CO129-396 - Public Offices - 1912 — Page 33

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

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL

C

[33064]

No. 1.

31

[August 6.

SECTION 2.

(No. 305.) Sir,

Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received August 6.)

Peking, July 19, 1912. WITH reference to my despatch No. 251 of the 10th ultimo, I have the bonour to transmit to you herewith copies of further correspondence which has passed between the Wai-chiao Pu and this legation regarding the claim for compensation for the illegal seizure and detention of Indian opium while in transit in the province of Chekiang.

On the 29th June I reminded the Wai-chiao Pu that nearly a month bad elapsed since I had lodged the claim for the second time, and that I had received neither reply nor payment. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed. In their reply, dated the 4th July, the Wai-chião Pu contend that the opium had long since been released, that if the merchants concerned suffered losses in consequence of the detention they should have demanded compensation from the provincial authorities at the time of release or refused to take delivery of the goods, and that, as the merchants took back the goods without expressing any objection, it appeared that. in putting forward a heavy claim for compensation after the event, I was not exacting compensation for losses on behalf of the importers, but had been induced to come forward and raise difficulties in consequence of the Indian merchants' dissatisfaction with Chekiang's measures of opium suppression. They decline to admit the liability of the Central Government, and argue that, as the final paragraph of article 7 of the Opium Agreement stipulates that there shall be no derogation from the force of the laws published to suppress opium, they caunot compel Chekiang to conform to the treaties in the matter of the rights of British merchants to dispose freely of Indian opium and at the same time disregard article 7 of the agreement. They add that their attitude to the agreement has been uniformly just, that in every case of failure of the provincial authorities to observe it they have dispatched telegrams of reprobation, and that they cannot admit excessive demands, and they trust that I will not again raise the question of compensation. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed.

In my reply of the 16th instant, copy of which I have the bonour to enclose, I pointed out that I had repeatedly warned the Wai-chiao Pu that claims for compensa- tion would inevitably result from the illegal action of the Chekiang authorities in regard to Indian opium, that the nine chests of opium seized and detained at Chiang-tou were not released and allowed to proceed to destination, but compulsorily conveyed out of the province under transit certificates issued by the civil administrator, that the claim for compensation was lodged as soon as the losses sustained had been ascertained and in accordance with instructions from His Majesty's Government, and that it was ridiculous to contend that the losses should have been claimed from the provincial authorities, who had actually fined those in charge of the opium the sum of 500 dollars on the pretext that the drug was not accompanied by passes irregularly imposed on its transit.

As regards the accusation that in pressing this claim I was actuated by other motives than a desire to exact compensation for losses sustained, I expressed my astonishment that such a charge should have been made and I demanded its immediate retruction, and, in reply to the Wai-chino Pu's statement that it was impossible to adopt the one-sided policy of compelling Chekiang to conform to the treaties in the matter of the rights of British merchants to dispose freely of Indian opium while disregarding the terms of the final paragraph of article 7 of the Opium Agreement, I pointed out that the interpretation of that paragraph admits of no quibbling, and that the laws referred to therein are laws to suppress the smoking of opium and are to be published by the Chinese Government and not by provincial authorities.

In conclusion, I renewed the claim against the Central Government for having failed to prevent these repeated violations of treaty and agreement,

(Copy sent to India.)

[2604 -2]

I have, &c.

J. N. JORDAN,