CO129-385 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 83

This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[39636]

со

[October 9.]

34597

SECTION 1

RECR

REGE 27 OCT ||

No. 1.

Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade to Mr. McKinnon Wood.-(Received

Dear Mr. McKinnon Wood,

October 9.)

181, Queen Victoria Street, London, October 4, 1911.

AS Mr. Theodore Taylor, M.P., has gone to Australia and New Zealand, I write to you direct on one or two matters in connection with the opium question. Let me say how glad I was to see in yesterday's paper your reference to the subject at Glasgow.

1. Herewith I enclose copy of a letter addressed by Dr. Maxwell, chairman of the representative board of anti-opium societies, to Dr. Richter, a member of the represen- tative board ("Ausschuss") of the German evangelical missionary societies, together with the latter's reply. As you will see, Dr. Richter wants more definite information than was contained in Dr. Maxwell's letter to show that the German Government has been obstructing the conference. As a matter of fact our information was received through Mr. Theodore Taylor, who, I suppose had it direct from you or Mr. Montagu; but in drafting the letter for Dr. Maxwell I thought it best to rely chiefly on the "World's Chinese Student's Journal," as it contained very precise information, however, you can give us a statement confidentially, which we may pass on to If, Dr. Richter, it will be very helpful. Our action is intended, of course, to support that of the Foreign Office.

2. I have received a letter from Mr. Tong Kaison (Tang Kuo-an, in Mandarin), who acted as first Chinese delegate at the Shanghai Opium Commission. He has since been appointed to have charge of Chinese students in the United States, and wrote me on the 27th August, in reply to a letter of mine of November 1910, which he found awaiting him on his return to Peking on the 18th August. I mention these dates because they suggest an explanation of the following statement contained in his letter, which I think must be due to his having failed to grasp the real effect of the arrangement arrived at in his absence :--

"Our Government has been willing to sign a three years' term of annual reduction as the only concession they could wring out new agreement for a further of the British Government, but our people are by no means willing to abide by this as the final and best agreement. Availing ourselves of article 9 of the new agree- ment, we shall agitate almost immediately for a revision on the basis of total suppression of imported opium."

None of us can understand how such an interpretation could be placed upon the agreement of the 8th May. Your answer to Dr. Chapple on the 29th May seems quite clear, in accordance with the view we have taken of the agreement, that there is nothing to prevent the suppression of the Indo-Chinese opium trade within even six months if China can show that she has entirely suppressed opium produc- tion. It has occurred to me, however, as a possible explanation of Mr. Tong's statement, that it may be based on the annex to the agreement, providing for an additional reduction of imports of the Indian opium in 1912, 1913, and 1914 under certain circumstances. I cannot, however, believe that this annex was intended to limit the effect of article 3.

I have written to Mr. Tong explaining our view of the matter, and telling him that I would endeavour to obtain for him an authoritative statement as to the view of the Foreign Office. If you can give me such a statement I should be much obliged.

3. I also enclose copy of a letter which I am addressing to the "Yorkshire Post" in reply to a Central News telegram from Shanghai which appeared in their columns last week, and of which I enclose a copy.

[2226 i-3]

Yours, &c.

JOSEPH. G. ALEXANDER.

82