CO129-437 - Public Offices - 1916 — Page 435

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majestys Government..

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL,

34612]

No. 1.

433 [February 22.]

SECTION 1.

Sir W. Collins to Sir W. Langley.-(Received February 22.)

(Confidential.) Dear Sir Walter,

1, Albert Terrace, Regent's Park, February 21, 1916. I HAVE read with great interest the despatches from Sir John Jordan re morphine smuggling in China, which Lord Robert Cecil agreed, upon Mr. Max Müller's suggestion, might be sent to me,

In August 1914 I had some correspondence with Dr. Wu-hai-Teh (M.D. Cantab.), then at Harbin, who was the Chinese delegate at The Hague who produced the samples of "anti-opium remedies' containing morphia referred to in Mr. Max Müller's memorandum, and I learnt from him that China has been flooded with smuggled morphine, which comes mainly by way of Japan." He asked me to find out if it was true that this morphine from Japan came largely from Great Britain, At about the same time I received a letter from Bishop Brent from Manilla; he was the president of the first Hague Opium Conference. He complained that Sandakan, the chief town in British North Borneo, was a great centre for contraband trade in opium in the Far East and in the Philippine Islands.

I looked up the Board of Trade figures and found that the export of morphine from the United Kingdom to Japan had increased enormously between 1911 and 1914, and that the export to Hong Kong in 1911 was 17,200 ounces. I had some correspondence with Mr. Harcourt at that time, who informed me that he had no power to interfere in North Borneo, and added that North Borneo and Japan had both adopted the Opium Convention, and that Japan did not import morphine openly except for medical purposes. He added that most, if not all, the trade in morphine and cocaine was, before the war, in German hands. I replied that, as the Opiumi Convention was not in force, Japan and North Borneo were not as yet restricted by it not to import morphine except for medical purposes, and that, in 1913, 252,110 ounces (118,7941. value) were, in fact, exported from the United Kingdom to Japan (including Formosa, &c.). I added that it was difficult to believe that this amount could be absorbed by the necessities of "medical purposes." To this I received no reply, and early in 1915 I mentioned the matter to Mr. Taylor, M,P., who, on the 4th May, 1915, asked Mr. Runciman a question on the subject. The answer disclosed the fact that the enormous increase had continued in 1914 when the export of British-made morphine to Japan reached the figure of 352,130 ounces (value 143,975)! It was apparently on this reply that Sir J. D. Rees, M.P., based his question of the 18th May, 1915. Speaking at a conference in London on the 27th April, 1915, I said “China is being drenched with morphia at the present time. I think some of it goes through Japan into China. In 1913 252,110 ounces were exported from Great Britain to Japan (including Formosa, &c.). It is incredible that anything approaching that amount of morphine could possibly be devoted to legitimate medical purposев.” The despatches completely confirm this statement.

I was

While it is true that cocaine has in the past being chiefly exported from Germany, the United Kingdom appears to have been the chief source of the supply of morphine to the Far East, and the chief manufactories are in Edinburgh and London.. recently informed, in confidence, that one of the partners in the chief Edinburgh manufacturing company had resigned rather than be a party to so demoralising a trade, but I cannot vouch for this.

I thoroughly agree with Mr. Max Müller that the experience of China. proves

the wisdom of the consistent policy of Great Britain at The Hague Conferences, which maintained that it would be idle to deal with opium (raw, prepared, or medicinal) aloue and not include morphine, cocaine, and other drugs liable to similar abuse within the terms of the convention. It seems to me that action might usefully be taken under articles 15, 16, and 19 in the case of China. I also agree that control at the source is even more important, and more likely to be successful than control of consumption or even of distribution.

You will remember that at the third Hague Conference it was decided that, pending ratification of the convention by all the signatory Powers, it was open (loïzïble)

[2548 y--1]