2
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to Wai-chino Pu by Sir J. Jordan.
HIS Majesty's Minister has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Wai-chiao l'u's memorandum, of the 17th September, transmitting the reply of the Tutu of Kiangsi to the protests of this legation against the numerous breaches of treaty and agreement committed in that province in the matter of the trade in Indian opinm.
The Wai-chiao Pu are well aware that by the Opium Agreement of 1911 all laws regulating the retail trade in opium must be made by the Chinese Government, and Sir John Jordan notes with satisfaction that the Wai-chiao Pu have repeatedly telegraphed to the Tutu of Kiangsi in the terms of his memoranda, and instructed the tutu to conform his action to the treaties. The tutu, instead of complying with these instructions, flouts them and imposes irregular and valid regulations, which violate the additional article to the Chefoo Agreement and the Opium Agreement of 1911.
As regards the seizure and confiscation of Indian opium at Ting-nan and Nanchang, that opinn was in both cases accompanied by customs transit certificates, and by treaty the owners thereof were at liberty to dispose of it at destination, for provincial regulations made and enforced contrary to the Opium Agreement of 1911 cannot override the additional article to the Chefoo Agreement, under which that opium was in transit in the Province of Kiangsi. The alleged carriage of arms and ammunition may or may not be an offence; but so far as the opium is concerned no breach of treaty has been committed or proved, and Sir John Jordan must request the Wai-chiao Pu to again instruct the Tutu of Kiangsi by telegraph to conform his action to the treaties, release the opium illegally confiscated, and warn him that his provincial regulations are, so far as Indian opium is concerned, irregular and invalid.
Peking, September 23, 1912.
3
289
Indian opium under the new regulations are violations of treaty, they cannot be described as purely domestic affairs. It is, no doubt, in pursuance of this policy that the tutu has so far refused to answer my communications of the 15th and 19th August, complaining of the seizure of one package of Indian opium in Kiukiang and of twelve in Nanchang, although such opium bore the proper customs' certificates.
In confirmation of the forecast contained in the ante-penultimate paragraph of my despatch No. 31, I observe that at a meeting of the Chêng Wu Hui at Nanchaug on the 27th August, the Commissioner of Domestic Affairs stated that by the end of October the cultivation of opium in Kiangsi would be completely suppressed, when the Provincial Government would be in a position to apply to the British Government to enforce the provisions of article 3 of the Opium Agreement of 1911, and prohibit the import of Indian opium into this province.
I have, &c.
Enclosure 4 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Acting-Consul Giles.
LANCELOT GILES.
(No. 13.) Sir,
Peking, September 20, 1912. I HAVE received your despatch No. 38 of the 10th instant, and I approve your action in returning the tutu's despatch for correction, as established forms of correspondence must be maintained until they are altered by mutual agreement.
As regards the last paragraph of your despatch, I may state that no request for placing Kiangsi on the prohibition list will be entertained until the conditions contained in the Opium Agreement of 1911 bave been fulfilled, and you should continue to press every infringement of that agreement on the attention of the tutu.
I am, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Enclosure 3 in No. 1.
(No 38.) Sir,
Acting-Consul Giles to Sir J. Jordan.
Kiukiang, September 10, 1912. WITH reference to my despatch No. 31 of the 20th ultimo, I have the honour to inform you that the tutu has replied, through the Bureau of Foreign Affairs at Kiukiang, to my letter of the 6th August, which formed the first enclosure in my despatch referred to above, stating that the seizure of the twenty-five packages of Halwa opium at Ting-nan Hsien was due to the circumstance that the dealer had not reported to the authorities the arrival of the opium at its destination, and that he had brought a consignment of firearms and ammunition with him up-country, which he had sold en route. The tutu admitted that the customs' certificates were in order. I have communicated this reply to Messrs. David Sassoon and Co. (Limited). The charge brought forward by the authorities, if true, is, I daresay, sufficient excuse for their action in this matter, but in the circumstances it is one that it will be almost impossible to disprove, and I doubt whether much will be gained by pressing this case further. I am, however, awaiting an answer from Messrs Sassoon and Co.
With regard to this letter, I had to take exception to certain words in the tutu's despatch. He concluded the quotation of my letter with the two characters" têng ching," a form only used when quoting a communication from an inferior. The tutu and the Bureau of Foreign Affairs assert that since the establishment of the republic these old-time formalities have been abolished, and that now there is no difference between "têng ch'ing" and " têng yin." I am, however, able to point out repeated instances in recent cornmunications from the Chinese in which it is clearly indicated that the former custom is still maintained. On its receipt I sent the despatch back for alteration, but it has not been returned to me.
The tutu also declared that this seizure was a matter of internal administration, and that he would not in future reply to any letters of mine dealing with such cases. Apart from the blunt discourtesy of this statement the tutu arrogates to himself the right to be the sole arbiter as to whether any case referred to him by me is or is not the concern of the British Government. Further, in this instance, as the seizures of
adi
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.