CO129-516-5 Policy of Hong Kong government on the purchase and supply of opium 25-2-1929 - 10-5-1929 — Page 3

3

Actually quoted by rice!

(1) Although on a smaller scale, it is

in principle the same as that rejected in

1927 and there is no particular reason to

reconsider the decision then taken.

(2) The situation in the Far East is

about to be investigated by a League of

Nations Commission which has now been definitely

appointed and is expected to start its work

in the Autumn. (Hong Kong were not aware of

this when the despatch was written but have now

been informed by telegram).

(3) The Governor implies that he was

promised permission to supplement his supplies

of Indian Opium with supplies from elsewhere,

meaning in practice from Persia. This is not

strictly accurate. We only promised to allow

the purchase of Persian Opium to supplement the

decreasing supplies of Indian Opium so far as

these are not sufficient to meet the demand for

Government Opium at present prices (see No.4

on 52836/28). It was never laid down that

1927 was to be taken as a standard year and

that Hong Kong supplies were to be fixed at the

amount imported then. This might in fact be a

dangerous principle from Hong Kong's point of

view in case the demand for Government Opium

even at present prices considerably increased

and they wanted to import more than the 1927

standard.

The arguments for this proposal are:-

(1) The expect ed increase in revenue, As

sis

13 on 302

30236/27

the

Mr. McElderry suggested in 1927

Hong Kong's principal reason.

It is a good

one