON AND CO. (Limited). E. D. SASSOON AND Co.
Enclosure 3 in No. 1.
Messrs. D. and Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. to Sir F. May.
November 21, 1910.
WITH reference to our letter of the 18th instant, regarding the two chests of Indian opium seized at Hsingtong, we have the honour to inform you that the owner of same has been a trader in raw opium for the past ten years. Nothing was known in his district as to the necessity of possessing a trading licence, neither was such licence obtainable either at Tsangsing or Loongmoon, the destination of these two chests. Furthermore, we understand that the opium has not been sold at Sheklong, but is still held by the authorities. Under the circumstances we trust that pressures will be brought by the Chinese officials to forthwith release the opium in question.
With regard to the twenty balls seized at Samshui, the owner of these denies having absconded, but on the contrary, was at Samshui all the time. We enclose bis address, and trust that efforts will be made to effect the release of these twenty balls as well.
We may mention that the owners of the opium above referred to, together with our representative, have interviewed the acting consul-general at Canton on the 19th instant. The above facts were mentioned to Mr. Giles, who kindly promised to do his best to get the opium released, on his being written to to the above effect. We shall therefore be much obliged if a copy of this letter would be forwarded to him.
We have, &c.
DAVID SASSOON and Co. (Limited). E. D. SASSOON AND Co.
(
3
Messrs. E. D. Sassoon with reference to the seizures of opium at Santong and Samshui.
As regards the first of these two cases, I regret that I cannot see my way to making further representations to the Wai-wu Pu with a view to obtaining a remission of the fine.
A fine was imposed because the owner had not a trading licence and as rules providing for the licensing of dealers in raw opium were included in the "anti-opium regulations promulgated by the Chinese Government as far back as November 1906. I do not think Messrs. Sassoon's argument that the dealer in question was unaware of the necessity of taking out a licence is one that would justify my intervention on his behalf on the present occasion.
As regards the opium itself, the Chinese authorities have, I understand, given instructions that the two chests should be sold, and the proceeds, after deduction of the amount of the prepared opium tax, handed over to the owner. I am directing His Majesty's consul-general at Canton to urge the Viceroy to refund the price of the opium, at the same time pointing out that any deduction on account of the new tax is inadmissable, that tax, on the authority of the Viceroy himself, being only leviable on opium after it has been boiled, and not when in the hands of the raw opium merchant.
As regards the second case referred to in your Excellency's despatch, I would point out that Messrs. Sassoon's have never afforded any explanation as to why the owners of this particular consignment of twenty balls were fined by the Samshui Customs.
I asked for information on this point in my despatch to your Excellency of the 9th December last, but the only reply I have so far received is Messrs. Sassoon's state- ment contained in the last paragraph of their letter to Sir H. May of the 9th January that "they were emphatically informed that the balls were accompanied by transit certificates
It appears to me that the commissioner of customs at Samshui should be in a position to afford Messrs. Sassoon's some information regarding the history of these twenty balls, and the reasons which led to their seizure.
Again, Mr. Jamieson, in a despatch dated the 28th December last, a copy of which he forwarded to your Excellency, reported that the owner of the opium had expressed his willingness to apply to the Kwang Yuan Office for the restoration of his goods, and had been asked to keep Mr. Jamieson informed as to what action the office took in the matter.
Mr. Jamieson added that he had not heard further, either from the dealer or Messrs. Sassoon and Co., and was therefore unable to say whether the opium had been recovered, or whether the dealer had been fined.
Messrs. Sassoon's letter of the 9th January throws no light on these points, and under the circumstances I regret that I can take no further action in this case until I am in receipt of the full report from His Majesty's consul-general for which I have called.
As your Excellency will readily understand the action of His Majesty's consulate- general in Canton, and to a certain extent of this legation, is hampered, in a majority of these opium cases by the fact that Messrs. Sassoon's complaints are generally based on reports received from Chinese dealers which, when submitted to the Chinese authorities, are met with denials on points of fact and counter-complaints of breach of regulations. As Chinese statements are notoriously untrustworthy, it would make our action in these cases more effective, if the original Chinese complainants would, whenever possible, appear before His Majesty's consul-general at Canton at the time the complaint is lodged, so that he might have an opportunity of examining them personally and sifting their statements before taking up the case with the Chinese authorities, a procedure which is, I may say, invariably followed at other treaty ports in China, where the assistance of His Majesty's consuls is invoked on behalf of Chinese subjects.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN..
Sir.
Enclosure 4 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Governor Sir F. Lugard.
Peking, January 31, 1911.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's despatch dated the 12th instant, enclosing copies of further letters from Messrs. D. Sassoon and
470
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.