[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government,
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[52458]
No. 1.
C.
20
mmprt 3
RECO 2 JAN 137 [December 9.]
SECTION 1.
11
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received December 9.)
(No. 460.) Sir,
Peking, November 22, 1912. WITH reference to my despatch No. 431 of the 30th ultimo, respecting the destruction of Indian opium at Anking, I have the honour to enclose copies of further correspondence with the Chinese Government on the subject.
The arguments by which the Chinese attempt to explain and defend the violation of treaty will not, I think, carry conviction in any quarter, and I have accordingly pressed the demand for compensation and for the publication of a proclamation which will ensure an observance of the existing opium agreements.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to Sir J. Jordan by Wai-chiao Pu.
ON receipt of the memoranda from His Majesty's Minister of the 20th and 30th September, on the subject of the detention and destruction of Indian opium of Anching, the Wai-chiao Pu telegraphed to the Anhui tutu to make investigations and take appropriate action. The replies received in due course from the tutu were to the effect that, in the case of the detention of the twenty chests of Indian opium, examination of the transit certificates showed that the foreign dates had been obliterated and altered, and that the Chinese dates did not correspond, indicating the existence of fraud; the detention was therefore in accordance with regulations. But the seven chests of Malwa opium had been smuggled in in two consignments, the first of three chests, covered only by bills of lading and without transit certificates, the second of four chests, without either bills of lading or transit certificates. At the time the opium was seized the merchants' own contention was that the low class business permits produced by them should be regarded as their authority, and that transit certificates were not required. This was a clear admission by the merchants that there were no transit certificates, and necessitated the enforcement of the penalty of total confiscation in accordance with the regulations.
A reply in the above terms was in contemplation, when the Wai-chiao Pu had the honour to receive the further memorandum of the 24th instant (sic: in error for ultimo), to the effect that the tutu of Anhui made no attempt to deny that the Indian opium had been seized and destroyed by his own direct orders, though he asserted that they were not covered by transit certificates, and advanced other arguments in support of his flagrant defiance of treaty obligations. His Majesty's consul-general was, however, able to procure conclusive proof of the falsity of the tutu's assertions in the shape of the actual certificates covering all the opium. "His Majesty's Government," the memorandum continued, "have now instructed His Majesty's Minister to demand compensation and the publicatian in Anhui of a proclamation embodying the terms of the telegram dispatched by the then Wai-wu Pu to the provinces."
The Wai-chiao Pu have the honour to observe that the question as to whether the merchants had, or had not, taken out certificates for all the opium transported must be determined by whether or no they produced them for examination at the time. If documents and goods become separated, and the only permits produced are for business of a different character, it is impossible to guarantee the non-existence of smuggling by detention of documents. All the earlier reports by the tutu maintained that the merchants certainly produced no transit certificates for examination at the time; presumably therefore the British consul-general's statement that the merchants had taken out transit certificates was made in ignorance of the particulars of the verbal enquiry to which the merchants were subjected on the day of the opium seizure.
[2736 -1]
ן
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.