-2-
accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Nemazee also
daims that he is not responsible for transactions in opium carried
out by the branch or associated firms in Shanghai, Singapore,
Bombay and elsewhere.
also must be accepted, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
hast
The Colonial Office think that this claim
In view of all that you and we know about the activities of Namazee and his family in connexion with the business of smuggling
opium into China and elsewhere, and of the fact that within the
last two years he was busily engaged in Persia in connexion with
this business, we are quite at a loss to understand this attitude on
the part of the Colonial Office. Our view is that the Government
of Hong Kong should use their powers against Nemazee if they are
not satisfied that he is not now concerned in the illicit transactions,
and not (as you propose) only if they are in a position to prove
that he is so concerned. In other words, the onus of proof should
be on Nema zee and not on the Hong Kong Government. We gather
from paragraph 5 of your despatch that the Colonial Office is
influenced to some extent by the fact that Nemazee has been a
prominent member of the English community in the Colony.
appears to us to be an argument for even greater circumspection
on the part of the Colonial Government.
This
Has the Colonial Office considered that it would be practically
impossible for the Hong Kong Government ever to satisfy itself,when
Nemazee says he wants to go to Shanghai, Macao, Amoy or Swatow or
as to whether those affairs are or are not any other such place on business affairs, that they legitimate and door
do not cover opium transactions unless they should be so fortunate
B
it
as to get proof through a raid or otherwise that Nemazee is mixed up
in some opium transaction, and we understand from past despatches from
the Government of Hong Kong that the Nema zee family there are too
clever for that to be likely to happen.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.