Į
313
2
provinces be regarded as legally closed until the reports of the investigators had been considered and consent formally given in the case of each province as in the past.
I added that I had purposely refrained from reporting the communications of the 18th May to you in the belief that a speedy recognition by the Chinese Government of their mistake would enable me to remove the highly unfavourable impression which their action would otherwise create. In the meantime, however, the Chinese Govern- ment had proceeded to default on the agreement for the purchase of stocks, which, although made without the cognisance of this legation, could not be turned into an instrument for the infliction of losses on the British owners of the bonded opium, whose rights successive Chinese Cabinets had recognised in conversations with His Majesty's Minister in the past. The delay which had occurred was no doubt unavoidable, but I must now press for a statement of the Chinese Government's position vis-à-vis the 1911 Agreement.
Mr. Kao maintained that if I insisted on this I must wait until the Cabinet- which was alone qualified to give such a statement-had considered the question. He himself was merely discussing the matter with me privately, and he in no way represented his Government, but I could draw my own conclusions as to his own view from the fact that he was asking me whether in my private opinion I considered a settlement feasible; if so he would do his utmost to induce the Government to adopt any arrangement which he and I might reach.
I informed Mr. Kao that I was prepared in my private capacity to make enquiries with a view to ascertaining whether there was any means of promoting a settlement of the stock question, and to inform him of the result, but I was careful to reserve all our rights in the event of the Chinese showing any sign of using these unofficial pourparlers as an excuse for evasion.
I have accordingly requested the representative of the combine to come and see me, and if the very complicated financial arrangements entailed under the original agreement should prove to be susceptible of modification, it is possible that some solution may be found.
The present Chinese Government are apparently desirous of an early settlement, and in view of the fact that our general policy in this country calls for a speedy consolidation of the new régime under President Feng Kuo Chang, I trust that my action in recognising the bearing of the lesser question of the opium upon the greater question of the immediate requirements of British interests as a whole may meet with your approval.
I have, &c.
Sir,
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Chinese Minister for Foreign Affaire to Mr. Alston.
B. ALSTON.
Peking, May 18, 1917. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the ith instant, stating that you have learned that customs notifications were issued at Canton and Shanghai ou the 1st April last, closing Canton and Shanghai to the import of Indian opium in contravention of the agreement, and requesting that, pending the receipt of the reports of the joint inspection of the provinces now proceeding, immediate instructions may be given to secure adherence to the provisions of the agreement.
In reply, I would observe that since the Opium Agreement was concluded with the British Government, all matters connected with the suppression of opium have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Moreover, the Chinese Government are unendingly grateful to the British Government for their sincere support and assistance in enabling China to put forth such efforts for progress as to eradicate within ten years the long-existing opium evil. How then could they tolerate any violation of the agreement entailing losses to the British opium merchants?
As regards the present prohibition of the import of Indian opium by the Customs at Canton and Shanghai, this Government holds the view that article 3 of the Opium Agreement, which provides that Indian opium shall not be conveyed into any province in China that has effectively suppressed the cultivation of native opium, and stipulates that the closing of Canton and Shanghai shall not take place except as a final step, must be read in conjunction with the phrase "in less than seven years," &c., contained in the preceding article 2, and the words
further agree in the English text of
3
article 3 show on careful examination that this is the correct interpretation. Again article 4 says: "During the period of this agreement," so it is clear that articles 2 and 3 refer to a procedure for the prior prohibition of the import [i.e., before the expiry of the agreement.-TRANSLATOR].
.
In accordance, therefore, with this interpretation, previous to the expiry of the seven-year period, the prohibition of import of Indian opium into any province that has effectively suppressed the cultivation of native opium can only take place subject to the promise that the closing of Canton and Shanghai shall only take effect as a final step. But at the end of the seven years' period, which is the date fixed for the closing of the Indian opium trade, the import of the Indian drug can of course no longer be permitted in any province, and there can certainly be no question of allowing the continued import at Canton and Shanghai.
It would appear, therefore, that the arguments in your note under acknowledgment, which rely on the said article 3, are based on a misapprehension of the real meaning of the agreement in question.
You state, also, that a quantity of opium exported from India prior to 1913 is still in bond, and according to article 8 of the agreement may be imported without let or hindrance. These opium stocks, however, have been in bond at the Shanghai Customs for some time. Why is it that they have not been declared for import during the last four years? Prior to April last, the Customs had not issued any prohibition against the import of Indian opium, and it cannot be said, therefore, that there has been an infringement of the agreement. If, because of the stringent measures taken by China for the suppression of opium, it has not been possible to clear the stocks, or if they have not been taken out of bond because the merchants were waiting for a better price before selling, that is the merchants' own mistake, and the responsibility therefore cannot be laid on the Chinese Government.
With regard to the alleged lack of co-operation shown by the Chinese Government before the issue of notifications by the Canton and Shanghai Customs, it is the opinion of this Ministry that unusual consideration has already been shown in view of the fact that, although according to the rate provided in the agreement for the diminution of the import of Indian opium there is no Indian opium to be imported in the present year, the period has been extended to the 1st April under the arrangement concluded with the foreign opium combine by the special opium commissioner for the three provinces.
車
The prohibition notifications, which were only issued by the Customs on the 1st April, are a necessary part of the procedure provided for in the Opium Agreement, and, in view of the facts, can give rise to no possible objection. It was therefore not considered necessary to consult with you beforehand.
I trust that you will take the above into your favourable consideration, and I avail, &c.
(Seal of the Wai-chiao Pu.)
Sir,
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Mr. Alston to Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Peking, June 2, 1917. HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 18th ultimo on the subject of the closing of the ports of Canton and Shanghai to the import of Indian opium.
The statements contained in this communication are of so surprising a nature that I have subjected them to the very closest examination before allowing myself to arrive at the regrettable, but only possible, conclusion, namely, that the Chinese Government bave deliberately treated a serious question of the treaty relations between Great Britain and China as a subject for pleasantry,
If the note under reply is to be taken seriously, it can only mean that your Excellency considers that the period of the Opium Agreement concluded between our two Governments on the 8th May, 1911, has already expired, and that consequently the agreement itself is no longer of any effect.
The preamble of this agreement quotes the original arrangement of 1907, under which the full period of ten years was to be reckoned from the 1st day of January, 1908, while article 1 again lays down that the unexpired period of seven years shall be reckoned from the 1st day of January, 1911.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.