[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
OPIUM.
C.O.
3316eptember 25.3
130
CONFIDENTIAL.
)
[40221]
No. 1.
RECE REGE 21 OCT 12
SECTION 1.
(No. 365.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received September 25.)
Peking, September 9, 1912. WITH reference to my despatch No. 345 of the 14th ultimo, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of two despatches which I have received from His Majesty's
's acting consul at Kiukiang regarding the restrictions on the trade in Indian opium in the province of Kiangsi, together with a copy of a memorandum which I have addressed to the Wai-chiao Pu on the same subject.
The Tutu of Kiangsi maintains that there are no restrictions on the import of Indian opium into that province; but, while it is true that the drug is not refused entry at the port of Kiukiang, the provincial anti-opium regulations themselves a breach of article 7 of the opium agreement of 1911-restrict the transit of opium to places where official sale shops have been established contrary to the provisions of the additional article to the Chefon agreement, impose an additional tax on raw opium which is levied in the port of Kiukiang in violation of article 7 of the opium agreement, and fix a date for the prohibition of the import of Indian opium, thereby infringing article 3 of that agreement.
Two other flagrant breaches of the additional article to the Chefoo agreement have recently occurred in Kiangsi. On the 2nd June a consignment of twenty-five packages of Malwa opium from the port of Swatow, bearing customs certificates, was seized and confiscated by the Anti-Opium Bureau of the Ting-nan district, and the man in charge was arrested, relieved of 540 dollars and fined 1,000 dollars, and on the 11th August a man belonging to an opium firm in Nanchang was arrested and twelve unbroken packages of Indian opium, bearing customs certificates, found in his possession were confiscated. His Majesty's acting consul at Kiukiang has protested against these breaches of treaty, but has been unable to obtain redress.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
#
Acting Consul Giles to Sir J. Jordan,
(No. 31.) Sir,
Kiukiang, August 20, 1912. WITH reference to your despatch No. 11 of the 14th instant, I have the honour to enclose certain correspondence and other documents relating to the Kiangsi anti-opium regulations.
In the Wai-chiao Pu's memorandum of the 13th August, it is asserted that no restrictions are at present placed on the import of Indian opium into Kiangai. Though this statement is in accordance with the repeated assertions of the provincial authorities, It is true that, so far as I know, Indian it is in actuality at variance with the facts. opium may be imported into Kiukiang, but it is impossible for the opium merchants to dispose of their cargo, either locally or in other towns in the province, without coming into collision with the authorities, resulting in the merchants being thrown into prison and only released on the payment of a heavy fine, the opium itself being confiscated, and in some instances publicly destroyed. It is of small avail to the dealers if they may import opium but not sell it. Reports of the seizure of Indian opium on the grounds of alleged breaches of the new regulations are published almost daily in the Nanchang newspapers; and though I have hitherto only protested against those seizures which have been brought to my notice by the foreign opium merchants, it is because the true circumstances of the other cases were not known to me; but I have little doubt that they are similar infringements of the treaty. The value of the freedom from restrictions on the import of Indian opium under these regulations is shown by the fact that since the 12th July last no Indian opium has been delivered from bond at this port.
[2644 b6-1]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.