175
2
agreement or not, each side will adhere to their own view, and there will be absolutely no ground for affecting a compromise; if the compensation is supposed to be for a breach of agreement, this ministry is ignorant of the grounds on which the claim is based.
But Sir John Jordan's memorandum specifically states that he " demand for the payment of compensation for the value of the opium destroyed"; and repeats his as he thus mentions "the value of the opium," the opium having already passed into Chinese hands, it is for the Chinese Government to consider and deal with the matter.
Now, as to the former Wai-wu Pu circular to the provinces, explaining the meaning of the opium agreement, Sir John Jordan has constantly referred to this telegram, inspired no doubt by a fear that the sale of Indian opium in Anhui Province will meet with obstruction in the future; but it is a fact that up to the present that province has imposed no restrictions whatsoever on Indian opium regularly imported. According to a statement furnished by the customs superintendent at Wuhu, of the monthly revenues collected at that customs station, it appears that since July large amounts of Indian opium have been imported, but absolutely no native opium. The statement in question, which consists of four sheets all signed by the commissioner of customs, is surely conclusive sufficient proof that Anhui Province has suppressed native opium and has not prohibited the import of foreign opium. His Majesty's Minister has but to take this into consideration to realise that the present case in no sense arose out of suppression of Indian opium, while the inaccuracy of the statement in his memorandum that the Wai-chiao Pu have supported the Anhui tutu in a flagrant breach of treaty will be self-evident.
The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Liang, proposed that this case should be referred to arbitration, but His Majesty's Minister unfortunately refused his consent; so that what appears to this ministry the most equitable method of coming to a settle- meat is thrust aside untried. But though this proposal has been dismissed, the Wu-chiao Pu is still willing to negotiate amicably for a final settlement of the present dispute.
Nevertheless, the detention of Indian opium, unaccompanied by its covering passes, is without any doubt merely the enforcement of their right by the Anhui authorities to regulate the trade: it is purely a measure of internal administration, and as such is expressly allowed by the opium agreement.
8
inadmissible argument which has never before in my experience been used in inter- preting the additional article of 1885, and its use on this occasion, coupled with the wanton violation of the agreement itself, would amply justify His Majesty's Government in terminating arrangements which the Chinese Government and its officers now treat with scarcely veiled contempt.
Sir John Jordan formally repeats his demand for the full restitution of the value of the opium destroyed The British losses resulting from the stoppage of the trade consequent upon the action of the Anhui authorities, will form the subject of a later and probably much larger claim.
The statement that the province of Anhui has imposed no restrictions whatsoever on Indian opium regularly imported is the reverse of the truth. It has been proved up to the hilt, by the production of documentary evidence in the shape of customs papers and other documents, that the seven chests which were burnt at Anching on the 16th September, were regularly imported and the Wai-chiao Pu have not produced a scintilla of evidence to prove the contrary. Is this no restriction upon the trade?
As to Wuhu, the facts are briefly these. On the 24th November the head of the Opium Prohibition Bureau, Chang Tung-nan, called the opium dealers together and stated that he could not order them to shut up their places of business, but that he could and would station men at the entrances of their premises and arrest and punish everyone who came out with purchases of opium. The dealers naturally declared that they could not carry on business under such conditions, and eventually signed a bond, drawn up for reasons on which it is unnecessary to enlarge, that they would cease business on the 9th December.
Although the Wai-chiao Pu may not interpret this as imposing restrictions upon Indian opium, Sir John Jordan is obliged to regard it in that light, and the fact that the import has totally ceased justifies his contention.
In conclusion, Sir John Jordan feels bound to reiterate his conviction that the responsibility for the uniform disregard of the opium agreements now rests with the Central Government, who have, by the publication of the penal code and by other measures of encouragement, done much to reduce the treaty to a dead letter.
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to Wai-chiao Pu by Sir J. Jordan.
Peking, December 19, 1912.
SIR JOHN JORDAN begs to acknowledge the receipt of the memorandum which the Wai-chian Pu addressed to him on the 13th instant.
This document is full of misstatements, which have been so often refuted that it is a inatter of surprise to see them again repeated.
The Tutu of Anhui wantonly ordered the destruction of seven chests of opium which, as the customs documents handed to the Wai-chiao Pu proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, had been imported in strict accordance with the procedure prescribed by treaty. For that outrage the tutu and the Chinese Government, who have attempted to palliate his action, are equally responsible, not to the Chinese subjects, in whose possession the opium happened to at the time of the occurrence, but to His Majesty's Government, with whom they entered into solemn treaty engagements permitting Chinese to convey Indian opium into the interior of China under certain specified conditions. These conditions were violated in the most flagrant manner by the Tutu of Anhui, and the Wai-chiao Pu insinuate that the question of redress is one between the Chinese Government and its own subjects. They forget, or choose to ignore, the fact that His Majesty's Government is the other party to the agreement, and is justified in exacting proper reparation for its violation. Were it otherwise there would have been no point in concluding the additional article of 1885, or the subsequent agreement of last year, for China had merely to shield herself behind the excuse that although she had solemnly undertaken to allow Chinese to convey opium into the interior, she recognised no obligation towards His Majesty's Government to do so. That is a totally
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.