CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 106

104

16

Foreign newspapers published in China that had hitherto always been against the opium monopoly now advocated that China should establish an opium monopoly, as other Governments had done. The Government of Hongkong had fought against opium in a successful way, and the consumption of the drug had been reduced there more than in any other colony.

Without violating the Opium Convention, China could establish the monopoly, but for China there could not be the same half-measures as for India, where consumption could be controlled and carried on moderately. In China either the consumption would have to be abolished entirely or there was no hope for the Committee to attain the aims it had in view.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHU (China) asked why, if foreign countries were allowed to increase their supplies, China should not be allowed to increase hers.

In support of what Sir John Jordan had said, he quoted a Press cutting dated July 1st, 1922, which showed that an Englishman had tried to induce the Chinese Government to institute the monopoly of opium in order to collect enough money for the disbandment of the Chinese troops. He offered 200,000,000 dollars per year. The monopoly would produce 190,000,000 dollars the first year, 154,000,000 the second year and 60,000,000 the third year, as the contract would be for three years. The price of the ounce would be 4 dollars. This proposal had been rejected by the Government and public opinion.

The policy of the Hongkong Government was in favour of abolition, but it must not be for- gotten that ten chests a month imported to Hongkong were not only for the town itself but also for the people of the interior going to Hongkong to enjoy legal smoking.

From the financial point of view, an increase of ten chests a month would not mean much for the Indian Government, whereas it would mean the poisoning of many Chinese.

Sir John JORDAN was of the opinion that a motion should be passed on the letter received from the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, recommending that the increase in the imports to Hongkong should not be allowed pending the receipt of information from the various Governments concerning their need of opium.

The CHAIRMAN said that, under the rules of procedure, it was for the Committee to decide whether it would consider such a motion, of which notice had not been given at that session; but if it decided to do so, he would have to oppose this motion, as the Committee had not sufficient data to form an opinion on the matter.

Sir John JORDAN said that, as yet, he had proposed no motion. Were he to do so, it would be to the effect that, as the Committee had asked at its last session for information from the various Governments concerning their need in opium, the increased import from Eastern Colonies should be refused until information from the Governments had been received. If this increased amount was granted, then the Committee might as well put an end to its labours, as the granting of such an increase was the very thing which the Committee was there to prevent.

The CHAIRMAN asked the Committee to vote on the point whether the discussion on the increased demand by Hongkong was in conformity with the Rules of Procedure.

By five votes against two and one abstention, the Committee decided that it was not in order. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the question should be placed on the agenda of the next session.

Sir John JORDAN said he did not think it would be of any use if left until next session, as the matter was one demanding immediate attention, and which would be ineffective if left over, He regretted the result of the vote; as long as the question continued to be considered from the purely financial and national interest point of view, progress would be very difficult in the matter. Besides, the motion was not specially directed against the Hongkong Government, one of the European Colonies in the Far East where the situation as far as opium was concerned was very good, but against increasing the supplies of raw opium to any of the European Colonies in the Far East.

Mr. CAMPBELL (India) said that he wished to reply to the allegations against India made by Sir John Jordan in his speech, as also in the speech made during the last session of the Committee (page 15 of the English text of the Minutes.) Sir John Jordan had said that the Indian Government was partly responsible for China's failure to carry out her engagements under the Opium Con- vention and the 1911 Agreement. The Indian Government indignantly repudiated such an indictment; it had always helped the Chinese Government in every possible way to carry out its policy of complete prohibition, even though it may have considered that policy impracticable, and it had sacrified £4,000,000 a year of revenue by giving that assistance. In order to provide further effective assistance, particularly against smuggling, the Indian Government had reduced its opium exports to the Far East; but neither the Chinese Government, nor Sir John Jordan himself, had then advanced the extraordinary proposition that it was necessary for India to stop all exports to the Far East before China could carry out her obligations under the 1911 Agreement.

It was not open to China now, or to Sir John Jordan, speaking on China's behalf, to say that the reason for China's failure to carry out a self-contained agreement (where it had obtained every- thing it had asked for) was because it had not been given something which neither China nor

17 --

Sir John Jordan had then asked for, or had then considered necessary or had even suggested up till then.

Sir John Jordan's contention was that India, although most doubtful whether China's experiment would ever be successful, should at once have set up as the moral mentor of the Far East; should have arbitrarily cut off opium supplies from Indo-China, the Netherlands and the British Possessions there; and should thereby have dislocated the internal administration and the finances of these countries. No one knew better than Sir John that this was an impossible proposition. An examination of the actual quantities involved would also show how negligible the non-China exports from India were as compared with the Chinese production; and, of course, both Turkey and Persia were standing ready, then as now, to fill any gap in Indian exports.

The contention that China had been led to increased cultivation of the poppy owing to increasing imports of India opium was equally untenable. China had grown the poppy long before there were any imports of opium from India; she had always grown poppy far in excess of the Indian imports. In 1893, the Royal Commission took the proportion of home-grown to Indian opium at about 5 to 1; in 1907, the statistics showed that it was twelve times as great. It would be as reasonable to accuse France of stimulating distillation and drunkenness in Scot- land because some small quantity of cognac had always been sent there.

Mr. Campbell denied that there was, in fact, any source from which material quantities of Indian opium could have been obtained for smuggling into China; the statistics of export up to and after 1907 made that point clear. He could not understand Sir John Jordan's contention that, because Chinese subjects could obtain opium in Indo-China, the Netherlands and British Possessions, China was therefore at liberty to disregard her solemn undertakings under the 1911 Agreement. That was a contention that had only to be stated for its absurdity to be manifest. Lastly, he emphasised the effects which attacks of this kind-attacks which were, he thought, unfair and unreasonable would have on Indian opinion. If something in advance of the Hague Convention were desired, Indian opinion must first be convinced that these new restrictions were necessary; and Indian opinion was at present hardening markedly as against China, owing to her failure to carry out her undertakings and owing to her reiterated denials of obvious facts, The state of mind necessary to convince India that the Hague Convention as it stood was inade- quate would not be produced if attacks on the lines now made were constantly being made against India. Sir John was rightly most careful as regards China's susceptibilities; Mr. Camp- bell's clear duty was to be equally active in protecting India's. India carried out her bargain and did even more. The blame should be put on the country that failed to carry out its engage- China had even said that it had the right to provide its people with opium, which is a strange proposition on the part of a country party to the Anglo-Chinese Agreement of 1911.

If one wanted to get new concessions from India it was not through attacking India in this way. Popular opinion in India could not be carried further in the direction of a reduction of exports to the Far East at present on the lines suggested by Sir John Jordan,

ments.

Sir John JORDAN said that be would reply to the main points of Mr. Campbell's statement. He had never sought to minimise the gravity of the lapse that had taken place in China and had attributed it primarily to the disturbed state of the country. There were, however, he had added, three contributory causes: first, the immense quantity of morphia which was sent to the Far East after the import of opium was stopped; next, the smuggling of foreign opium; and, lastly, the Indian Government's policy of continuing to send opium to the Far Eastern Colonies of European Powers for the consumption of Chinese settlers.

Mr. CAMPBELL (India) said that the arrangement concerning the reduction of India's exports to the Far East was negotiated by Sir John Jordan himself, and at that time he did not object to 13,200 chests a year as a suitable limit.

Sir John JORDAN said that he would prove that his assertions were all well founded.

I. The statistics which had been placed before the Committee on previous occasions showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that hundreds of thousands of ounces (in one year as much, probably, as 800,000 ozs.) of morphia had been sent to the Far East for illicit introduction into China. China did not produce an ounce of morphia herself, and morphia had thus taken the place of opium in certain parts of China.

2. The statistics published by the Chinese Customs and the seizures of opium made in Hongkong and Singapore amply attested the magnitude of the smuggling operations in opium that went on during the years in question. Most of it came in steamers from Liverpool and London, one steamer from the latter port arriving with 3,000 pounds of opium.

3. The Indian Government had continued to send opium to Hongkong, the Straits Settle- ments, etc. This was a fact that was not disputed.

He had claimed Mr. Campbell had not attempted to controvert the first two statements. credit to the Indian Government for having sacrificed £4,000,000 a year of revenue,

Sir John Jordan gladly recognised that sacrifice, the credit for which, however, was shared by the British House of Commons, which, responding to the pressure of public opinion, had pronounced the opium trade "morally indefensible ".

It was against the third statement that Mr. Campbell had principally directed his criticism. He had pointed out that neither China nor Sir John Jordan had considered it necessary at the