4
their rules so as to remove the apparent demand for their certificates to be used in lieu of the transit certificates prescribed in the additional article to the Chefoo convention.
With your Excellency's exposition of the purpose of that article I am quite in accord, but I must point out that your Excellency seems, as regards section 3, to have forgotten the sound maxim that every rule must be interpreted with due regard to the context, nor may the natural sense be perverted by rigid adherence to the letter.
Thus, the portion of that section that frees opium under certificate from taxation while in transit is not complied with in case such opium is confiscated unless it conforms to conditions not set forth in the article. The imposing of such conditions practically amounts to an addition to the article by one of the parties to it without that common consent referred to in paragraph 8.
I am quite aware that confiscation and fine are not taxation; but the provision of a heavy fine in case an importer in the interior brings in more opium than the bureau's permit covers, and the liability to confiscation of opium unprovided with their permit, whether it has the treaty certificate or not, does not constitute a breach of our countries' agreement that possession by opium in transit of a Customs certificate and Customs seals is all that is required.
The whole question of the rules that may be enforced being now under discussion in Peking, I should suggest that your Excellency night well suspend the coming into force of the new set of regulations until an uniform code for the whole Empire is published as a result of that discussion; otherwise the minds of dealers and people will be apt to get confused as to the law.
I am reporting our divergence of view to my Minister, as the subject is urgent, and trust your Excellency will likewise inform your Government in order that decision may be soon reached.
I have, &c.
E. H. FRASER.
a
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.1582
0.0
10008
OPIUM.
RECO KEG? 16 JUN 11
[May 23.]
CONFIDENTIAL.
SECTION 1.
[19786]
No. 1.
India Office to Foreign Office.--(Received May 23.)
Sir,
India Office, May 23, 1911, WITH reference to Sir J. Jordan's telegram No. 127, dated the 18th May, 1911, regarding registration of uncertificated opium in treaty ports, I am directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to forward copies of the enclosed telegrains, and to suggest that Sir J. Jordan should be asked whether the difficuly can be met by adopting the Government of India's proposal.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
I am, &c.
EDWIN S. MONTAGU.
Your Highness,
Enclosure 5 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Prince Ch'ing.
Peking, April 26, 1911. I HAVE the honour to forward copies and translations of despatches which His Majesty's consul-general at Shanghai has exchanged with the Governor of Kiangsu in regard to the demand that opium importers in the interior shall take out extra-treaty permits for Indian opium under very heavy penalties.
As your Highness is doubtless aware, the enforcement of such a stipulation is a clear violation of a treaty right as being contrary to the spirit of the provisions of the additional article of the Chefoo convention.
I would also point out that there is a lack of uniformity between the regulations issued in Kiangsu and those in Kuangtung. In the former case persons transporting opium into the interior without licence will be punished by having the opium confiscated, while in the latter case in article 17 of the additional regulations drawn up by the Opium Guild it is stated that if persons are not provided with trading licences, and they are discovered with the original packages intact, the collecting office will ascertain the owner of the opium and return the original package to him.
Similar regulations with a confiscation clause have also been promulgated for the province of Fukien.
While desirous of assisting in every way the anti-opium movement-in so far as it is conducted with due regard to treaty obligations-I must nevertheless request your Highness to issue instructions to the provincial authorities of Kiangsu and Fukien that the new regulations as regards the question of the confiscation of the goods should not be enforced on Indian opium when duly provided with transit certificate, but that the Canton practice of returning the opium to the importer should in all cases be followed.
I avail, &c.
Viscount Morley to Government of India.
(Telegraphic.) P.
India Office, May 19, 1911. WITH reference to Sir J. Jordan's opium telegram No. 127, dated the 18th May, you please say what you think as to accepting the proposal made by China.
will
Euclosure 2 in No. 1.
Government of India to Viscount Morley.
(Telegraphic.) P.
May 20, 1911. WITH regard to telegram dated the 18th May from Sir J. Jordan, all the opium which has been sold or exported in 1911 to China has been covered by certificates that specify the serial number of the chests and the exporter's name. We suggest that the Customs officials be recommended to demand certificates, and to require the holders to produce the chests which the certificates cover. Then all other opium could be treated as non-certified opium. As subsidiary marks can be imitated fraudulently, we have little confidence in them. Sir J. Jordan's difficulties may, we hope, be got rid of by a description of the marks telegraphed by us combined with a comparison of certificates. If this does not remove them, we must agree to compromise he suggests, though we would urge that the figures fixed should approximate as closely as possible to the actual amount of opium non-certified.
[2011 -1]
0
J. N. JORDAN.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.