2
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe.
(Telegraphic.) P.
UNCERTIFIED opium.
Simla, July 11, 1913.
Please see our telegram of the 12th ultimo and earlier correspondence. It is in our opinion most important that announcement as to sales in 1914 should be made at an early date. Recent price is only slightly in excess of 2,000 rupees a chest as against a price four months ago of 3,000 rupees, and all our information indicates unmistakably that the uncertainty regarding the quantity to be exported in 1913-14 is restraining merchants from buying. Many protests by leading dealers in the uncertified drug were evoked by the notification last January that exports would be reduced. If we make an early announcement it will tend to make the trade steady, it will obviate the danger that it may become speculative, and probably may have the effect of reassuring non-China markets generally, and the Governments of those countries in which opium is under the control of Government. An early announcement would also be a reversion to our former practice of announcing about June the sales for the following year.
With regard to the number of chests which should be notified for sale our firm opinion is that larger number should now be reverted to. The second of our telegrams of the 30th December last stated that reduction of uncertified chests in 1913 to 9,000 was purely a temporary measure proposed with a view to causing stocks of certificated opium in treaty ports to be diverted to other markets. There is now no doubt that the measure will not accomplish that end. Opium at Shanghai fetches regularly over 5,000 rupees per chest and passes continuously into China at that price, while the highest price realised by the uncertified drug at the monthly sales was about 3,000 rupees a chest even before the recent fall in prices. We have all along contended that non-China markets legitimately require more than 13,200 chests as sold last year, and the recent representations from the Colonial Office and the Government of the Straits Settlements appear fully to support our contention. We therefore consider that we should be justified in notifying the former quantity of 14,000 chests, and should the competition of Persian opium in our markets become more serious, we might have to ask permission to adopt this figure for 1915. In any case we look upon 13,200 chests as the least possible number, and all things considered, recommend this figure for next year. Subject, therefore, to the approval of your Lordship we propose to issue notification for 13,200 chests with same reservation as in our notification of the 11th October last, No. 784 F.E., Clause 4.
3
Enclosure 4 in No. 1.
Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe.
(Telegraphic.) P.
UNCERTIFICATED opium.
Simla, July 27, 1913.
Please refer to your telegram of the 22nd July. Our recommendation in our telegram of the 3rd November, 1911, that sales of uncertified opium for 1912 should be reduced to 13,200 chests allowed for only 3,180 chests for Straits Settlements as, in calculating requirements of non-China countries, your Revenue Secretary's letter of the 10th November, 1911, enclosing estimate of September 1911 was not before us. Our despatch of the 18th July, 1912, indicated this in paragraph 4.
In the same way nothing was included on account of Macao as we had no information on the point at the time. See our despatch of the 17th January, 1913, last sentence of paragraph 4. With regard to Hong Kong we allowed 900 as against 660 chests now reported. Altogether for these three countries we allowed for 680 chests less than, as now stated, they actually require.
Enclosure 5 in No. 1.
The Marquess of Crewe to Government of India.
India Office, August 1, 1913.
If
(Telegraphic) P.
UNCERTIFICATED opium. Please refer to your telegram of the 27th ultimo. My telegram of the 22nd July made comparison between the anticipated requirements of Macao and the Straits Settlements in 1914 and what apparently was their actual consumption in 1912. the larger requirements of these countries in 1912 and also needs of other non-China countries were met by 13,200 chests, this quantity would be too great for 1914, seems that answer must be either that quantity actually consumed in 1912 was less than stated or that consumption was not adequately covered by 13,200 chests. If the latter view is held by you I shall be glad to receive a statement of your reasons. It is desirable to have definite substantial reasons as the point will be contested. In the
you should not make any announcement.
meantime
Enclosure & in No. 1.
It
(Telegraphic.) P.
Enclosure 3 in No. 1.
The Marquess of Crewe to Government of India.
UNCERTIFICATED opium.
India Office, July 22, 1913.
Please refer to your telegram of 11th inst. I agree that it is unnecessary to retain for 1914 the temporary reduction to 9,000 chests. But I desire to be furnished with your observations on the considerations set forth below before coming to a decision on your proposal to adopt the figure sanctioned for 1912, viz., 13,200 chests.
(1) Letter from Government of Straits Settlement dated the 5th February, 1913, enclosed in letter from my Revenue Secretary dated the 11th March, 1913, gives their requirements as 3,600 chests only, as against 5,350 chests as stated in September 1911.
(2) Requirements of Hong Kong are now limited to 660 chests.
(3) Amount absorbed by Macao last year was probably 1,500 chests or more, but there is now a prospect of its being limited to 500 chests.
Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe.
(Telegraphic.) P.
Simla, August 26, 1913. OPIUM. Your telegram of the 1st. We have carefully considered matter of uncertified opium, and hold by the second of the conclusions which you mention, viz., that consumption of markets outside China in 1912 was probably not adequately met by 18,200 chests. We have throughout held this contention (see our despatch of the 18th July, 1912, paragraph 4, and our despatch of the 17th January, 1913, paragraph 5). There is nothing, so far as we can see, to justify alteration of our opinion in subsequent
facts.
The main reasons for believing that the above number of chests failed to meet legitimate requirements in that year are:-
1. We based figure in our telegram of the 12th July, 1911, as to 1911 sales (14,000 chests) on average consumption of non-China markets for the years 1905–1909. When we offered, in our telegram of the 3rd November, 1911, to reduce figure to 18,200, we did so purely to prove sincerity of our wish to help China, although, from information furnished by you up to date of latter telegram, we should have been justified in proposing at least 14,000 chests.
2. The calculation referred to in latter telegram comprised 3,180 chests for Straits, 900 for Hong Kong, and nothing at all for Macao. On the 27th July, 1913, as stated
in telegram of that date, latest available information showed that we had under- estimated by 680 chests requirements of those countries.
3. As regards other countries, though we do not possess any information later than that which you furnished in 1911, we have no reason to believe that there has been any
97
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.