CO129-487 - Others & Individuals - 1924 — Page 555

!

544

:

of the Colony it seems a little too much to ask the British Government to accept the statement.

Para. 15. Whose authority have you for the statement that the methods of search at Hong Kong are far more drastic than any used in this

country?

Para 16. If the opening sentence is a reference to any suggestion of mine I do not think I have ever put the point quite in that

way.

Would not it be well to modify the last sentence of this paragraph? The first part of it seems to re to be very uncompli mentary to the efficiency of the Hong Kong Government, its Courts and its Police, while the last part is just assumption.

MERA

Para 17. The fourth sentence beginning When the Convention was signed" ap ears to me to be based on a misaprehension of the position in 1912. China did not coase growing or using oplum at this date. The Convention between this country and China was only signed in 1911, and it was quite uncertain in 1912 what the final results would be (see pages

23 and 24 of the India Office pamphlet The Truth about Indian Opium").

I do not think it would be wise to rely on the argument that the Convention

of 1912 was signed in the expectation that the cultivation and use of Opium in China going to stop.

Is not the language of the lust part of this paragr. h rather strong, particularly in view of the fact that what is suggested is certainly not what the Convention provides?

+

Paraphs. I should lie to point out that the Governor's telegram of the 19th July,expressing the belief that "our policy promises a large measure of success" is much more sanguine than his despatch of

the 18th March, and more sanguine indeed than the resort of the Committee

itself.

.

for.

Farah 26.

26

The British North Borneo Company accepted the rationing system in some form.

Para

+ MG. 23068/24-

+ wo.

18 581/44.

2

It seems to me that in this paragraph you ought to

explain