сог
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
([32662]
No. 1.
[March 20.]
SECTION 2.
374
Sir,
India Office to Foreign Office.—(Received March 20.)
India Office, March 19, 1915. WITH reference to your letter of the 28th December, on the subject of the closing of the three provinces of Kiangsi, Kiangsu, and Kwang-tung to Indian opium, I am directed by the Secretary of State for India to forward, for the information of Sir Edward Grey, and for communication to Sir John Jordan, a copy of a telegram from the Government of India conveying their observations.
Enclosure in No. 1.
I have, &c.
CHARLES ROBERTS.
Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe.
(Telegraphic.) P.
YOUR telegram dated the 22nd January.
February 27, 1915.
1. As regards closure of ports to opium traffic, Jordan's standpoint, as we under- stand it, is (a) that, as soon as provinces in which Shanghai and Canton are declared opium free, local sale and consumption in these towns must be suppressed under article 3 of Agreement; (b) that these ports might still remain open for distribution, under proper precautions of opium now in bond at those places, to provinces where it is still permissible to consume Indian opium.
As regards (a), we do not accept this as strictly following either from terms of agreement or its intention. Had the point risen at the outset through Kiangsu and Kwang-tung being declared free (we understood there has never been much opium cultivated in these provinces), we should have resisted the proposition strongly, and so, we imagine, would Jordan himsef (see his telegram to Viceroy, the 31st March, 1911, and his despatch No. 199, paragraph 4, to Foreign Office of the 8th May, 1911). But we have no desire to press our objection in view of stage now reached, and especially of my telegram of the 19th August last, and action already taken thereon.
As to (b), we hold that, under Agreement, we have right to continue distribution from Shanghai and Canton to any provinces still not declared clean, even if local consumption in these towns is stopped. We notice that, in his despatch No. 204, paragraph 8, to Foreign Office of the 14th May, 1913, Jordan had previously supported this view emphatically. In view of passages referred to above, and of the many indications that cultivation has recrudesced (see Jordan's despatch No. 218, paragraphs 22, 23, and 37, to Foreign Office, dated the 16th May, 1913), we should have expected that in his despatch of the 13th November, 1914, now under considera- tion, there would have been some reference to cases of other open provinces, Kweichow, Yunnan, Shensi, and Kiangsu, not merely to Kiangsi. We do not seek an opportunity of sending ludian opium to above-mentioned western provinces, and are therefore content to waive points as regards them. We hold, however, that, in view of the amount of opium being produced in China, there is a strong presumption in favour of import into remaining provinces, and we should require complete assurance that import as well as production had ceased in Kiangsu, Kiangsi, and Kwang-tung before these are held to be clean.
11
2. As regards interpretation of term "effective suppression," see article 3 of Agreement. We note with surprise that Jordan is doubtful as to our suggestion in our telegram of the 19th August, 1914, that the term can be held to mean calculated to endure. Above interpretation does not imply (as it would if word "permanency had been used) an absolute guarantee on part of certifying authority that there will never be a recrudescence in future; it implies that the authority bona fide believes that suppression is genuine, and has been effected by measures calculated to make
[2371 u
-2]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.