K
382
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
opium" in the Ordinance as it stands is as follows:- Prepared opium shall so far as re- lates to infringement of the Opium Farmer's privilege of preparing opium for the Colony mean opium which has been subjected to any degree of artificial heat for any purpose what soever ; and the definition of preparation is 'subjecting of opium of any kind to any degree of artificial heat for any purpose whatsoever." Now, persons have been importing into this Colony opium and using it in the preparation of so-called anti-opium-whatever that may mean-pills and wine; and on appearing before the Magistrate the prosecution has failed. because though it was easy enough to prove that these wine and pills were each a preparation of opium, still in neither case could the learned Magistrate be satisfied that any degree of artificial heat had been used in the preparation, thereof. Still, of course, sir, it is obvious at once that it was a technical objection which was fatal to the operation of the Ordinance which is intended for the protection of the Opium Farmer-it is obvious that it is quite impossible, say, for any witness to say whether any opium brought from Canton and shipped here for pre- paration of pills and wine had been at any time subjected to any degree of artificial heat. Given the principle therefore of the proper protection of the farmer in the monopoly which this Government from the authority vested in it has granted to him--acceding that principle, it is obvious that it is the clear duty of the Government and of this Council to pass such a measure as will give the farmer that protection to which he is entitled. Well, sir. it is not necessary, but at the same time it is just as well for us to remember that the amount paid by the opiam farmer for farming the monopoly for the exclusive privilege and we must remember it is an exclusive privilege that he has of dealing in opiam is in itself extreme- ly large and is greatly in excess of that which has been paid by any farmer in previous years ;| and though I have heard it put forward as a reason why nothing should be done in the present circumstances that these illicit sales! have been going on for a long period in the past-though that may
be perfectly true, still in view of the fact that the farmer to-day is paying more than three times what his prede- cessors paid, it may equally be true-in fact it seems to me it is obviously more true-that he as a prudent man of business can no longer be content to overlook that which did not matter. so much to his predecessors who were paying so much less for the exclusive right they had. Now, sir, from enquiries that have been made since the necessity for these amendments was brought to the notice of this Government, it appears that this illicit competition has increased since the farmer has proposed to increase his prices somewhat. It will be seen at once that when a man gives three times as much as his prede- cessor was paying for the article he is entitled to sell, it is only to be supposed that some increase in the price to the public will follow. It is to be admitted that the farmer. exercising in that respect the right which he has. has somewhat increased his prices, but it must also be admitted that that increase has been trifling I challenge that statement to be contradicted, The increase in the selling price of opium by the opium farmer has been trifling. Enquiries have shown that the price has increased by one- fifth only, and one-fifth is say trifling. That, I put it to the house, can anybody consider an undue increase in view of the fact that the opium farmer now pays $2,000,000 per annum.
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-More than that. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Ånd more, the hon. and learned member remarks. Therefore if it is more it makes the increase all the more trifling. One-fifth only, however, is charged for the opium and more than three times is paid to the revenue itself. Meantime the sales of the opium farmer have fallen enor- monsly. The falling off too has not been due to any less consumption. It cannot in fairness
all be attributed to the small increase of one- fifth. What it is due to is the excessive illicit introduction, preparation, and sale in this Colony of opium, which. I say, unless it is checked will render it impossible probably--at any rate ex- tremely difficult for the opium farmer to fulfil the conditions of the tender which he has entered into in this Colony. Now, I propose to deal
shortly with one or two suggestions which I believe will be urged by my hon. and learned friend opposite [Mr. Pollock] to the progress of this measure." The first, as I understand it, is that it is a great hardship to prevent the sale of opium-pills and wine by persons who have hitherto been licenced or permitted by former opium farmers to sell them, and also secondly, to prevent the sale of these opium wine and pills would be to force the opium habit upon persons who are struga ling to free themselves from it. Now, sir, neither of those assertions stand for a moment when examined. Take the first-the hardship upon those who have hither to engaged either in selling opium wine and pills. by permission or by overlooking or by licence from the opium farmer. Now we also have made enquiries into that assertion because the last thing this Government desires is to inflict hard. ship upon anybody; and from the report made by the hon. Registrar-General it appears that there are some 83 firms who deal in opium-pills and wine, and of these 83 only five of them deal in these articles exclusively. But the other 78 were general dealers who turned-I cannot call it an honest penny, by the additional sales of opium-pills and wine. But I say as to quantum," of these 83 there were only five, so
[May 21, 1904. either by licence or otherwise the sale of opium by any person but himself; and the principal reason why he has been forced to take that course is the impossibility of controlling the illicit dealers-either to make them keep a true record of their sales or to compel them to pur- chase their stocks from the opium farmer. It is one thing to say the opium farmer may con tinue to license those persons-five or six or 83- who have been hitherto selling, but how are we to reply to the opium farmer when he says, Have you considered the great temptation that a rise in the price of opium holds out to persons who deal in this trade? What guarantee have I got that the man who is my licencee will keep proper returns of his sales, and what guarantee have I got that he will not under cover of the licence which he holds from me import a little from me and a great deal from Canton inde- pendently of me " Any practical man-and the house is full of practical men--will see at once that such an answer as that is unanswerable, and it would be in the highest degree wrong to force the opium farmer to take any such step to his obvious undoing or refuse to afford him pro- tection against one who persists in dealing in opium without his knowledge or consent. Well, now, the second assertion is to the effect that the We must deal with five and 800 sale of opium-pills and wine is principally made what hardship would be to them. But even to those who want to break themselves of the suppose there were 83. The largest of these opium habit. I do not know whether such a dealers did a business which he admitted to suggestion vill
made here to-day. amount to-what do you think?-$100 a month but I have heard it suggested that it total sales, and not net but gross sales; and he is to the interests of the opium farm admitted to the Registrar-General, and we have that the habit should be indulged in rather it in the report, that after deducting out-of-than cured. Now, enquiries have been made pocket expenses his profit-the largest profit amounted to about 835 a month. Now, where is the hardship? Even suppose the opium farmer had been allowing those persons or in- ducing them to sell these opium wine and pills, I say there is no hardship there. It is clear therefore. I put it to you, that while a great loss is inflicted upon the opium farmer by the infrin ement of his privilege the loss to the individual dealers is comparatively small.
HIS EXCELLENCY-I think you will recollect that the report of the Registrar-General stated that this $100 a month was taken by the largest retail dealer.
It was
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I understood I did say a retail dealer. He has the largest re- tail business, and he admitted that his sales did not exceed $100 a month. I only dealt with that argument because it put a wrong aspect on this matter. It is an ad captandum argument and has no force otherwise. The question is not whether it is a hardship or not to prevent a man who has been for a long course of time in illicit business from any longer engaging in it, but whether or not the opium farmer, when he comes to this Council to be protected from the illicit dealers, is entitled to that protection. From the moral point of view, the question of hardship ought not to enter for a single moment. the case of a smuggler who for a long course of time had been in the habit of smuggling, and the authorities had either been careless or had looked the other way. The illicit opium seller has absolutely no claim to the consideration of this Council for one single moment. The man who is entitled to consideration and protection is the honest opium farmer who pays $2,000,000 a year towards the revenue of this country to be acceded the privilege of exclusively dealing in opium. How can he be said to get the pri- vilege if A. B. C. and D. are illicitly competing with him in the same business? But at the same time, though unnecessary for me to have to deal with the question of hardship, it is gratifying to know that in any particular pro- ceeding one is not inflicting a hardshid, and I put it to you that have show, you that, even if hardship were any argu- ment, which it is not. there is no ques- tion of hardship in dealing with this case to-day. Now, the opium farmer has considered this question, and whether he can continue to license a certain number of persons to sell opium provided they buy it from him, and the Council will see at once that is not a question for any body but the opium farmer is entitled to settle. Surely a man is entitled to settle that himself. having paid for the exclusive right of dealing -to settle the question for himself whether he will license another to deal also. Well, he has considered that question, and I am informed that he cannot see his way to any longer permit'
be
from the opium farmer showing that this asser- tion and this objection are also groundless, because the opium farmer is prepared to supply pills and wine to anyone who desires to eat or to drink them, whether to cure himself from opium smoking or to indulge himself. The opium farmer is prepared to sell them. There. fore it will not lie in the mouth of any person who opposes this Bill to say that the pills and wine are no longer to be sold. They will be sold by the opium farmer, and he is prepared to open branches where all facilities will be given to those who desire to purchase these pills and wine; and he has stated that he is prepared to sell these opium pills and wine at a price which will be 25 per cent. less than the ordinary sell- ing price of ordinary prepared opium. This offer on the part of the opium farmer I cannot but feel, will commend itself and himself to the Council at once, for the man is not bound to make these concessions. He is entitled to come here and say, "I stand upon my legal rights and demand but justice. You have put up a tender for the exclusive right of sell- ing opium. I give you $2,000,000 for the contract and I have a right to demand justice at your hands and protection from anyone who infringes it." When a man with these rights is prepared to make concessions we are bound to say he cannot be the altogether undesirable person that he possibly may be considered by some. What more does that bona fide consumer require than to have a place at which he can buy his pills and wine at a reasonable price? Do you suppose it matters one cash to the consumer from whom he buys the opium so long as he can get it at a reasonable price, and if he can get it at a price 25 per cent. less than the price of prepared opium and at a branch establishment of the farmer, he has no longer any complaint so far as he is concerned. He gets all he wants, the probable conclusion is, cheaper from the farmer than he could and does from the illicit seller. Now, I will not detain you very much longer, but I will just say that that assertion that the pills and wine are taken by a person to cure the opium habit has nothing in it, because it is impossible for anyone who advances such a suggestion to produce such an authority of any value if any at all which will hold the habit will be cured in that way. It is cured by what is called strength of will and not by sipping and nipping opium wine or taking reduced puffs of opium pipes or swallowing pills. For the purpose of catching the unwary, these wine and pills are called by the name of anti-opium. What does it mean? It has no meaning at all. They are not anti-opium pills and wine but opium; they are pills and wine which contain a certain amount of opium in them, and that they will effect a cure I say again it is impossible for
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.