CO129-513-5 Coastal and river trade- prevention of smuggling and illicit trading 15-10-1928 - 14-12-1929 — Page 42

.

* 3-

42

this principle but in view of the attitude taken up by the companies, I am now inclining to modify my views. The companies cannot expect to have it both ways.

6. In the letters enclosed in Mr. Garstin's despatch No. 78, none of the companies raise serious

objection to the suggestion that the principle may have to be relinquished. Messrs. Butterfield and Swire say

that the suggestion "merits careful consideration" (paragraph 5 of their letter); the Asiatic Petroleum Company "would oppose no objection"; Messrs Jardine, Matheson and Company would prefer search by the Customs only, but take the view that the right of immunity from search by other bodies has in practice already been foregone. Moreover, in his despatch No. 111 Mr. Garstin reports that Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, Messrs. Butterfield and Swire and the Kailan Mining Administration are unanimous in desiring that facili- ties should be given to the Yangtsze Salt Preventive Service to search their ships. As stated at the beginning of this despatch it seems to me clear that if permission to search is officially accorded to any body other than the Customs, the principle of immunity cannot long be maintained. But this is a matter which primarily at any rate concerns the shipping companies and I presume that in the last resort the choice should be left to them. Our own position with regard to this question, as I see it, is that it weakens our whole position of privilege in China, upon which a concerted attack has already been opened, if it can be successfully shown that the exceptional rights which we enjoy in this

country.....