CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 103

C

-11-

101

SECOND MEETING

Held on September 1st, 1922, at 3 p.m.

All the members of the Committee, Sir John Jordan (Assessor) and Dr. Miyajima were present.

The CHAIRMAN said that there were four new questions on the agenda, the first three being proposed by himself and the fourth by M. van Wettum,

According to Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, the agenda had to be circulated to the members three months in advance, but a member could raise new questions if the Committee approved. The Committee would then decide whether to discuss them. He sugges- ted that members who had proposed new questions should make a brief statement about them and the Committee could then decide whether it would consider them. He had prepared notes on the three subjects proposed by himself, which had been circulated (Document O. C. 64).

5. The Question of the Application of the Convention to what is known as Artificial Cocaine.

The CHAIRMAN read the relevant document (O. C. 64) and mentioned that in England ecgonine and its derivatives had been included in the legislation relating to dangerous drugs as well as cocaine.

He asked M. Bourgois to state what the French Government bad in mind when it included artificial cocaine in the list of drugs communicated to the League in its letter of April 12th, 1922.

M. BOURGOIS (France) said that the French Government thought that, in conformity with the Council's decision of October 12th, 1921, the Advisory Committee should consider whether the provisions of the 1912 Convention should not be extended to the products mentioned in his letter. The French Government was examining the memorandum on this subject forwarded to the Committee by Dr. Anselmino.

The question placed on the agenda of the meeting only concerned one of the products on this list: "artificial or semi-artificial cocaine." It would be advisable to point out that the definition of cocaine given by the 1912 Convention applied to "artificial or semi-artificial cocaine "* as well as to "natural cocaine."

Dr. ANSELMINO (Germany) said that for the German Government and for himself, semi-artifi- cial and artificial cocaine were to be assimilated to ordinary or natural cocaine as far as the prohi- bition was concerned. He pointed out that the cocaine prepared in Germany was semi-artificial.

Dr. MIYAJIMA said that in Japan they considered that there was no difference under the Convention between the various kinds of cocaine.

Mr. CAMPBELL (India) remarked that there seemed to be no doubt about it, as the definition in the Convention gave a chemical formula for cocaine, which is understood to be the same for both natural and for artificial cocaine; the reference to "coca leaves " in the Convention was a mere explanation; the formula was the substantial thing.

Dr. ANSELMINO explained that the difference between the coca leaves of Peru and Java was the same as between Indian and Turkish opium. The European opium contained much morphia and little codeine, whereas the Indian opium contained little morphia and much codeine. The coca leaves of Peru contained benzoylmethylecgonine, whereas the Java leaves contained cinnamylmethylecgonine.

"

M. BOURGOIS pointed out that these explanations, and especially the fact of the similarity of chemical formulas for "artificial cocaine Convention applied in its entirety to the two cocaines.

and for natural cocaine " proved that the 1912

The Committee agreed that the definition of cocaine given in the 1912 Convention applies both to natural cocaine obtained by extraction from coca leaves and to semi-artificial and artificial cocaine obtained through chemical synthesis.

6. The Arrangements to be made for the Mutual Exchange of Information concerning Seizures made by the Customs, which was recommended by the Advisory Committee at its last Session,

The CHAIRMAN referred to the note which he had circulated and stated that in England seizures had been made by the Customs, and the British authorities wished to know whether they should communicate the particulars direct to the competent authorities of the Governments concerned or whether they should do that through the Secretariat. It would involve much unnecessary correspondence and loss of time to use the diplomatic channel. The Secretary- General, when consulted by him, was of opinion that the Committee should decide.

The Chairman thought that perhaps the best way would be for the various Governments to send the information to the Secretariat which would transmit it to the responsible Departments of the Governments concerned.

As the question was very urgent, he asked the Committee to give a ruling on the matter.

Mr. CAMPBELL (India) said that the best way, perhaps, would be for the Governments or Departments which made the seizures to communicate direct with the police and Customs autho- rities in the second country, as, if the Secretariat of the League had to do it, it would delay transmission and put a heavy and perhaps unnecessary burden on the Secretariat.

M. BOURGOIS (France) pointed out that a similar question had been discussed in the course of the last session of the Committee on Traffic in Women and Children, and that it had been deci- ded that there should be a direct interchange of information between the Central Bureaux of the various countries. In France the Central Bureau was attached to the Service de Sûreté générale.

The SECRETARY added that it had also been decided that information should be communicated at the same time to the Secretariat.

M. BOURGOIS replied that the Secretariat had at its disposal only general statistics, and this represented the limit set for its activities. It would be going far beyond this limit if it received and communicated detailed and complete information on technical points or practical questions required by the central authorities. It was for these bodies to enter into direct communication with each other.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that such central authorities were already in existence for the traffic in women and children, but not for the traffic in opium. He raised no objection regard- ing the matter under discussion, but it should be intimated which authorities were competent as far as the traffic in opium was concerned.

M. BOURGOIS stated that the Service de la Sûreté générale also dealt with narcotics, which simplified matters. The intermediary of the Ministries for Foreign Affairs was unnecessary.

M. van WETTUM (Netherlands) said that he preferred the diplomatic channels, as certain coun- tries such as the Netherlands did not have a central office. There was also the question of languages; the information being transmitted in foreign languages, the Ministries for Foreign Affairs had a competent staff to deal with them, whereas some of the offices might not have the staff.

The CHAIRMAN said he imagined that each country would have a special department dealing with traffic in drugs, but one or two members had said that in their countries more than one department was concerned.

M. BOURGOIS thought that communication through the diplomatic channels would be too slow. On the other hand, he did not consider it necessary to forward all information to the Secretariat, which would receive news from time to time by means of a general report. The question concerned rather the police authorities.

Sir John JORDAN was of the opinion that the various Governments should be asked to send monthly or quarterly reports to the Secretariat.

The SECRETARY pointed out that the Secretariat needed full statistics to carry out its work.

The Committee adopted the second alternative, ie, that the particulars of seizures should be sent direct to the competent Departments of the Governments concerned. It also decided that summary reports of the seizures made should be sent by each Government to the Secretariat for purposes of correlation.

The SECRETARY pointed out that the Chinese Government already sent reports on seizures, which were very useful to the Committee and to the Secretariat.

The CHAIRMAN asked if the Secretariat could ask the various Governments to intimate which were the responsible departments to receive such information without a formal resolution from the Committee that would have to go to the Council, which meant a loss of time.