CO129-395 - Public Offices - 1912 — Page 345

28

116. The only other business not already referred to, dealt with at the twenty- first session (17th January), was the insertion of a denunciation article (article 25 of the convention) which follows the original scheme of the Drafting Committee, and the commencement of the second reading of the convention as a whole.

117. At the twenty-second session (18th January), as we reported to you at the time (in our

despatch No. 11 of the 19th January), Dr. Hamilton Wright, on behalf of the Americau delegation, suddenly introduced a resolution inviting the Drafting Committee to consider the advisability of preparing an entirely fresh draft of the effectuating clauses, based on the idea that there should be two separate conventions, one principally concerned with the articles relating to opium, and the other containing those relating to morphine, cocaine, &c. The first of these was to be ratified in the usual way. and within a year, by the participating Powers, and the adhesion of outside Powers would be invited. The second would be subject to the special procedure already proposed by the Drafting Committee, and provisionally accepted by the conference, for the convention as a whole, by which preliminary adhesion by outside Powers by way of signature would precede ratification.

118. M. Cremer (Netherlands) pointed out that the adoption of this resolution would involve a breach of the conditions on which His Majesty's Government entered into the conference. Sir William Meyer, speaking for the British delegation, emphasised this point, quoting from your note of the 17th September, 1910, to Mr. Whitelaw Reid, to show that His Majesty's Government had froin the outset made their participation in the conference conditioual on restrictive measures against morphine and cocaine being taken up pari passu with opium. His Majesty's Government, he said, regarded the consumption of those drugs as being, in present circumstances, a far more serious evil than that of opium, and he could not possibly accept Dr. Hamilton Wright's contention that the primary object of the conference was to conventionalise the opium resolutions of the Shanghai Commission. Opium reform had already advanced very largely, thanks mainly to the generous co-operation, at a material loss to herself, which India had given to the Chinese anti-opium policy, and even if the present conference were to come to nothing the stimulus thus given would continue to act. The proposed measures in respect of morphine and cocaine, on the other hand, required international and co-operation to render them effective, and for this purpose a convention was agreement necessary. Nevertheless, the American delegation now proposed a course which would have the effect of treating the opium articles as of primary importance, and bringing them into effect with comparatively little reference to outside Powers, while the morphine and cocaine articles would take a back place, and be subject to a much longer process before they could come into force. In fact, this procedure night perfectly well lead to their being shelved altogether. Such a course was emphatically opposed to the condition which His Majesty's Government had laid down as indispensable to their taking part the conference, and Sir William Meyer said that we must, therefore, absolutely oppose the solution proposed by Dr. Hamilton Wright being regarded as even an open question.

in

119. After some discussion, in which the British point of view was strongly supported by the Siamese, French, and Russian delegations, Dr. Hamilton Wright, perceiving that the sense of the conference was against him, asked leave to withdraw the resolution. The conference, however, decided on its being put to the vote, and it was then rejected by 9 votes to 1 (that of the United States), the German delegation abstaining.

120. We may add that the first intimation we had of this American move was in a private conversation between Bishop Brent and Mr. Max Müller on the 17th January, in which the former broached the matter. Mr. Max Müller replied that the matter was so clearly contrary to the ideas of His Majesty's Government and to the conditions on which they had entered the conference that the British delegates could at once reply that it was, from their point of view, absolutely inadmissible, and we were greatly surprised when the resolution was nevertheless tabled.

121. At the twenty-third session (19th January) the American proposal was once more brought forward, this time as a resolution committing the conference to direct action. We sent you a copy of the resolution in our despatch No. 11 of the 19th January, above quoted,

122. Before, however, this resolution was discussed upon its merits, the chief delegate for Russia raised the point that it involved a departure from the conditions on which Great Britain had entered the conference and which had been accepted by the other Powers represented. He therefore proposed that the first vote to be taken should be as to whether, in these circumstances, the resolution was one suitable for discussion.

20

This proposal was supported by M. Cremer (Netherlands), and on a division it was decided by seven vetes to three (Germany and China voting with the United States on this occasion) that the American resolution was not in order; and it was thus finally

shelved.

123. The remaining business at this session not already referred to in previous para- graphs-sce, for instance, paragraphs 52, 53 and 98, 99-consisted in bringing the second reading of the convention up to article 24. This second reading was extended to the remaining articles at the turenty-fourth session (20th January).

124. At the twenty-fifth session (22nd January) the conference was informed that in consequence of the continued absence of the Italian delegate, M. Santoliquido, the Italian Minister at The Hague had been authorised to sign the convention on behalf of Italy.

125. Mr. Max Müller read the following declaration, in accordance with the instructions conveyed in your despatch No. 19 of 19th January, on the subject of the application of the convention to His Majesty's dominions :-

"Nous déclarons que les articles de la présente convention, si elle est ratifiée par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté, s'appliqueront à l'Empire des Indes britanniques, d Ceylan, aux établissements des Détroits, à Hong Kong et à Wei-haï Wei, sous tous les rapports, de la même façon qu'il s'appliqueront au Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande ; mais le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté se réserve le droit de signer ou de dénoncer séparé- ment ladite convention ou nom de toute dominion, colonie, dépendance et protectorat de Sa Majesté outre que ecux qui ont été spécifiés.”

Ile added that this declaration would be appended as a reserve when we signed the convention, and this was accordingly done.

126. The Portuguese delegates also made the declaration that in signing the convention, they desired it to be understood-

(1.) That the stipulations of the convention would not affect those of existing treaties, conventions, or agreements to which Portugal was a party, or any advantages which she obtained by most-favoured-nation clauses.

(2.) That further action in regard to the limitation of the number of ports from which raw and prepared opium could be exported, with reference to acticles 2 and 8 (a), could not be undertaken by Portugal, since Macao was already the only Portuguese port of export

in the Far East.

(3.) That as regard the provisions of articles 4 and 8 (d), in regard to marking exported packages of raw or prepared opium so as to indicate the nature of their contents, the Portuguese Government reserved to itself the right of placing special marks on such packages in addition to any uniform marks that might be adopted as of international application.

The convention and the final protocol were read for the last time this session, 127. At the twenty-sixth and last session (23rd January) M. Brenier (France) notified the conference that he would place against his signature the words :--

"Sous réserve d'une ratification, ou d'une dénonciation, éventuellement séparée et spéciale en ce qui concerne les protectorats français."

128. Some discussion had taken place at the two previous sessions in regard to the publication of the convention, and it was now indicated by the Netherlands delegation that his Excellency M. de Marees van Swinderen, as Dutch Foreign Minister and honorary president of the conference, was of opinion that it might be published imme- diately after signature-a course which was accordingly adopted.

129. After the minutes of previous sessions which had still to undergo this process had been ratified, M. Cremer (Netherlands) proposed a vote of thanks to Bishop Brent, as president of the conference, which was seconded by M. von Müller (Germany) and by M. Sanches de Miranda (Portugal); and after valedictory addresses by the president and honorary president (M. van Swinderen), the conference was then declared closed, and the delegates plenipotentiaries proceded to sign the convention and the final protocol.

130. In signing the convention reservations were made, as already indicated, by our own delegation in regard to separate ratification or denunciation in respect of any portion of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, dependencies, or protectorates other than the United Kingdom, India, Ceylon, Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and Wei-hai Wei; similarly by the French delegation in regard to French protectorates; by the delegates

[2458 s-2]

I

341