CO129-542-12 Smuggling from Hong Kong into China 21-1-1933 - 21-8-1933 — Page 29

29

Having,

5. I have now the honour to enclose a copy of Sir

John Brenan's despatch No.88 of 20th March in reply, from

which it will be seen that the firms have expressed their

considered view that it is undesirable as matters stand at

present to take up the question with the Chinese Government

and that they have further stated that fines have latterly

been of less frequent occurrence and that there are indicat-

ions of improved relatione generally with the Customs in the

matter. That our representations to the Inspector General

of Customs have had some effect, is confirmed by Sir

Frederick Maze's letter to me of March 14th, copy of which

was forwarded in my despatch No.382 of 22nd March.

it is to be hoped, thus got what we want, there will, I trust

be no need for us to tilt at windmills, and, by forcing the

issue over this old question of the right of the Customs to

levy these fines, to embark on what would in all probability

prove a barren controversy with the Chinese Government on the

subject of the relevant proviɛion of the Treaty of Tientsin.

Sooner or later British shipping will have to pass under

Chinese jurisdiction, and in the meanwhile we do not, I take

it, desire, if we can help it, to retrace our steps to the

extent of challenging the existing procedure in connexion with

these fines imposed by the foreign staffed Customs, who have

always been allowed to exercise a measure of jurisdiction

over foreign shipping, so long as the system is not seriously

abused and the fines are kept within reasonable boundɛ. I

should add that, when I took up this question of Customs fines

at my meeting with the British Chamber of Commerce at Shanghai

on 31st January last, none of the representatives of the firms

concerned showed the slightest interest in the matter (see my

despatch Tour Series No.6 of 2nd February).

-

6. The general question of smuggling from Hongkong to

South China ports referred to in your despatch No.828 of 12th

October last is being dealt with in a separate despatch.

I have, etc.,

(Signed) Miles v. Lampson,