June and the 31st of October 1924, and which
had only been in suspense owing to Nemazee's
absence from the Colony.
3. On the other hand, no evidence had
been produced to me to indicate that the
statements made to His Majesty's Representa-
tives in Persia that the Hong Kong
member of the family had gone out of the
opium business, were incorrect, or that he
is in any way responsible for the
transations in opium which were alleged
to be carried on by other members of the
family.
4.
I was also influenced by the
consideration that if it could be proved at
any time that he were re-engaging in the
illicit traffic in opium, it would
be possible to proceed against him under
Section 4 of the Opium Ordinance.
a section which (it will be recalled) was
{
enacted in 1924 with specific reference to
(H.0.23965/24) (H.0.49286/24)
your
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.