Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 2, 1913

Report to the Secretary of State on the Second International Opium Conference by the American delegates: Hamilton Wright, Lloyd Bryce, Gerrit John Kollen.

Department of State, July 31, 1913.

Sir: The following report, made on behalf of the American delegates to the Second International Opium Conference, held at The Hague from July 1 to July 9, 1913, is in continuation of reports of January 1, 1910,¹ and of May 15, 1912,² [the former] made to your predecessor by the undersigned on behalf of the American commissioners to the International Opium Commission, which met at Shanghai in February, 1909, and [the latter on behalf] of the American delegates to the First International Opium Conference, which assembled at The Hague on December 1, 1911, and adjourned January 23, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 377, 61st Cong., 2d sess.,¹ and S. Doc, No. 733, 62d Cong., 2d sess.²)

The above-mentioned reports should be carefully consulted, as the first contains the conclusions and recommendations of the International Opium Commission; a wide range of data embracing treaties affecting citizens of the United States in regard to the opium traffic; statutes controlling Americans engaged in the foreign opium traffic; tariff, internal revenue, and other statutes covering the opium trade in the United States and its possessions; projected Federal legislation, etc.; while the second report is mainly composed of instructions to the American delegates to the first Hague conference, and a careful analysis of the International Opium Convention formulated in that conference of twelve powers, representing the civilization of America, Europe, and Asia.

For a proper understanding of what the American Government has accomplished in cooperation with the other nations of the world during the past six years for the obliteration of the special and general opium and allied traffics, it might be well to consult certain articles on the commission and First Conference in the Journal of International Law of July and October, 1909; and of October, 1912, and January, 1913. These articles state very thoroughly the status of the world-wide opium problem before the United States initiated in the autumn of 1906 the international movement for its suppression; and contain information which shows beyond doubt that all nations concerned have heartily rallied to the support of the United States for the achievement of an intercontinental humanitarian, moral, economic, and diplomatic reform. I beg to suggest that these articles be printed as an annex to this report.

With the above-mentioned documents accessible for consultation, it is unnecessary that an exhaustive report be made on the recent conference. The salient facts in regard to the preliminaries of that conference are about as follows:

By article 22³ of the International Opium Convention of the First Conference, formulated by delegates of twelve powers, it is provided in effect that the powers not represented at that conference shall be permitted to sign the convention; that to this end the Netherlands Government shall invite all the States of Europe and America who were not represented at the conference to sign the instrument. There then follows an enumeration of 34 powers of Europe and America who are to be invited to sign.

During the first conference an informal agreement was made between the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Government and the American delegates thereto that the United States should especially concern itself in securing to the convention the signatures of the Latin-American States. This understanding was reinforced by a formal request made on the United States by the Netherlands Government, which appears as follows:

No. 218.

Royal Legation of the Netherlands Government,
March 7, 1912.

Mr. Secretary of State:

By virtue of article 22 of the International Opium Convention, concluded January 23 last, an additional protocol of signature has been opened at the Department of Foreign Affairs at The Hague for the powers that were not represented at the conference.

His excellency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, being convinced of the special interest taken in this question by the American Government, desires me to express to your excellency the hope that you will kindly lend your invaluable assistance to cause the powers of Latin America to sign the said protocol at the earliest possible date.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

J. Loudon.

As the result of the understanding between the American delegates and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Government, and the formal request of the Netherlands Government upon the Government of the United States, The Department of State issued April 15, 1912, a circular instruction to American diplomatic officers accredited to the Latin-American States. In substance that instruction was about as follows:

Attention was called to the fact that during some 30 years a powerful and extensive public opinion had developed which aimed to secure the abolition of the evil associated with the opium traffic as seen in Far Eastern countries; that this public opinion expressed itself not only in the United States, but in those other countries having intimate commercial association with China; that for a number of years much pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government of the United States to induce it to take the initiative in an international movement for the eradication or mitigation of the evil; and that after a thorough examination of the question by the Department of State the Government of the United States in the autumn of 1906 approached several of the interested powers to see if there could not be assembled an international commission of inquiry to study the moral, scientific, economic, and diplomatic aspects of the question. The Governments approached heartily responded to the proposal of the United States, and in a short time it was agreed among them that an international commission of inquiry should meet at Shanghai, China. That commission met on February 1, 1909, and adjourned on February 26 of that year.

After a searching study of the opium question in all its bearings, the international commission unanimously decided that the opium evil, though most obvious in the Far East, was really present in the home territories of the several countries represented in the commission. The commission then adopted nem. con. nine resolutions, which may be found on page 65, Senate Document No. 377, Sixty-first Congress, second session. The instruction further declared that although no formal conclusion was arrived at, it was a matter of discussion, and was recognized by the international commission, that its resolutions, however important morally, would fail to satisfy enlightened public opinion unless by subsequent agreement of powers they and the questions involved in them were incorporated in an international convention. Impressed by this fact and the desirability of divesting the opium problem of local and unwise agitation, as well as by the necessity of maintaining it upon the basis of fact as determined by the international commission, the Government of the United States issued a proposal to the interested Governments on September 1, 1909, to the effect that an international conference be held at The Hague, composed of delegates of each State, and that such delegates should have full powers to conventionalize the resolutions of the Shanghai commission and their necessary consequences. This proposal contained notes as to a tentative program (p. 73, S. Doc. 377, 61st Gong., 2d sess.), and to this program, by the proposal of the British Government, was added the question of the production, use of, and traffic in morphine and cocaine, and by proposal of the Italian Government the production, use of, and traffic in the Indian hemp drugs.

The Latin-American States were informed that it was the earnest desire of the United States that in the prospective conference there should be as wide a representation as possible, and that this desire was strengthened after the proposals of the British Government in regard to the morphine and cocaine traffics had been made, for it was promptly recognized by the United States that several of the Latin-American countries were interested in the production of the raw material of the coca leaf from which one of these drugs—cocaine—was derived. However, it was explained that it was not possible in the short period which elapsed between the time of the British proposals and the assembling of the international conference at The Hague for the Government of the United States to make its desire known to the Latin-American Governments; that it seemed wiser at the moment that the prospective conference should consist of those countries which took part in the Shanghai Commission, and that that conference should decide whether its convention should become immediately effective as concerned the signatory States, or wait ratification and effectuation upon the signatures of those other countries of Europe and America not represented in the conference. When the conference assembled, it was stated, there was a general agreement that the signatures to the convention by the Latin-American States was essential; that it was with pleasure that the American delegates accepted article 22 of the convention, which provided for the supplementary signatures of the Latin-American States, amongst others, as it undoubtedly enhanced the value of the work of the conference and directly settled an important diplomatic question, namely, that in the future all Hague conferences dealing with questions moral, humanitarian, and economic, of world-wide interest, such as the opium and allied questions, could not be finally determined upon by a minority of nations of the world, but must include delegates of all States directly or indirectly interested. The American representatives accredited to the Latin-American States were then instructed to bear in mind that this Government had steadily pressed for international action for the solution of the opium problem; that it had done so only after a frank recognition by twelve of the powers of the world that separate national action alone could not solve such problems, and after the receipt of assurances from them of their desire cooperate; that the interest of the American Government and people was great and earnest to secure the humanitarian and practical object to which twelve powers had already given their consent, and for which several of them had made great financial sacrifices. Assurances were made that this Government would be highly gratified to learn that the Latin-American Republics would enter into full sympathy with the international movement for the settlement of the opium and allied questions initiated by this Government as they had sympathized with and supported similar international movements of the past.

Acting promptly on this instruction, the American diplomatic representative met with a hearty response from the Latin-American nations, and by the end of 1912 all of the Latin-American States except Peru had notified the United States that they had signed or would be pleased to sign the International Opium Convention, and paid high compliments to this Government for its initiative and continuous leadership in a high purpose.

If the Netherlands Government and the United States had been able to secure the signatures of all of the powers mentioned in article 22 of the International Opium Convention, the Second Conference recently held at The Hague would not have been necessary. Apprehending the failure of the United States Government and the Government of the Netherlands to secure all of the necessary adhesions, the convention provided in its article 23 that in case the signatures of all of the powers mentioned in article 22 were not secured by December 31, 1912, the Netherlands Government should immediately invite all of the powers who had signed by that date to designate delegates to proceed to The Hague to examine into the possibility of depositing their ratifications of the instrument.

Owing to the economic difficulties which confronted Peru, it was not possible for the United States to secure the signature of that power by December 31 last, and owing to the complicated diplomatic and warlike conditions in the Balkans and their effect upon Turkey, it was not possible for the Netherlands Government to secure the signatures to the convention of Turkey and several of the Balkan States; Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden misunderstood the terms of the convention and showed a reluctance to sign it until a second conference of the signatory powers had met and determined upon ratification. Therefore, by virtue of article 23 of the International Opium Convention, the Netherlands Government issued the following notification to the signatory powers:

No. 145.

Legation of the Netherlands,
February 4, 1913.

Mr. Secretary of State:

In continuation of my note, No. 1384, of December 10 last, I have the honor to forward herewith to your excellency on behalf of the Queen’s Government two copies of a table showing what signatures have been affixed up to December 31, 1912, to the International Opium Convention of January 23, 1912, and to the protocol of signature of powers not represented at the conference, referred to in the penultimate paragraph of article 22 of the convention; the table further mentions the powers whose signatures had not been obtained by the 31st of December, 1912.

I further venture to invite your excellency, on behalf of the Royal Government of the Netherlands and in accordance with article 23 (second paragraph) of the International Opium Convention, to have delegates designated to take up at The Hague the question whether it is possible to deposit the instruments of ratification.

I may add that Mr. van Swinderen (Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Government) intends to call the conference for the month of June next, with the hope that in the meantime several of the nine States whose participation is still wanting shall have signed. His excellency reserves for a later communication the precise date.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

J. Loudon.

In a later communication from the Netherlands Minister to yourself, dated May 19, 1913, you were informed that the Second International Opium Conference would be opened at The Hague by the Netherlands Government on the 1st of July, 1913.

The above explanation and reprint of documents explain as concisely as possible the call for the recent conference, and I may now proceed to report on the conditions which confronted the delegates of the signatory powers when that conference assembled, and the results which were attained by the plenipotentiaries of the powers represented thereat.

Your instruction to the American delegates was as follows:

Department of State,
June 19, 1913.

Hamilton Wright, Esq.,
American Delegate, International Opium Conference.

Sir: I take pleasure in informing you that the President has appointed you a delegate plenipotentiary to represent the United States of America at the final international opium conference, which, at the instance of the Netherlands Government, is to meet at The Hague on the 1st of July, 1913.

The other delegates plenipotentiary of this Government are Mr. Lloyd Bryce, American Minister at The Hague, and Mr. Gerrit J. Kollen, of Michigan. Mr. Butler Wright, secretary of legation at Brussels, has been designated as secretary to the American delegation, and Mr. Gerald B. Seldomridge as assistant secretary.

A brief review of the various steps leading up to the convocation of this conference may be helpful. In February, 1909, the international opium commission, upon the invitation of this Government, met at Shanghai, China, where the opium question in all its bearings was examined and certain unanimous conclusions arrived at which in substance condemned the evils associated with the production and use of opium and morphine and contained recommendations as to measures to be taken to bring such abuses to an end. As the commission was not empowered to negotiate a convention binding the participating powers, it was deemed necessary that an international conference, composed of delegates with full powers, should be convoked not only to conventionalize the conclusions arrived at by the commission, but to provide rules under which opium and other narcotic drugs should be produced and the international traffic therein conducted, as well as national laws by which such drugs should be confined to strictly medicinal purposes in the territories of the different countries.

Accordingly the International Opium Conference met at The Hague on December 1, 1911; and on January 23, 1912, the delegates thereto signed a convention containing, stipulations as to production and the international and national traffic in opium, morphine and cocaine. As it was found that the questions dealt with by the commission and the conference affected the economic interests not only of the powers having treaty relations with the Orient but also of the other nations of the world, the conference concluded that to make its convention effective it was necessary to secure adherence thereto by all the nations, if that were possible. Therefore, the convention was so drafted that it was not to become operative until the nations named in article 22 of the convention should add their signatures to the instrument.

The necessary supplementary signatures were to be secured by December 31, last. In the event of failure to secure all the signatures, the Netherlands Government engaged to call a second conference of all the signatory powers to examine the possibility of proceeding none the less to ratification of the convention. Since a few of the requisite signatures were not subscribed, a second conference became necessary, which the Netherlands Government has therefore called.

It is assumed by the Department that the discussions and conclusions of the conference will, except by general consent of the interested Governments, be properly confined to the stated purposes, as to which it would seem unnecessary to give you detailed instructions. Should, however, the question of economic disturbances, resulting from the antiopium movement in China, with its bearing on treaties, be raised, you will be guided by the tenor of the Department’s instructions of October 18, 1911, to the American delegates to the International Opium Conference,¹ which met at The Hague on December 1 of that year. You may agree to deposit ratifications on the part of the Government of the United States (subject, of course, to the advice and consent of the Senate), provided a majority of the delegates present likewise agree on behalf of their respective Governments. Should occasion arise during the course of the deliberations for special instructions you will communicate concisely with the Department by telegraph.

Throughout the deliberations of the conference you should bear in mind that the international movement for the suppression of the opium evil was initiated by this Government, with the primary object of assisting China in her energetic effort in that direction.

It is the President’s desire, and one in which I warmly join, that this conference, through the harmonious consideration and accomplishment of the purpose for which it is convened, may mark a distinct advance in stamping out the opium and allied evils.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

W. J. Bryan.

Pursuant to the invitation of the Netherlands Government, delegates of the signatory States assembled at The Hague July 1 last, and the conference was opened on the afternoon of that day in a most felicitous manner by his excellency Marees van Swinderen, Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs. On the motion of his excellency Monsieur Mareellin Pellet, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister-Plenipotentiary of the French Government at The Hague and Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Honorable J. T. Cremer, chief of the Dutch delegation, was elected president of the conference. The Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs was elected honorary president. Organization was rapidly completed, the conference deciding to adopt the rules of the first conference for its guidance so far as they were applicable. A general secretariat was established, of which Dr. J. A. A. de Beaufort, chief clerk of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, was secretary general, and Mr. J. Butler Wright, secretary of the American delegation, was a secretary.

It was immediately announced by the Netherlands Government that the following powers had signed the International Opium Convention: Germany, the United States of America, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Spain, France, Great Britain, Guatemala, Haiti, Holland, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Siam, and Venezuela; that all were represented in the conference except Bolivia, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Persia, and Venezuela; and the following statement was submitted for the information of the conferees:

Powers That Have Not Signed the International Opium Convention, with Reasons Therefor.

austria-hungary.

From a communication of the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Vienna, dated March 11, 1913, it appears that the question of signing the opium convention, which would be done by Austria-Hungary for humane motives only, was still under discussion. Inasmuch as the provisions of the said convention and the Austrian and Hungarian laws on the subject had to be harmonized, adhesion could not be declared for some time.

bulgaria.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs at Sofia informed the Minister of the Netherlands at Constantinople, under date of August 6/19, 1912, that Bulgaria would sign the International Opium Convention. This, however, has not as yet been done.

greece.

On September 7, 1912, the Royal Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Athens informed the Legation of the Netherlands there that the Hellenic Government did not intend to sign the International Opium Convention.

montenegro.

The Montenegrin Government has not yet made any reply to the reiterated request of the Government of the Netherlands that it sign the convention.

norway.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Christiania informed the Minister of the Netherlands on October 8, 1912, that the Norwegian Government, while earnestly desirous of joining in that humane endeavor to suppress the improper use of opium and its derivatives, regretted its inability to sign the convention for the present, as its adhesion would make new legislation necessary. The Minister added that the Norwegian Government proposed, nevertheless, to take under advisement, at the earliest possible moment, the question of enacting new laws that would permit of its adhering to the aforesaid convention.

peru.

The Peruvian Government has not, as yet, made any reply to the reiterated request of the Government of the Netherlands that it sign the convention.

roumania.

By a note of February 25, 1913, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Bucharest informed the Minister of the Netherlands at that city that the acts of the International Opium Conference had been referred to the proper Roumanian department for examination in order to enable the Royal Government to decide whether it would be expedient for it to sign the convention. The Minister added that the Rumanian Government was unable at that time either accurately to state when the examination would be completed or to prejudge its decision.

servia.

The Servian Government has not as yet made any reply to the reiterated request of the Government of the Netherlands that it sign the convention.

sweden.

The Swedish Government has not yet officially answered the Netherlands Government’s invitation to sign the convention.

switzerland.

See the letter of October 20, 1912, from the Federal Council.¹

turkey.

See letter of November 30, 1912, from H. E. Mr. Gabriel Noradounghian.²

Uruguay.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs at Montevideo informed, under date of February 1, 1913, the Minister of the Netherlands that the Government of Uruguay would sign the convention. This, however, has not yet been done.

Note.—During the sittings of the conference both Peru and Uruguay, at the earnest solicitation of the United States, agreed to sign and ratify the convention.

The immediate work before the conference was to decide whether the signatory powers represented were prepared to agree to a deposit of ratifications according to article 23 of the International Opium Convention. At the first session there was a tendency on the part of a majority of the representatives of the powers to proceed at once to that question. But on a plea from the American delegation that an informal discussion of other aspects of the International Opium Convention might lead to something more than a mere agreement to ratify, the conference adjourned for 24 hours to enable the delegations to consult with each other.

Immediately after the adjournment of the first session, there met in the American office the following delegates: His Excellency Felix de Müller, of Germany; Dr. Hamilton Wright, of the United States; M. H. Petipied, of France; Dr. C. Th. van Deventer, of Holland; and His Excellency M. A. Swetehine, of Russia. After two days of thorough study of the documents laid before the conference by the Netherlands Government, the delegates of these five powers drafted and determined to present to the conference as a whole a projet, the main object of which would be to request the Netherlands Government to explain away difficulties to those powers which had not signed the convention, at the same time inviting them to immediately sign the instrument and agree to its ratification, this request to be supported at the capitals of the nonsignatory powers by the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers.

This projet was considered by some of the delegations to be beyond the scope of the conference and wholly without precedent. But it was urged by the delegates of the above-mentioned five Governments that the time has passed for international conferences to assemble, go through the usual formalities, to then disperse and leave outstanding questions concerning its convention to prolonged misunderstanding and struggle in the ordinary diplomatic channels, and that as the present conference was of almost world-wide representation, it should use its weight as a conference in being to secure all the results which so many nations had agreed to by convention and to the deposit of ratifications of which they were about to proceed.

While this projet was being informally discussed, a second session of the conference was held, at which the president read the following telegram from Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands:

I am happy to see at The Hague the representatives of the nations assembled for the Second International Opium Conference. While thanking you, Mr. President, for the sentiments which you have interpreted, I express to you my good wishes for the humanitarian goal of the conference.

Wilhelmina.

On the previous day the president had addressed the following telegram to the Queen on behalf of the conference:

The representatives of the countries assembled at The Hague for the Second International Conference have the honor to express to Your Royal Majesty their appreciation of the gracious reception extended to them in your country, as well as the homage of their respectful devotion.

By the 7th of July, as the result of almost continuous informal conference between the above-named representatives of Germany, the United States, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, and as the result of consultations, between these representatives and the other delegations, the following projet was presented to the conference for discussion:

Proposed Resolution Presented by the Delegations of Germany, United States of America, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Russia.

preamble.

The First Opium Conference, in which twelve States participated, requested the Government of the Netherlands to invite the thirty-four powers of Europe and America, enumerated in article 22 of the international convention of January 23, 1912, to sign this convention. Of these thirty-four powers twenty-two have signed the “Protocol of signature of the powers not represented at the conference.” There remained, therefore, twelve powers who, for different reasons, have not considered it possible so to do. It appears from the replies received by the Netherlands Government and communicated to the conference that but three powers of these twelve have declined to sign the convention, i. e., Greece, Switzerland, and Turkey.

While Greece and Turkey have not given the reasons for their refusal, Switzerland has observed that, while fully recognizing the motives of moral and social order which led to the conclusion of the convention, the cooperation that Switzerland could lend to the contracting States would amount to almost nothing. The Federal Council based its opinion upon the facts that Switzerland, not being a country which produces opium, does not export this drug, and that, as yet, opium was not used there other than medicinally. It added that the use of opium and of its alkaloids—and also the use of cocaine—for medicinal purposes is strictly regulated by the National Pharmacopoeia and by the district laws. It was also of the opinion that it was not possible to proceed further in this connection than had already been done. As regards certain producers of chemical products established in Swiss territory and manufacturing morphine and cocaine, their supervision appertained to the district authorities and the Federal Government was in no way authorized at present to regulate this matter.

Three powers: Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden have replied that as the stipulations of the convention necessitate new legislation, they must withhold their signatures.

Two countries, Bulgaria and Uruguay, have agreed to sign but their signatures have not as yet occurred.

The Roumanian Government, having as yet not concluded its examination of the findings of the conference, is not able to respond.

Montenegro, Peru, and Servia have not replied to the repeated invitation of the Government of the Netherlands.

The replies of some of the powers indicate that misunderstandings exist regarding the stipulations and the object of the convention which will not be impossible of clarification.

The delegations of Germany, the United States of America, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, inspired by their desire to facilitate these clarifications, and hoping not only to elicit replies from such Governments as have not as yet responded, but also to induce the Governments who have heretofore refused to sign to reconsider their refusal, have the honor to propose the following resolution:

resolution.

Desirous of following up in the path opened by the international commission of Shanghai of 1909 and the first conference of 1912 at The Hague, the progressive suppression of the abuse of opium, morphine, cocaine, as well as of drugs prepared with or derived from those substances, and deeming it more than ever necessary and mutually advantageous to have an international agreement on that point, the Second International Conference—

1. Utters a wish that the Government of the Netherlands be pleased to call to the attention of the Governments of Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden the fact that the signature, ratification, drawing up of legislative measures and putting the convention into force constitute four distinct stages which permit of those powers giving their supplemental signature even now.

Indeed, it is seen from articles 23 and 24 that a period of six months is allowed to run between the going into effect of the convention and the drawing up of the bills, regulations, and other measures contemplated in the convention. Furthermore, the third paragraph of article 24 gives the contracting powers the liberty to reach an agreement, after ratification, upon the date on which the said legislative measures shall go into effect. Besides, we can not refrain from remarking that the difficulties foreseen by Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden with respect to their legislation were not unknown to the delegates of the signatory powers and were subjected to thorough consideration on the part of the twelve contracting powers. Nearly all the signatory powers are in the same situation as the above-mentioned Governments and have not yet elaborated all the bills contemplated by the convention.

2. Utters the wish that the Government of the Netherlands be pleased to communicate to the Governments of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Peru, Roumania, Servia, Turkey, and Uruguay the following resolution:

The conference regrets that some Governments have refused or neglected to sign the convention as yet. The conference is of opinion that the abstention of those powers would prove a most serious obstruction to the humane purposes aimed at by the convention. The conference expresses its firm hope that those powers will desist from their negative or dilatory attitude.

3. Utters the wish that the Government of the Netherlands be pleased to point out to the Helvetic Government its error in deeming its cooperation to be of hardly any value. Contrary to what is said in the Federal Council’s letter of October 25, 1912, the conference holds that Switzerland’s cooperation would be most serviceable in its effect, whereas her abstention would jeopardize the results of the convention. As to the question raised by the Federal Council, concerning the respective powers of the Federal and Canton Legislatures it is to be noted that similar difficulties were already considered by the first conference which took them into account in wording the convention.

4. Requests the signatory Governments to instruct their representatives abroad to uphold the above-indicated action of their Netherland colleagues.

5. Utters the wish that in case the signature of all the powers invited by virtue of paragraph 1 of article 23 shall not have been secured by the 31st of December, 1913, the Government of the Netherlands will immediately invite the signatory powers on that date to designate delegates to take up the question whether it is possible to put the International Opium Convention of January 23, 1912, into operation.

This projet met with immediate favor, and was referred to a Comité de Redaction, composed of Dr. Hamilton Wright of the American, Dr. C. Th. van Deventer of the Dutch, Sir William Collins of the British, and Baron Alberic Fallon of the Belgian delegation, for final revision. Such final revision was made with the invaluable assistance of His Excellency Monsieur van Swinderen, Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs. On behalf of his Government Mr. van Swinderen expressed a willingness to see that the terms of the projet were immediately laid before the 10 nonsignatory powers, the Dutch representative to those powers, as required by the projet, to be supported by the representative of the signatory States at the capitals of the nonsignatory States.

A roll call as to deposit of ratifications of the International Opium Conference was made, and all of the powers represented immediately agreed to proceed to the deposit of ratifications except Great Britain, Germany, and Portugal. The representatives of Great Britain and Germany made a very sympathetic statement in regard to, and put on record the entire agreement of, their Governments with the International Opium Convention, but held that it was the desire of their Governments to see the signatures more particularly of Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, and Pern added to the convention before they should agree to their deposit of ratifications.

During the sittings of the conference, as the result of representations which the Department of State made to Peru, that country agreed, on the 9th of July, to sign and ratify the convention. This announcement did not reach the American delegation until a few hours after the adjournment of the conference, but in time to have the desired effect, and demonstrate that North, South, and Central America were in absolute unison in regard to the terms of the International Opium Convention and the necessity for its ratification and enforcement. There can be no doubt also that the determination of Peru to join her Latin American sisters in support of the United States in this great humanitarian movement demonstrated the solidarity of interests of the nations of the three Americas. During the sitting of the conference the Department was also able to announce to the American delegation that Nicaragua and Uruguay,¹ which were already signatories, would agree to ratification; Venezuela also as soon as her Congress had taken the necessary preliminary action to that end.

With Peru signatory to the convention and with the special effort to be made by all of the signatory powers jointly with the Netherlands Government to secure the signatures of Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and the Balkan States, the ratifications of Great Britain, Germany, and Portugal are shortly expected.

The above-named projet of the five powers was embodied in a protocol de cloture of the conference and signed by representatives of the powers at the conference at 3 o’clock on July 9, thus bringing to a practical conclusion the five years of effort of the United States to secure comprehensive international action for the suppression of the abuses connected with the production and distribution of opium, morphine, cocaine, and other narcotic drugs. The conference was then adjourned sine die by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Government and the delegates proceeded to signature.

The spirit of international comity which it was expected would govern and which did dominate the recent conference is well set forth in the report on the opium question which you submitted to the President on April 21 last, and which was transmitted by the President to the Congress on the same day. (H. Doc. No. 33, G2d Cong.,² 1st sess.)

The most remarkable single feature of the recent conference was the unanimous adoption by the conference of the projet by which the whole force of the signatory powers represented in the conference is to be brought to bear through the Netherlands Government to induce the signature to the convention, of the mine lagging powers. But it was also remarkable that a convention formulated and signed by twelve powers and subsequently signed by twenty-four other powers which had taken no part in its formulation was accepted by those powers and an agreement made for its ratification without a suggestion from any delegate that the instrument should be altered in any way.

The result of the recent conference in regard to signatures and ratifications may be seen at a glance from the following table.

Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Present Status of the International Opium Convention Signed at The Hague January 23, 1912, and on Agreement to Deposit Ratifications at The Hague, Made July 9, 1913.

The following powers have signed the convention:

• Germany.¹
• United States.¹
• Argentina.²
• Belgium.²
• Bolivia.²
• Brazil.²
• Chile.²
• China.¹
• Colombia.²
• Costa Rica.²
• Cuba.²
• Denmark.²
• Dominican Republic.²
• Ecuador.²
• Spain.²
• France.¹
• Great Britain.¹
• Guatemala.²
• Haiti.²
• Honduras.²
• Italy.¹
• Japan.¹
• Luxemburg.²
• Mexico.²
• Nicaragua.²
• Panama.²
• Paraguay.²
• Netherlands.¹
• Persia.¹
• Portugal.¹
• Peru.²
• Russia.¹
• Salvador.²
• Siam.¹
• Venezuela.²
• Uruguay.² and³

(Total, 36.)

Of the foregoing nations the following have agreed to deposit ratifications, in accordance with article 23 of the convention:

• United States.
• Argentina.
• Belgium.
• Brazil.
• Chile.
• China.
• Colombia.
• Costa Rica.
• Denmark.
• Dominican Republic.
• Ecuador.
• Spain.
• France.
• Haiti.
• Honduras.
• Italy.
• Japan.
• Luxemburg.
• Mexico.
• Netherlands.
• Russia.
• Siam.
• Guatemala.
• Nicaragua.
• Venezuela.
• Peru.
• Uruguay.³

(Total, 27.)

The following signatory powers were represented at the conference, but reserved ratification until Austria-Hungary, Peru, and Switzerland have agreed to ratification. The chief difficulty of German ratification—Peru—has been removed. It was the general view of the conference that Austria-Hungary and Switzerland would sign and ratify in the near future, and that Great Britain would then agree to ratify. Portugal will undoubtedly agree to ratify.

• Germany.
• Great Britain.
• Portugal.

The following signatory powers did not have representatives at The Hague, but are expected shortly to agree to deposit ratifications:

• Bolivia.
• Cuba.
• Panama.
• Paraguay.
• Persia.
• Salvador.

(Total, 6.)

That is, the great majority of the signatories have agreed to ratify, and soon all signatories—36—will have agreed to ratify.

The following countries have not signed the convention, but by direction of the recent conference will be pressed to do so by an identic note to be presented at their foreign offices by the Netherlands Minister supported by the ministers of the powers represented in the conference:

• Bulgaria.
• Greece.
• Turkey.
• Switzerland.
• Austria-Hungary.
• Norway.
• Sweden.
• Roumania.
• Montenegro.
• Servia.

(Total, 10.)

Note.—All the powers who have signed and agreed to proceed to ratifications will do so without waiting upon the nonsignatory powers. It is expected by the Netherlands Government that all those nations which have agreed to ratify will have deposited their ratifications by December 31 next, and that before that date the most important of the nonsignatory powers will have adhered, thus enabling Great Britain and Germany to agree to ratification.

Thus, as the result of five years’ leadership on the part of the United States, an international convention imposing strict international, and requiring equally strict domestic, laws for the relegation of opium and allied narcotics to strictly medical channels has been signed in the greatest good will by all but ten nations of the world and agreement to ratify the instrument made by nearly all of the signatory powers. There is every reason to believe that by the end of the year, by the action of the recent conference, the entire world will be signatory to the convention, and that it will become universally effective a short time thereafter.

Shortly before the assembling of the recent conference Great Britain showed her good will toward China and her good intentions in regard to the rest of the world by bringing to a close on the 7th of May last the Indo-Chinese opium traffic which had officially existed between India and China since 1767, when Clive, general for the British East India Co., won the battle of Plassy.

There are some who, from an apparently studied disregard of the facts, pretend to believe that this Government has accomplished nothing during the past five years by its leadership in this great movement. I feel that it is not improper to quote from a report on this question made by you to the President on the 21st of last April:

This, Mr. President, is a movement which I have followed for the past six years. I have examined all the essential facts and documents relating thereto and have been gratified to review the growth of this humanitarian, moral, and economic movement from a consultation between this Government and five or six of the great powers of the world to one which now embraces the cooperation and has the sanction of almost the entire group of civilized States, and this in spite of the fact that it means past and future financial losses to the powers concerned of over $50,000,000 aggregate annual revenue. The entire movement illustrates a principle abroad in and stamped with the approval of the world to-day, namely, that the peoples are now agreed that an evil such as the opium evil is never wholly national in its incidence, can never be suppressed by two nations alone, as was supposed to be the case with the Far Eastern opium traffic, but that such an evil as it appears in one state is a concomitant or a reflex of a similar evil in other states, and therefore is international in its moral, humanitarian, economic, and diplomatic effect; further, that few evils can be eradicated by national action alone, and therefore that there must be cooperation of all the states directly or indirectly interested before such an evil is mitigated or suppressed. This movement, in which the United States has taken so large a part, was thought at first to concern only those countries of the Far East, or those western nations having territorial possessions in the Far East—five or six in number. But it has proceeded by way of a sober international commission of inquiry composed of commissioners representing thirteen nations and by a conference composed of delegates with full powers representing 12 of these nations. Those delegates having formulated and signed on behalf of their Governments a convention containing strict pledges for national legislation and international cooperation, it was presented to the remaining States of Europe and America, 34 in number, for their signature.

As the above table will show, not only have the majority of the 34 signatures been secured, but nearly all of those who have signed agreed at the recent conference to proceed to ratification, while the recent conference put into operation the necessary diplomatic machinery for the securing of the remaining signatures and ratifications of the international convention.

It remains for the United States to demonstrate the sincerity of its leadership in this movement by passing the necessary Federal legislation required by the terms of the convention. It is very gratifying to be able to state, that the action of the House in unanimously passing the three antinarcotic bills approved by the President, yourself, and the Secretary of the Treasury, had a most beneficent effect on the recent conference, for it was regarded as a pledge that the Senate would shortly act on the legislation, and that the United States proposed to remain in the forefront of the humanitarian movement which it had inaugurated.

Before closing this report I wish to evidence my appreciation of your great personal interest in this world movement, a real and lasting peace movement. It was expected throughout the country by individuals, peace societies, religious bodies, and commercial organizations, that the President and you would directly interest yourselves not only in the international aspects of this movement, but also in its domestic aspects. That expectation has been fully justified, and is widely appreciated, as the records show. Personally, as the one in charge for the past five years on behalf of the American Government of the international and domestic phases of this question, I can not refrain from joining with those many others in my thanks to you for your active and sympathetic interest in the question.

One other matter and I must bring this report to a close. The delegation which represented the United States at the recent conference was most happily constituted. As chairman of the American delegation I could have had no more loyal and able associates than Mr. Lloyd Bryce, our Minister at The Hague, and Dr. Gerrit J. Kollen, of Michigan, and the delegation was heartily supported in every way by its two secretaries, Messrs. J. Butler Wright and Gerald B. Seldomridge.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hamilton Wright,
American Delegate, International Opium Conference.

The Secretary of State.

Appendix I.

[Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law for July, 1909.]

The International Opium Commission.¹

(Part 1.)

The International Opium Commission, proposed by the United States and accepted by Austria-Hungary, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, and Siam, convened at Shanghai on the 1st of last February, completed its study of the opium problem throughout the world, and based on that study, issued nine unanimous declarations. The commission adjourned on February 27.

The commission’s work is interesting from several points of view. It was the first step toward the solution of the opium problem by international action. It was the second commission of its kind to meet since the formulation of The Hague rules of 1899 as to the function of such commissions. Its organization, its rules of procedure, the spirit in which it attacked its problem, avoided a majority and minority report, and declared unanimously, establish a precedent for the guidance of all future commissions of inquiry. The world at large, and even many of those who have agitated the opium question in the past, have regarded the problem as one that concerned Great Britain and China alone. The work of the commission demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is a problem of almost world-wide extent, and that the United States has a large and increasing interest in it.

Before dealing with the commission and its deliberations, it will be well to glance as rapidly as possible at the opium question as it appeared between the issue of the Report of Her late Britannic Majesty’s Royal Opium Commission in 1895, and the beginning of the new movement against opium which resulted in the calling of the International Commission. To take the United States first:

the united states.

The attitude of the United States Government toward the traffic in opium beyond its borders has been on the whole admirable. When China was protesting most vigorously against contraband opium from India, the United States contracted one of its earliest treaties with an Eastern country—that with Siam in 1833. Reference to that treaty (vide supplement) will show that Americans were forbidden to engage in the opium traffic with Siamese except at the risk of being dealt with by the Siamese authorities.

In the next treaty with Siam, that of 1856, the United States somewhat relaxed its attitude in the matter of opium. Reference to Article VII of that treaty will show that Americans were permitted to import opium free of duty, but that they could sell it only to the opium farmer or his agents. So far as it can be learned this was not against the wishes of the Siamese Government. The revenue of Siam was in part derived by farming out the sale of opium. Siam produced no opium, and therefore had to import it. The importation was legalized by the Siamese authorities, and Americans were permitted to engage in the trade.

The most important declaration of the United States in regard to the opium traffic is contained in its first treaty with China—treaty of Wang Ilea, of 1844. By reference to Article XXXIII of that treaty it will be seen that the United States entered into an obligation to prevent her citizens from trading in opium or any other contraband article of merchandise, and that those of her citizens who violated the treaty were subject to be dealt with by the Chinese Government, without being entitled to any countenance or protection from the United States. Article XXXIII certainly marked the official attitude of the American people toward the Chinese opium traffic, and it had the effect of driving Americans out of the trade. For it was no light matter to fall under the Chinese law against trade in opium. In our next treaty with China—that commonly known as the Tientsin treaty of 1858—the official position of the American Government relaxed, and we accepted, along with France and Russia, the tariff arrangement as contained in the British tariff agreement of the Tientsin treaty. Beyond a doubt the American minister of that time largely influenced the position of the Government. The views that he held have been alluded to¹ in Lord Elgin’s position toward opium in 1858. His important letter will be found in the supplement.²

Following the Tientsin treaty Americans were free to engage in the opium traffic, and beyond a doubt they did so. But I think it may be stated that the attitude of the American Government toward opium, as evidenced by the treaty of Tientsin, was only a temporary lapse from the position it has constantly held toward the traffic, for, in the American-Chinese commercial treaty of 1880, the United States recovered by binding itself in the matter of the opium trade. By reference to Article II of that treaty it will be seen that a pact was entered into which forbade American citizens from engaging in the importation of opium into any of the open ports of China or to transport it from one open port to another open port, to buy and sell opium in any of the open ports of China. Chinese subjects were also prohibited from importing opium into any of the ports of the United States. The American Government could not, of course, engage with China in this or any other treaty to forbid her own citizens from importing opium into the United States. That was a matter of United States municipal law. Article II was made effective in 1887, when Congress passed a statute which fixed the penalties for its violation. It was held by Mr. Edmunds, who introduced the bill, which afterwards became a law, that American citizens were prohibited from the opium traffic in China by the treaty of 1858, or at least that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts and authorities for trial and punishment in the event of engaging in the trade. Mr. Edmunds further stated that—

“By the treaty of 1858, negotiated by Mr. Reed, it was provided in Article XI that citizens of the United States committing any ‘improper,’ i. e., illegal act in China should be punished only by the authorized officials of the United States and according to their law, and that arrests in order to trial might be made by the authorities of either country. This provision in this treaty may perhaps be fairly considered as superseding the provisions in the treaty of 1844 remitting to the jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities the violators of the opium laws of the Empire, although, as the former provision was special in regard to one topic, it may not be clear that the latter provision just referred to would supersede or repeal the former special one.

“The fourteenth article of the same treaty states that ‘The open ports which the citizens of the United States should be permitted to frequent are the ports and cities of Canton * * * and any other port or places hereafter by treaty with other powers or with the United States open to commerce, and to reside with their families and trade there, and to proceed at pleasure with their vessels and merchandise from any of these ports to any other of them. But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to be legal, or along the coast thereof; and any vessel under the American flag violating this provision shall, with her cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese Government; and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese Government without being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United States.’”

Mr. Edmunds in quoting these articles relating to improper, clandestine, and fraudulent trade appears to have overlooked the fact that by the commercial agreement of the American-Chinese treaty of Tientsin of 1858 the importation of opium into China was no longer a clandestine or fraudulent trade, but a legalized trade on the payment of duties.

The last treaty of the United States with China in which opium or its derivatives is mentioned is the “Treaty of Commercial Relations,” October 8, 1903. In the supplement³ it will be seen that by Article XVI of the commercial treaty of 1903 the Government of the United States consented to the prohibition by the Government of China of the importation into China of morphia and instruments for its injection, except for medicinal purposes and on payment of a tariff duty. By the same article the Chinese Government undertook to adopt at once measures to prevent the manufacture in China of morphia or instruments for its injection. A similar article is contained in the British commercial treaty of 1903. These articles in regard to morphia became effective on the first of last January, all the treaty powers having acceded to the morphia articles of the American and British treaties.

A treaty similar to that of 1880 with China was negotiated with Korea in 1882. Article VII of that treaty is practically the same as article 2 of the commercial treaty of 1880 with China. But so far Congress has not made it effective by appropriate legislation, as was done in the case of the treaty with China. Owing to the altered status of Korea it is not now necessary to effectuate the treaty by statute.

In our early relations with Japan the attitude of the American Government on the opium question was correct, for in Article IV of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1858 the importation of opium into Japan was prohibited to American citizens. That article remained in effect until Japan assumed her full sovereign rights, and was thereby able to forbid or not the importation of opium.

Though not an international pact, the attitude of the American Government in regard to opium is well illustrated in the act of February 14, 1902,¹ which prohibits anyone subject to the authority of the United States to sell or otherwise supply opium to any aboriginal native living within certain parallels of latitude and certain meridians of the Pacific Ocean.

As will be pointed out later, the United States found itself confronted by a serious opium problem when it occupied the Philippines. The outcome of the investigation of that problem and its effect on the opium question as a whole is discussed further on,² and will be referred to, completing the study of the American opium question. In regard to that question as it affects the United States, it will be briefly stated that a large amount of Turkish opium has been annually imported into the country, and there is abundant evidence that the morphia derived from it has corrupted a large percentage of the population. The importation of opium prepared for smoking had been legalized, and the Pacific ports had drawn on the Portuguese colony of Macao for over 150,000 pounds per annum for many years past. Eighty per cent of this form of opium was absorbed by Chinese smokers, the balance by degraded white and black Americans. Reliable estimates place the needs of the American people for opium at 100,000 pounds at most. The annual importation of medicinal opium has been over 500,000 pounds for several years past; that is, over 550,000 pounds of opium are annually imported into the United States and used illicitly.

austria-hungary and italy.

There is no home opium problem in Austria-Hungary. The poppy is not grown for opium. All opium imported comes from Turkey, and the use of it for other than medicinal purposes practically is unknown. What is said of Austria-Hungary may be said of Italy.

china.

It is a common error to suppose that China depends on India alone for the opium consumed by her habitues. Since the middle of the eighteenth century there has been a progressive increase in the internal production of opium in China. Until a few years ago it was estimated to be in the neighborhood of 350,000 piculs.³ Mr. Leech, the councillor of the British Legation at Peking, estimates that in the year 1906 it was 330,000 piculs, and that the revenue derived from it by the Chinese Government amounted to £6,500,000; but that only £1,750,000 reaches the central government, the remainder being employed in the provinces. Of the total production of Chinese opium, 4,730 piculs were in 1906 exported to foreign countries: 4,013 piculs, French Indo-China; 147 piculs, Hongkong, en route probably to Formosa, or to be smuggled into the Philippines.

China imports an average of about 51,000 piculs of Indian opium. This may be tabulated for 1906 as follows:

Indian:

Foreign raw opium imported in 1906—	Piculs.
Malwa	14,465
Patna	25,486
Benares	13,479
Total	15,430
Other kinds from Persia and Turkey	795
Total	54,225

Taking the net amount of native Chinese opium obtained in China, she may be said to have required for her own consumption in 1906:

	Piculs.
Native opium	325,270
Foreign opium	54,225
Total	379,495

or 50,599,333 pounds weight or 22,588 tons, of which about one-seventh comes from India.

These figures will show what a tremendous problem the opium question is to China, for she not only has to deal with the importation of foreign opium, but with the much larger amount of native produced by her own people and used by them. One of her great difficulties in stamping out the opium habit amongst the Chinese population has been this internal growth of the poppy, and the bad example set to her people by the continued importation of foreign opium.

China is bound by several treaties and agreements in regard to foreign opium. Although the treaty Of Nanking, negotiated after the so-called opium war of 1840, left opium as before the war, contraband, there is certain justification in calling that war an opium war, for by Article IV of the treaty, “The Emperor of China agrees to pay the sum of $6,000,000 as the value of opium which was delivered up at Canton in the middle of March, 1839.” Opium had for many years before that war been contraband (since 1796), and was so regarded by the British Government and the agents of the East India Co. at Canton. The contraband trade in opium was one of the immediate causes of the war. The opium that was seized and destroyed by Commissioner Lin was contraband opium. By compelling the Chinese Government to pay for it, there was fixed in the popular mind at any rate the idea that that war was an opium war. From the treaty of Nanking onward, trade in opium to China was contraband, although the opium war had left China in rather a weak position to enforce her views.

The treaty of Tientsin was negotiated in 1858, following the Arrow War. In the tariff annexed to the treaty of Tientsin the importation of opium was legalized by the Chinese Government, and admitted officially for the first time since the prohibitory edict of 1796. It was made to pay 30 taels per 100 catties (or picul). There is no evidence that the British plenipotentiary, Lord Elgin, forced the Chinese Government to officially recognize the importation of opium. It is known that Lord Elgin himself considered the Arrow War a deplorable adventure, and regarded the trade in opium with horror. He has stated that he had—

“A strong if not invincible repugnance, involved as Great Britain was in hostilities at Canton, and having been compelled in the north to resort to the influence of threatened coercion, to introduce the subject of opium to the Chinese authorities”¹—

and it has been stated by an eyewitness that—

“For the first 8; 9, or 10 months Lord Elgin never referred to opium as a possible item of negotiation at all, but referred to it as a thing deplorable, from what he saw in the streets; from the emaciation and wretchedness of the opium smokers he came across.”²

As an indication of Lord Elgin’s attitude toward opium it may be stated that during an interlude in the Chinese negotiations that ended in the treaty of Tientsin, he visited Japan to arrange the first treaty between that country and Great Britain. That treaty prohibited the importation of opium into Japan. Lord Elgin appears to have been largely influenced in his conduct toward the Indo-Chinese opium question by a letter addressed to him by Mr. Reed, who was then the plenipotentiary of the United States in China. Mr. Reed had gone to China strongly opposed to the opium traffic. During the Arrow War he seems to have been greatly affected with the hollowness and danger of the entire opium business as it then existed, and he urged on Lord Elgin that there seemed to be but two courses which he could pursue; that he must either urge the Chinese authorities to interdict the opium trade and to assure them that the British Government would neither directly nor indirectly aid anyone who engaged in it, and that the British Government should prohibit the cultivation and export of opium from India. His only other course was to urge the Chinese to admit opium under a tariff. Mr. Reed further states:

“No one doubts it is very pernicious and demoralizing. I am confident your excellency will agree with me that its evils, as the basis of an illegal, connived at, and corrupting traffic, can not be overstated. It is degrading alike to the producer, the importer, the official, whether foreign or Chinese, and the purchaser.”¹

The entire letter of Mr. Reed is worth reading.²

Lord Elgin seems to have been well enough informed to know that should he urge prohibition of the growth of the poppy and the export of opium from India it would be hopeless. The second alternative was the only course open to him. Mr. Lawrence Oliphant, Lord Elgin’s delegate in the transaction of the commercial treaty, has given an account of the circumstances which led to the Chinese admitting opium into this commercial agreement.³ There is no doubt that the Chinese were opposed to the legalization of the traffic, but what could they do? The British official report states:⁴

“China still retained her objection to the use of the drug on moral grounds, but the present generation of smokers, at all events, must and will have opium. To deter the uninitiated from becoming smokers, China would propose a very high duty; but as opposition would naturally be expected from us in that case, it should be made as moderate as possible.”

Lord Elgin wrote to Lord Malmsbury:

“It is hoped by this arrangement (the legalization of the opium traffic), on the one hand, a term will be put to the scandals and irregularities to which a contraband trade at the ports necessarily gives birth; and, on the other, that occasion will not be furnished for the still greater scandals and irregularities which would inevitably arise if foreigners were entitled under the sanction of treaties to force opium into all districts of the interior of China.”⁵

As will be seen by a reference to other Tientsin treaties of the same date, America, France, and Russia followed the British lead on opium so far as it is affected by the British treaty.

The opium trade was regulated by the Tientsin treaties until the “additional article “to the Chefoo agreement was signed at London, 1885.

Under the “additional article” to the Chefoo agreement of 1876 the tariff on opium remained at 30 taels per chest of 100 catties, but was made to pay a sum not exceeding 80 taels per chest as likin.⁶ The additional 80 taels per chest did away with the likin or transit duties in the interior of China. After the opium had paid the 30 taels duty and been released to the merchants from bond transit certificates were issued to the owners and such certificates freed the opium from the imposition of any further tax while the opium was in transport in the interior, providing that the package had not been defaced or tampered with. The certificates had validity only in hands of Chinese subjects and did not entitle foreigners to convey or accompany any opium into the interior. Since this “additional article” was signed at London in 1885 opium has been admitted to China under its terms. It may be terminated at 12 months notice by either party, when the import of opium into China would revert to the terms of the “commercial agreement” of the treaty of Tientsin. Until the recent movement against opium was instituted the opium trade in China was governed by this “additional article” to the Chefoo agreement of 1876. It is now under the operation of the “ten-year” agreement,¹ which will be referred to later.

france.

In France there is no poppy culture for opium. Attempts have been made to grow it for the extraction of opium, but they were not successful. Opium is imported into France chiefly from Turkey in the crude form for medicinal purposes only. There does not seem to be any ground for the statements so frequently met with in the press that the use of morphine is widespread in France. In Paris, Toulon, and Bordeaux there is probably a large illicit use of morphine and considerable smoking of opium, but it seems to be confined to these few cities. In French Indo-China only a small amount of opium is produced, and it may only be imported by the official administration of customs and excise. The manufacture of smoking opium in French Indo-China is a Government monopoly or regie, with a single factory at Saigon. The crude opium is imported from Calcutta and the adjoining Chinese province of Yunnan. The import for 1903 was 251,771 kilos. As the result of recent antiopium legislation the 1907 imports show a decline of 45 per cent. In 1903 the official sales of opium prepared for smoking amounted to 122,941 kilograms; but since the new antiopium movement and the recent regulative legislation this has been reduced about 25 per cent. France has several treaties with China in regard to the importation and exportation of opium. In 1858 the French followed the lead of the British, as expressed in the Tientsin treaty, and French subjects were permitted to import opium into China on the payment of the specified duty. The French treaty of Tientsin covered the opium trade between French Indo-China and China, until the “Convention of Tientsin of 1886,” when the contracting parties, in Article XIV, interdicted commerce in opium between the frontiers of Tonkin, Yunnan, Kwangsi, and Kwangtung. But in Article V of the additional Commercial Convention of 1887 the trade was reopened under certain specified conditions.² “The trade by land was allowed on payment of an export duty taels 20 per picul, but French merchants and persons under French protection were restricted as to the place of trade. There were also restrictions as to reimportation of Chinese opium by the coast ports. This, shortly, was the state of the opium question in French eastern possessions, and the conditions under which the trade was carried on with China until quite recently. The present-day conditions will be referred to later.

germany.

In Germany the poppy is not grown for opium. All opium is imported, chiefly from Turkey. Under the imperial ordinance of October 22, 1901, opium could be only imported, manufactured, and sold for medicinal purposes. In Germany’s eastern possession, Kiao Chao, the cultivation of the poppy is prohibited, and, as will be seen by the treaty and ordinances in the supplement,³ opium can be imported or sold only under strict regulations. The object of the Colonial Government is first to control and finally to suppress the use of the drug except for medicinal purposes.

great britain.

The opium problem of India needs to be stated from two points of view. There is the problem as it concerns British India and the problem as it concerns the native States of India. In British India the Government has full control of affairs; in the native States only an advisory control, or a control secured by treaty. In British India the growth of the poppy, the manufacture of opium, and its internal distribution and consumption is a Government monopoly. In the native States the cultivation of the poppy and the manufacture of opium is free. Under the monopoly, established in 1773, two agencies have been set up in Bengal, one at Patna and one at Benares, to handle the opium business for the British Indian Government When sowing time arrives these agencies make a cash advance to the cultivator according to the amount of land he proposes to put under poppy cultivation. When the crop has ripened, a further advance is made to the cultivator, and he is finally settled with after his opium has been tested, graded, and valued by the agencies. The monopoly opium, after being graded and packed, is divided into two parts—one known as excise opium, which is reserved for internal consumption in British India and dispensed under excise regulations; the other known as provision opium, which is sent to Calcutta and sold by auction to the highest bidder. When the provision opium is in the hands of the successful bidders, it is beyond the control of the British Indian Government, and it is trafficked in according to the laws of supply and demand. In the native States, the poppy is freely grown and opium produced without restriction or control by the British Indian Government. It then passes by certain specified routes to Bombay ports, where it is sold for export, except a certain amount retained for consumption in the Bombay Presidency. The control of the British Indian Government over this kind of opium, known as Malwa opium, is limited to imposing the routes by which the opium reaches the merchants at the seaports of the Bombay Presidency and by the collection of a transit tax on it as it passes from the native States to British Indian territory. After the sale of the provision and the collection of the transit tax on Malwa opium, the Indian Government washes, its hands of the drug. It then passes by ordinary channels of trade to China, the Straits Settlements, Formosa, and other eastern countries. The total average exportation from all India for the five years 1901–1905 was 67,000 chests of about 140 pounds each. Of this, China annually imported in the same years an average of 51,000 chests. The difference, or 16,000 chests, passed to other eastern countries, to Mexico and the United States. Until the recent prohibitory legislation, the United States absorbed a total of about 250,000 pounds annually, after it has been converted into smoking opium at the Portuguese colony of Macao. It should be clearly understood that the revenue derived by the Indian Government from opium consists of the transit duties levied on opium known as Malwa opium, produced in the native States of India; from the profit on provision opium over and above the cost of its production and from a tax on excise opium consumed in British India. The Indian opium revenue is large, but is a steadily diminishing factor in Indian finance.

The Indian argument for the continuation of the opium trade was a very potent argument—revenue.

However, it—

“Was not to be relied upon. In the 14 years ending 1894 the average revenue was £5,000,000; in the 11 years, 1894–1905, it fell to £3,000,000. In 1880 it represented 14 per cent of the aggregate revenue of India. In 1905 it represented only 7 per cent.”¹

In Great Britain itself no opium is produced. The chief supply is from Turkey and is devoted to ostensibly licit medicinal ends. The “Act to regulate the sale of poisons” of 1868 is said to effectively prevent the illicit use of opium and its alkaloids.

self-governing colonies.

Australia—Australia has a large Chinese population, and therefore an opium problem. Opium smoking was widely indulged in by the Chinese and at one time threatened to spread to the white population. As an index of the large amount of opium consumed it will be only necessary to state that in 1903 42,429 pounds were imported and some 60–odd thousand pounds of gum opium for medicinal purposes. Part of the latter was undoubtedly surreptitiously manufactured into smoking opium by the Chinese and others. In addition, a considerable amount of smoking opium was smuggled in from Macao, Vancouver, and other places of manufacture. In the Commonwealth customs act of 1901 it was enacted that the following are prohibited imports: “All goods, the importation of which may be prohibited by proclamation.” The effect of this legislation will be referred to later.

Canada.—In Canada, previous to the prohibitory act that went into effect July 20, 1908, opium was imported from Turkey for medicinal purposes. Indian opium was imported into the West Coast cities, where it was prepared for smoking, sold, and consumed by the Chinese and others, while a large part was smuggled into the United States. The Hon. McKenzie King has stated in a report on the subject that the factories manufactured between $600,000 and $650,000 worth of smoking opium in the year 1907 and that much of the product was smuggled into the United States and Canada. Little or no smoking opium was imported into Canada, it being more profitable to import the crude drug from India and then prepare it for the pipe.

New Zealand.—New Zealand has never had an opium problem, and since 1890 has vigorously prohibited its importation and use except for medicinal purposes.

South Africa.—South Africa had no opium problem until the introduction of indentured Chinese coolie labor to the Rand. The opium habit was confined amongst them and kept alive by undesirable whites, and it tended to spread to the black population. Much of the crime that is committed by these coolies is attributed to the use of smoking opium.

british crown colonies.

In Hongkong, the Straits Settlements, the Federated States, British North Borneo, Ceylon, a large revenue was derived by farming out the manufacture and sale of smoking opium. Such opium is made from imported Indian opium. In Ceylon the spread of the practice of smoking opium has been rapid, the imports jumping from 1,562 pounds in 1840 to over 23,000 pounds in 1900. In the Straits Settlements the revenue derived from opium is almost 50 per cent of the total revenue of the colony. In 1898 it was 2,332,186 Mexican dollars, representing 45.9 per cent of the total revenue. In 1904 the revenue derived from opium was $6,357,727, or 59.1 per cent of the total revenue of the colony. The growth in the revenue derived from opium in this colony is a fair index of the extent to which the opium smoking is indulged in, and of its tendency to spread amongst the Chinese members of the community. In the neighboring Federated Malay States, where the opium farm is sold to the highest bidder, the States derived in 1896 about $1,500,000 from it. By 1904 the revenue from the farm had increased to over $2,597,000. At Hongkong, where the farm system is in vogue, the sale of opium represented 28.42 per cent of the total revenue of the colony for the year 1904. The British treaties covering the trade in opium have been referred to.¹

japan.

The Japanese Government and people have from time immemorial regarded the misuse of opium with horror. In all the early treaties with foreign States it was stipulated that the trade in opium was to be restricted. Since Japan regained her status as a sovereign power most stringent laws have been enacted covering the importation and manufacture of opium, and it may be stated that Japan has a prohibitory law against the misuse of opium which is effective. On acquiring Formosa the Japanese authorities found that the smoking habit had been confirmed under Chinese rule, and that it could not be immediately got rid of. The policy of gradual suppression was accordingly adopted. Investigation showed that there were over 200,000 opium smokers in Formosa, and it appeared to the Japanese authorities that it would be difficult for the smokers to break off the habit at once. There was also a danger that the people would be alienated in the event of the Japanese applying their own strict home laws to the island. The Government therefore determined to put the importation, manufacture, and sale of smoking opium under Government control. The Formosa opium ordinance was promulgated in the year 1897, and the regulations for the enforcement of the ordinance were issued later on in the same year. On inquiry it developed that the importation of opium into the islands before the Japanese occupation had averaged about 400,000 pounds per annum. Under the system of Government control licenses are granted to the Formosa Chinese, who are the only members of the population addicted to smoking. It is claimed by the Japanese that by the system of Government control they can gradually suppress the use of the drug. No opium is produced in Formosa. It is imported from India, Persia, Turkey, and China. The importations have averaged about 225,000 pounds per annum since Japanese control of the island was made effective. In spite of her strong stand against the misuse of opium Japan has entered into no special pact with China to restrain her citizens from engaging in the opium trade.

the netherlands.

In the Netherlands itself the poppy is not cultivated for opium. Neither is it cultivated in her East Indian possessions. The importation of opium and its manufacture into smoking opium and the distribution of the latter is a Government monopoly, or régie. The opium sold by the régie is manufactured in a factory especially built for the purpose. Both Indian and Turkish opium are used, but chiefly the former. The factory is managed by a chemist as director, who is assisted by two colleagues, an engineer as deputy director, and by a technical and administrative staff. There is a large native staff and an inspector in chief, with a staff of subinspectors. There are certain prohibited areas in the Netherlands islands, where the use of opium is prohibited. None of the régie opium is exported. For the years 1889–1893, taking the population of 24,119,136, the annual consumption of smoking opium per head in tahils was 0.042, a tahil being equal to 1⅓ ounces avoirdupois. The net revenue from the régie for the year 1907 was 13,317,000 francs. The Government of the Netherlands India professes to aim at the control and gradual extinction of the vice of opium smoking by means of the regie. By the treaty of Tientsin of 1863 Dutch subjects could legally import opium into China.

persia.

Persia is a large opium-producing country. The poppy is cultivated quite freely and there is no attempt by the Government to monopolize the manufacture and sale of opium. The amount of opium produced in Persia can not be stated accurately, but it ranges from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 pounds. The habit of smoking opium either alone or with tobacco is fairly common, and it is estimated that from 200,000 to 300,000 pounds were consumed in Persia annually. The balance of the drug is exported to foreign countries, the high-grade opium going to Europe and America for medicinal purposes and the rest to Hongkong and the Straits Settlements to be manufactured into smoking opium. The Persian Government derives a large yearly income from an export duty on the drug. In 1901–1904 the opium revenue amounted to about £350,000. Persia has no treaty relations with China, and for that reason China may forbid the importation of the Persian drug into the country. As will be seen later, an arrangement has been made whereby the imports of her Persian opium are to be reduced by one-tenth per annum.

portugal.

The poppy is not grown in Portugal for its opium, nor is it grown in her African and Indian or Chinese possessions. In the colony of Macao alone has Portugal an opium problem. In that colony the vice is widespread among the Chinese population. Until the year 1820 Macao was the principal depot of opium from India, but it gradually lost its hold on the trade after Hongkong was taken from China by the British, as the result of the so-called opium war. In 1878 Macao ventured into the industry of boiling crude opium into smoking opium and shipping it abroad, as well as supplying her own people. It was carried on by private individuals for some time. In 1887 a Government monopoly for the importation, manufacture, distribution, and exportation of opium was established. The sole right to manufacture smoking opium was granted to a Chinese syndicate. By the last contract, signed May 4, 1903, they paid $334,000 to the Government at Macao for the privilege. From 1908–1909 the opium revenue at Macao represented 38.8 per cent of the total revenue of the colony. The trade in opium between Macao and China was subject to the tariff annexed to the Anglo-Chinese treaty of Tientsin of 1858. This remained in force until 1887, when a “treaty of amity and commerce” was negotiated, which, among other things, calls for the cooperation of the Portuguese Government to prevent a contraband trade in opium. By Article IV of that treaty Portugal agreed to cooperate with China in the collection of duties on opium exported from Macao into China ports, the basis of this cooperation to be established by a convention appended to the treaty. By Article I of the appended “convention and agreement” the rules were defined under which the opium trade is carried on between the Portuguese colony of Macao and China (vide supplement). This agreement operated until lately, when a new agreement was entered into, which will be referred to later.

russia.

There is no evidence at hand that would show that Russia has an opium problem in her home territories. Amongst the Mohammedan population opium is used combined with tobacco, and in Siberia, where there are Chinese, opium smoking exists to some extent.

The Russian treaty of Tientsin, June 13, 1858, followed the British lead in regard to the opium habit with China. By Article XV of the treaty of St. Petersburg opium was declared to be contraband, and the trade in it prohibited (vide supplement.)

turkey.

Although Turkey was not able to send a delegation to Shanghai, still the opium question can not be stated without taking into account the opium production of that country. The amount of opium raised in Turkey fluctuates. Only once or twice during the last 40 years has the entire production of all Turkey exceeded 8,500 cases, while in many years it has not reached 4,000 cases. In 1907 that production was only 2,300 cases. It is estimated that an average crop of poppy will yield 5,000 to 6,000 cases. It is probable that sufficient poppy seed is annually sown in Turkey to produce 100,000 cases of opium. But it is a very susceptible crop; too much or too little rain, too early or tardy showers, frost, cold, wet, drought, locusts, and other pests, either singly or jointly, play havoc with it. The Turkey opium has always been a high-grade opium, containing a large percentage of morphia, and for that reason it passes largely to Europe or America to be used for medicinal purposes. A very small quantity only—and that a low grade—enters into the Far Eastern trade, to be ultimately manufactured into smoking opium. As in other opium-producing countries, the poppy has another value aside from the opium which it yields. Poppy seed is a staple nourishment of all the poorer classes, and its oil furnishes them with light. The seed is made into cakes, and is a regular article of diet. When the oil is extracted from the seed the residue passes as a food for cattle in the winter months. Latterly the Turkish Government has encouraged the growth of the poppy by exempting for a period of three full years all dues and taxes of new localities in which the poppy is raised. In 1905 the value of the opium export amounted to 730,000 pounds Turkish, from which the Government derived a small revenue from an export tax. As the Turkish Government publishes neither accounts nor estimates of revenue and expenditure, it is impossible to state the revenue tariff from opium. Turkey, like Persia, has no treaty relations with China, and the Chinese are in position to contract for or forbid any traffic in opium. It will be pointed out later how the traffic is now restricted and must cease by 1917 (vide supplement).

siam.

The poppy is not grown in Siam. The crude drug is imported from India and was until recently manufactured and distributed through an opium farm which the Government sold to the highest bidder. For the last 20 years the importation or sale has been a Government monopoly.

It has been mentioned under “The United States” that broad rights of importation and trade with Siam were granted to American citizens by the treaty of 1833, but that an exception was made of opium. The Siamese Government derives a large part of its revenues from the manufacture and sale of smoking opium. In 1901 and 1902 the revenue was 14.2 per cent of the total, and 1902–3, 18.08 per cent.

last phase of the old antiopium agitation.

The last phase of the old agitation against the Indian opium traffic was the publication of the report of the British Royal Commission on Opium. That commission concluded its labors and report in 1895. The commission was the result of a prolonged battle both within and without the walls of Parliament. By those who accepted its conclusions it was thought that the antiopium commotion was ended. It was intended that the commission should be judicial in character, but the evidence was taken and reported on in such a manner that it entrenched the Indian opium revenue as never before. It made nothing of the arguments and pleadings against the Indian opium traffic which were the immediate causes of its birth and it exalted the Indian opium revenue to a position from which it did not seem likely to be dethroned. There even seemed to be some narcotic principle in the report itself which had a soporific effect on the leaders of the antiopium movement. For they, too, ceased to trouble except sporadically and weakly and the entire question fell to the hinterland of the world problems.

India continued to produce vast quantities of opium, practically useless for medicinal purposes. Its opium revenue was saved for a time at least and its merchants continued to buy at the Calcutta and Bombay markets and to send the drug not only to China, but to other oriental countries. Wherever there was a Chinese population there Indian opium gravitated. The United States, Canada, Australia, as well as China, continued to be large buyers of the drug. The royal commission report was the last official act of the British Government to solve the opium problem until the new movement against it was initiated in 1903 and 1904. Lord Morley’s opinion of the royal commission’s report is worth quoting;

“He did not wish to speak in disparagement of the commission, but, somehow or other, its findings had failed to satisfy public opinion in Great Britain and to ease the conscience of those who had taken up the matter. What was the value of medical views as to whether opium was a good thing or not when we had the evidence of nations who knew opium at close quarters. The Philippine Opium Commission, in the passage of their report which he hoped the House of Commons would take to heart, declared that the United States so recognized the use of opium as an evil for which no financial gain could compensate that she would not allow her citizens to encourage it even passively.”

Lord Morley’s statement was made in May, 1908, while he was still in the House of Commons—that is, after the new movement against the misuse of opium had been initiated by the publication of the Philippine report.

It will be observed from the foregoing rapid survey of the question that Turkey, Persia, India, and China are the great producers of opium. The Turkish opium is used largely in the West, ostensibly for medical purposes, but Persian and nearly all of the Indian and Chinese product went to supply a great vice. Trade in the drug was sacrosanct under treaties and other international pacts, and China, not being in full possession of her sovereign rights, was compelled to receive any and all opium sent to her from India. Her own treasury was enriched by a tax on the home production that seemed to be beyond control and by a duty on that imported from India and other countries. The Indian exchequer was largely maintained by the income from her opium monopoly and the transit tax on the drug passing from the native states to British Indian territory. Morphia, the chief alkaloid of opium, had reached China, the Crown colonies of Great Britain, and India. The use of it had become widespread and had added a new terror to the opium problem. But from 1904 onward a rapid development of public opinion took place all over the world and before the International Commission met at Shanghai steps had been taken in the interested countries to control or prohibit the illicit and baneful use of opium.

the recent antiopium movement.

It was debatable as to how far the British Government would have gone in suppressing the excessive production of opium in India had not the whole opium problem assumed a new phase by the entrance of the United States into the larger affairs of the Far East through the acquisition of the Philippines. Those who see no good in the American occupation of the islands should take comfort out of the fact that because the United States, too, had a vast problem there it gave new life to the antiopium movement, and took the initial step to raise the Indo-Chinese opium question from its narrow national confines and place it squarely before the international world for discussion and final settlement.

On taking over the Philippines it soon became apparent to the Government that opium smoking amongst the Chinese population of the islands was a widespread evil and that the vice was spreading to certain of the native Philippine population. Whole communities of natives had abandoned themselves to the practice, and as a consequence had utterly ruined themselves in health and fortune. The Government promptly took the question in hand, and preliminary discussions were entered upon in 1902. There were many conflicting views, and the question threatened to become confused. The Government then determined to investigate thoroughly, by a commission, not only the Philippine opium problem, but the entire problem as it then existed in the Far East. The commission was named in 1903. It visited Japan, China, French Indo-China, Formosa, Java, the Straits Settlements, and Burma. The result was a most comprehensive, illuminating, and judicial report. It led to restrictive measures and finally to the total prohibition of the importation of opium into the Philippines except for medicinal purposes. The prohibitive legislation went into effect March 1, 1908. The Philippine Opium Commission reported in June, 1904, or just nine years after the report of the British royal commission. The effects of the two reports were entirely different. The royal commission report suppressed discussion of the opium problem. The Philippines report gave to it a renewed impetus. It aroused afresh the world’s interest in the problem. The Philippines report was extensively distributed throughout China. Its effect was to revive in the minds of those Chinese interested in suppressing the opium vice hopes and desires that had slumbered for nearly 10 years. A new movement was immediately inaugurated by several Chinese leaders to stamp out the opium traffic.

The two most prominent leaders in the renewed effort of China were their excellencies Yuan Shi Kai and Tong Shao Yi. In the summer of 1906 Mr. Tong visited India, and as Sir John Jordan, the British Minister to Pekin, states in a dispatch of September 30, 1906:

“His excellency Tong Shao Yi seems to have been much impressed by the views he heard expressed on the subject of opium during his recent visit to India. From conversations which he had with Mr. Baker, the financial secretary, and other members of the Government of India, his excellency came to the conclusion that India was prepared to dispense with the opium traffic. On his return to China he informed his¹ own Government that it was the Chinese craving for the drug, and not England’s desire to force it upon China, which was now responsible for the continuance of the traffic. Mr. Tong could supply little information as to the steps which China proposed to take to suppress the opium habit. He seemed, however, to think that there would be a gradual reduction of the area of cultivation of native opium pari’passu with a corresponding decrease in the import of the foreign article. Smokers of the drug, if officials, were to be given a term of about six months in which to break off the habit, and the ordinary people were to be dealt with on a time scale, graduated according to the degree in which they may have become addicted to the habit.”

Shortly before Mr. Tong’s visit to Calcutta a remarkable debate had taken place in the British House of Commons after the long period of inattention to the opium question which followed the publication of the report of the royal commission. The subject was brought up for discussion on the 30th of May, 1906, when Mr. Theodore Taylor moved “that this House reaffirms its conviction that the Indo-Chinese opium trade is morally indefensible, and requests His Majesty’s Government to take such steps as may be necessary for the bringing it to a speedy close.” Part of the speech of Mr. Morley, the Secretary of State for India, on this resolution has been quoted,¹ and it will be seen that the publication of the Philippines report influenced him considerably. This resolution was carried nein con, and the Chinese Government most naturally construed it as an invitation to them to prove the sincerity of their desire for the cessation of the import of Indian opium. Almost coincident with Mr. Tong’s visit to Calcutta and the House of Commons resolution the Right Rev. Charles H. Brent, who had been a member of the Philippine Opium Commission, and had since the publication of the report been closely watching the opium problem in the Far East, wrote to President Roosevelt calling his attention to the new movement against opium. In that letter he suggested that the moment was opportune, considering her interests in the Philippines and the stand she had taken there, for the United States to call for some international action in regard to the opium traffic. The matter was promptly taken up by the State Department, and on the 17th of October, 1906, the American Ambassador to Great Britain informed Sir Edward Grey that—

“The American Government was much concerned with regard to the question of opium which had been raised in connection with the Philippines, and that he was instructed, to ask me what view we should take for a commission for the joint investigation of the opium trade and the opium habit in the Far East, to be undertaken by the United States, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, China, and Japan—that is, by those countries having territorial possessions in the Far East.”²

Sir Edward Grey replied that he could not tell him at once, but that, though an interference with the import of opium into China would involve a great sacrifice of Indian revenue, that would not prevent the Government from considering the question or imposing some sacrifice if it was clearly proved that the result would be to diminish the opium habit. The Chinese were understood to contemplate measures for stopping or restricting the importation of opium in China, and if they were really to be taken it would be a thing which Great Britain should encourage.¹ After considerable diplomatic correspondence the above-mentioned Governments signified their willingness to join the United States in a joint investigation of the opium problem, and January 1, 1909, was appointed as a date for the meeting of the international commission at Shanghai. The original idea was that the opium traffic and habit as it existed in the Far East was to be investigated. But during the passage of the diplomatic correspondence it developed that the opium habit was no longer confined to Far Eastern countries, and that the United States especially had become contaminated through the presence of a large Chinese population. Further, that the morphine habit was rapidly spreading over the world. It was also seen that as Turkey and Persia were large producers of opium it would be necessary to invite them into the commission if the subject was to be thoroughly ventilated. Portugal was also a factor in the situation, through the possession of her colony of Macao, on the China coast, where considerable quantities of crude opium were annually imported from India, converted into smoking opium, and shipped to United States, Canada, and Mexico. Siam, though having no treaty relations with China, was nevertheless a factor in the problem on account of her long established government monopoly for the manufacture and distribution of smoking opium; Russia also, because of her contiguity in China. Although neither Austria-Hungary nor Italy had territorial possessions, except concessions in the Far East, yet it was thought desirable that they should enter the commission. Upon the development of the fact (as the result of the work of the American Opium Commission in 1908), that the opium question was no longer a question concerning oriental peoples, it was decided to widen the scope of the work of the commission so that it should include reports on the home States of the various countries concerned, as well as on their territories and possessions in the Far East. This program was notified to the various countries concerned in July, 1908, and they were asked to have a report prepared on the opium question as it affected the home States as well as their Far Eastern possessions, so that it might promptly be laid before the commission as a whole when it met at Shanghai. As a result of the broadening of the scope of the international commission, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Siam, Persia, Turkey, and Portugal were invited into the commission. Turkey failed to send a representative, but, in all, 13 nations were represented at Shanghai when the commission met. Owing to the death of the Empress Dowager and the Emperor of Japan the commission was postponed to the 1st of February, 1909.

Hamilton Wright.

Appendix II.

[Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law for October, 1909.]

The International Opium Commission.

(Part 2.)

government action since the publication of the philippines report.

Following the issue of the Philippines report, and as the diplomatic correspondence proceeded, which led to the international commission, action after action was taken by the interested Governments to control or stamp out the misuse of opium. The Chinese Government was prompt, and her leaders and people enthusiastic. January, 1906, saw four of her great viceroys publish a manifesto on the subject. Part of it ran: “As Great Britain is the friend of China, she will shortly be called to assist the Chinese Government to stamp out the evil.” The Chinese Government prohibited, without qualification, the use of opium in the imperial colleges and schools and in the recently created army. The Peking Gazette of September 20, 1900, published the following decree:

“imperial decree.

“Since the restrictions against the use of opium were removed, the poison of this drug has practically permeated the whole of China. The opium smoker wastes time and neglects work, ruins his health, and impoverishes his family, and the poverty and weakness which for the past few decades have been daily increasing amongst us are undoubtedly attributable to this cause. To speak of this arouses our indignation, and, at a moment when we are striving to strengthen the Empire, it behooves us to admonish the people, that all may realize the necessity of freeing themselves from these coils, and thus pass from sickness into health.

“It is hereby commanded that within a period of 10 years the evils arising from foreign and native opium be equally and completely eradicated. Let the Government council (Cheng Wit Ch’u) frame such measures as may be suitable and necessary for strictly forbidding the consumption of the drug and the cultivation of the poppy, and let them submit their proposals for our approval.”

Late in November 11 articles were made public for the enforcement of the above edict. They are as follows:

Article 1.—To restrict the cultivation of the poppy in order to remove the root of the evil.

The effects of poppy cultivation on the agricultural interests of the country have been disastrous. Throughout China the chief sources of opium production are the Provinces of Szechnan, Shensi, Kansu, Yunnan, Kueichou, Shansi, Kiangsu, and Anhui, but in the remaining Provinces it may be said generally that there is hardly a place from which it is absent. The term of 10 years has now been fixed for the complete prohibition of its use. It is therefore necessary first to limit its cultivation, in order that the complete prohibition of its consumption may be successfully carried out, and with this end in view, all governors general and governors of Provinces should direct the departmental and district magistrates to make an accurate investigation of the acreage in their respective jurisdictions hitherto devoted to the growth of the poppy, and to make an official return of the figures. It would then be forever forbidden to bring under poppy cultivation any land not hitherto used for that purpose. Certificates would be issued in respect of all land already used for growing the poppy, and the proprietor be compelled to reduce the growth each year by one-ninth part and to substitute other crops suited to the particular soil.

It will, moreover, be incumbent on the magistrates to make personal inspection at unexpected times of such lands. The certificates, too, will have to be changed each year, till within the period of nine years the whole cultivation is rooted out. Noncompliance with this rule will entail confiscation by the State of the land in question.

Any local authority who succeeds in less time than the statutory 10 years in giving effect to the prohibition in respect to the land in his jurisdiction given up to the poppy, and in completely substituting in place thereof the cultivation of other crops, should, after due inquiry into the facts, be recommended to the throne for recognition.

Article 2.—To issue licenses to smokers in order to prevent others from contracting the habit.

The vice of opium smoking is of long standing, and it may be reckoned that some 30 to 40 per cent of the population are addicted thereto. The interdict must therefore be extended with some consideration for what is past, while being applied in all strictness for the future. All persons of the official class and the gentry/literary graduates, and licentiates resident at their homes throughout the Empire must be the first to be compelled to give up the habit, in order that they may serve as an example to the common people. All smokers, whether of the gentle or lower class, together with their wives and female servants, must without exception report themselves at the yamen of the local authority of their native place or place of residence. If they reside at a distance from such yamen or any police station, they may send their names in collectively, through the headman of the village.

Proclamation will be issued, in advance by the local authorities giving the necessary directions, and forms will be supplied which smokers will have to fill in, giving their names in full, age, address, occupation, and daily allowance of opium; and a limit of time will be fixed for them within which they must report themselves as having given up smoking, due consideration being paid in this regard to the element of distance.

As soon as all the smokers have reported themselves, a register will be drawn up and a copy thereof be sent to the higher authorities for purposes of record and reference. At the same time printed licenses under the official seal will be prepared, and every smoker will be obliged to have his license. These licenses will be of two classes—(a) and (b). Persons over 60 years of age will get licenses under class (a), while those under 60 will be enrolled under class (b), provided always that no person who has held a license under class (b) shall be entitled to the issue of a license under class (a) on subsequently attaining the age of 60.

The license will contain the holder’s name in full, age, address, daily allowance of opium, and date of issue, and will constitute the permit to consume and buy opium. Any person consuming opium without a license, or purchasing the drug, shall on discovery or information duly laid be subject to such penalty as may be called for. After the first inquisition, inspection will proceed on the basis of the register, and no fresh applications for licenses will be entertained, in order that the number of smokers may be strictly limited.

Article 3—To reduce the craving for opium within a limited time, in order to remedy chronic addiction thereto.

After the licenses have been issued, and putting out of consideration persons over 60 whose constitutions are already undermined, and in whose case the question of giving up the habit need not be pressed, all persons under 60 holding licenses under class (b) shall have a limit set on the quantity of opium which they consume, to be reduced each year by 20 or 30 per cent, and to be totally given up within a few years. On becoming total abstainers, they will have to produce a bond signed by a relative or near neighbor, which will be presented to the local authority, and if found in order, the name of the party will be erased from the register, while the license will have to be surrendered for cancellation. Returns of all such proceedings will then be made quarterly to the higher authorities. But if, in spite of the liberal period of years allowed under this system, there should be individuals who fail to become total abstainers within the allotted time, they must be regarded as willful victims to self-abuse, and nothing remains but to expose them to punishment for not abstaining. In the future, therefore, if any holder of a class (b) license exceeds the time limit without giving up the habit and surrendering his license for cancellation, he shall, if an official, resign his office; if a graduate or licentiate, he shall be deprived of his rank and diploma; and if he be of the ordinary people, his name will be recorded by the local authority as an opium sot. A special list of such names will be kept, and a return thereof be made to the higher authorities. Besides this, such names, with the person’s age, will be affixed in a public place for general observation, and also be exhibited in the town or village where such person lives, that all may know his condition. Such persons will, further, not be allowed to take part in any annual or periodical meetings which may be convened for any purpose by the local notables, or in any respectable concern of life, so that it may be clearly shown that they are outcasts of society.

Article 4.—To prohibit opium houses, in order to purify the abodes of pollution.

Before the time limit is reached upon which the prohibition becomes absolute it would naturally be hard to suddenly prohibit the existence of shops for the sale of opium. But there is a class of opium dens which offer a continual temptation to youths and the unemployed to frequent. These places are in every respect noxious, and should be prohibited by the local authorities, one after the other, a term of six months being fixed for the complete cessation of this calling, and the substitution of another trade. If the time limit is exceeded they should be compulsorily closed.

Eating houses and restaurants must also not be allowed to furnish opium for the use of guests, nor must guests be permitted to bring smoking appliances with them, under penalty of a heavy fine. Shops for the sale of pipe stems or bowls, opium lamps, or other smoking appliances, must also be given one year’s time by the local authorities within which to close business, under penalty of a heavy fine. In any place where an excise is levied per lamp in opium dens, such levy must be discontinued within one month.

Article 5.—To closely inspect opium shops in order to facilitate preventive measures.

Although it is not possible to forbid at once the existence of opium shops, steps must still be taken to compel their gradual disappearance, and under no circumstances can any new shops be allowed to open. All shops in any city, town, or village which sell the raw drug or prepared opium must be severally inspected by the local authorities, who will draw up a list of them in the form of a register, and issue to each license which will constitute their permit to carry on this trade. Once the inspection has been made, no additions to the number of shops will be allowed.

Whenever persons come to such shops to buy opium, raw or prepared, the shopkeeper must examine the customer’s license before he serves him, and without so doing must not sell any of the drug.

At the end of the year these shops must make a bona fide statement, in writing, to the local authority of the amount of opium, raw and prepared, which they have sold. The local authority will register these returns, and reckon up the total amount sold in his district by all the shops together, so as to show the amount of decrease in each year and for the purposes of comparison, provided always that within the period of 10 years the sale shall be entirely stopped. If the time limit be infringed, the shops will be compulsorily closed and the stock in hand be confiscated, besides the imposition of a fine of at least double its value.

Shops which from time to time drop out of the business must surrender their licenses for cancellation. The license must not be kept, under penalty of a heavy fine.

Article 6.—To manufacture remedies for the cure of the opium habit under official control.

There are many good remedies for curing the opium habit, and the high provincial authorities should appoint efficient and experienced medical officers to make a careful study of these, with a view to the selection of a number of prescriptions (suitable to the natural conditions of each particular locality) and the manufacture therefrom of pills or medicines, provided that such pills of medicines shall not contain opium ash or morphia.

Such remedial medicines should their be bought by the local authorities, who will distribute them among the local charitable institutions or medicine shops for sale at the original price, while poor persons will be allowed to obtain them free of charge.

The gentry and tradesmen will also be allowed to manufacture such remedies according to prescription for free distribution with a view to spreading this benefit more widely; and any person who can be shown to have promoted such distribution by his personal exertions or exhortation, and to have succeeded in breaking others of the opium habit thereby, shall be awarded honorary recognition by the local authorities.

Article 7.—To allow the establishment of antiopium societies in order to promote this good movement.

There have recently been several instances of public-spirited individuals who have combined with others of their own class in founding antiopium societies, and in mutually assisting in exhorting the abandonment of the habit. Such enterprises deserve the highest praise; and the high provincial authorities should direct the local officials to take the lead among the respectable men of standing in each place and develop the establishment of such societies, so that with each addition to the number there will be an additional center of activity. But such societies must only be allowed to concern themselves with the single question of giving up opium, and must not discuss current politics or questions of local government, or other subjects not related to the abandonment of the opium habit.

Article 8.—To charge the local authorities with the duty of leading the movement among the local gentry and heads of guilds, in order that it may prove really operative.

The present measure depends entirely on the local authorities taking the lead among the gentry and heads of guilds in giving proper effect to its provisions. Success can only be attained by a loyal and conscientious effort in this direction. The high provincial authorities must therefore carefully examine each year into the reports of their inferiors, and study the returns of the number of consumers originally recorded and the number of abstainers, besides seeing whether due activity has been shown in the supply of antiopium medicines, and in promoting the formation of antiopium societies. By comparing these various records, they will be in a position to apportion praise and blame as due. They should also draw up an annual report for transmission to the council for State affairs, and to serve as a basis for examining the operation of this measure.

As regards the city of Peking, the officers in charge of all police stations, the captain general of the Peking gendarmerie, and the governor of Peking (Shuntien-fu) will be responsible for the due execution of these provisions.

If, before the expiry of the term of 10 years, it can be shown that there are already no opium smokers in any particular jurisdiction, the local authority shall be recommended for promotion.

In carrying out the survey of opium-bearing land, the inspection of opium dens and opium shops, and the issue of certificates and licenses, as well as in the registration of smokers, the strictest injunctions must be imposed on the official assistants, clerks, and servants, that no exactions whatever will be permitted, under penalty for infraction of this rule, and upon information duly laid of the punishments prescribed for extortion.

Article 9.—To strictly forbid the smoking of opium by officials, in order that an example may be set for others to follow.

The complete prohibition in 10 years of the use of opium applies to the general population. But the officials must set an example to the people. If they have such a vice, how can it be expected that they shall lead the people straight?

Now, it is desired to make this measure effective, and, with this end in view, it is absolutely necessary to start with the officials, and make the time limit for them more severe and the penalties for noncompliance more heavy, so that, as grass bends to the wind, the people may comply with their example.

From henceforth all metropolitan or provincial civil or military officials of high or low grade who are over 60 years of age, and who are so strongly addicted to the opium habit that they can not break it off, will be put out of consideration, as if they were of the common people, and treated leniently.

All princes, dukes, and other hereditary nobles, presidents and ministers of boards and metropolitan yamens, Tartar generals, governors general and governors, military lieutenant governors, deputy lieutenant governors, provincial commanders in chief and brigade generals holding substantive appointments are the recipients of the imperial favor to no small degree, and of exalted rank and standing. No deception or pretense on their part must be permitted in this matter. Any of these who have been in the habit of smoking shall be permitted to memorialize the Throne direct, praying for a limit of time to be fixed for them within which to give it up. During such period they will for the time being not be removed from office, but a substitute will be appointed to act for them. When they can show that they have given up the habit they will be allowed to resume office, but it must be clearly understood that no excuse of illness will be entertained as necessitating the further use of the drug beyond the appointed time. All other metropolitan and provincial officials, civil or military, substantive or expectant, of high or low grade, who are addicted to opium, shall be placed under the supervision of a delegate appointed by their superiors, and be directed to present a true statement of the facts of their case; and without consideration as to whether their craving for opium is heavy or slight, they will be given six months within which to give up the habit altogether. At the expiry of this period they must apply for an officer to be appointed to examine them again, and enter into a bond, which will be filed. If they become seriously ill and fail to break off the habit within the stipulated time, they may represent the facts to their superiors, in which case any hereditary title they may possess will be transferred according to the proper rules of succession to another to hold, and, if they are officials, they will be retired with whatever rank they may be holding. If it be discovered that they are holding back the facts and infringing this rule by means of deception, they must be impeached and degraded as a warning against any such trifling and deceit.

If the superior authorities are lax in examining, they shall be reported to the Throne for the determination of a penalty.

Further, all teachers and scholars in any schools or colleges, and officers and warrant officers of the army or navy, who are addicted to opium shall be dismissed within three months.

Article 10.—To enter into negotiations for the prohibition of the import of foreign opium in order to close the sources of supply.

The prohibition of the growth of opium and of its consumption is a measure of internal policy which we are justified in taking without further circumspection. But the question of foreign opium, which is imported from other countries, impinges on our foreign relations, and the imperial commands should therefore be sought to direct the board of foreign affairs to make a satisfactory arrangement with the British Minister with a view to effecting an annual decrease within the next few years of the import of foreign opium pari passu with the decrease of native opium, so that both may be absolutely prohibited by the expiry of the time limit of 10 years.

Besides Indian opium, the drug is also imported from Persia, Annam, and the Dutch Indies in no small quantities. In the case of treaty powers negotiations should similarly be entered into with their representatives in Peking to effect the prohibition of such import, while with nontreaty powers we can exercise our own prerogative in strictly forbidding the import.

All Tartar generals, military lieutenant governors, governors general, and governors should also direct their subordinate authorities and commissioners of customs to take preventive measures along the trade routes and frontiers to stop smuggling.

As regards morphia and the instruments used for its injection into the skin, the effects of which are even more injurious than those of opium itself, proper effect should be given to the stipulations laid down in Article XI of the British commercial treaty and Article XVI of the American commercial treaty, and instructions be issued to all customhouses to disallow the import of any morphia and instruments into China which are not for medical use; while a strict prohibition must be enforced against any shops in China, whether native or foreign, manufacturing morphia or instruments for its injection.

Article 11.

All Tartar generals, governors general, and governors of provinces should direct the civil and military authorities in their jurisdiction to issue proclamations promulgating these rules for general observance.

In January of 1907 another, forward step was taken when the Chinese Government made certain proposals to Sir John Jordan, the British Minister at Peking, for the gradual abolition of the Indian opium traffic. After much discussion, the “ten-year agreement,” as outlined in the supplement,¹ was accepted by both Governments on January 27, 1908, and went into effect on the first day of the same month. This “ten-year agreement” forms the present basis of the Indo-Chinese opium trade. By it Great Britain agreed to reduce the total exportation of opium from India (67,000 chests per annum) by one-tenth of the then average Chinese importation of the drug (51,000 chests). The Chinese at first contended for a reduction by one-tenth per annum of the direct export of Indian opium to China. Had this been accepted the Chinese importation of Indian opium would have fallen off by 5,100 chests a year. The British proposition that the total export from India should be reduced by one-tenth of the actual export to China leaves 16,000 chests wandering about in the Far East and ready to pour into the country where the demand is greatest. This places the Chinese Government at a disadvantage, for in the suppression of poppy cultivation in China, and the consequent scarcity of opium, the demand for and the price of Indian opium has risen, and without doubt part of the loose 16,000 chests will find their way to China, and so tend to defeat the object of Chinese statesmen.

On February 7, 1907, a second imperial decree was published by the Chinese Government as a reminder to all officials that it is in earnest in its antiopum crusade.

“imperial decree.

“A memorial has been received from the board of the interior devising general arrangements for the prohibition of opium; and whereas opium is injurious to the public health, we have already issued an edict commanding every Province to fix a limit of time for its strict prohibition. The board having now recommended in their memorial the extension of branch antiopium societies, and that the opium dens throughout the Provinces should be uniformly closed and prohibited as laid down in the new regulations, it is hereby commanded that all Tartar generals, viceroys, and governors shall take part with their subordinates in concientiously carrying out these steps. But strict as must be the prohibition against smoking, it is even more necessary to forbid the cultivation of the poppy, in order to sweep away the source of evil. The responsibility is, therefore, placed upon all Tartar generals, viceroys, and governors to see to it that cultivation is diminished annually, as prescribed by the regulations submitted to us, and that within the maximum term of 10 years the supply of foreign and native opium is completely cut off. There must be no laxity or disregard for this beneficial measure, which the throne so ardently desires.”

The war against opium moved apace. On April 17, 1907, as the result of a suggestion of Sir John Jordan to Sir Edward Grey, a movement was set on foot to compel the British municipal councils in China to close the opium dens in the British concessions and settlements.¹ So great an impetus had the new movement contracted that by August 9, 1907, Sir John Jordan again suggested to his Government that both the export and import trade in prepared or smoking opium between Hongkong and the Chinese mainland be prohibited, and that both Governments should take measures to prevent smuggling into their respective territories.² This was afterwards agreed upon between the two Governments. June 26 of the same year saw another imperial edict directed against opium:

“imperial edict.

“Opium is in the highest degree detrimental to the people. In an edict of last year prohibiting the use of it, the council of government were commanded to frame regulations and to direct all yamens throughout the country to put a stop to it.

“In the third month of this year (13th April 11th May) a further edict was issued, commanding that general instructions be given to act in strict accordance with the regulations which had been submitted to the throne, alike in respect of the cultivation, sale, and consumption of opium.

“The welfare of the people is a matter of great concern to the court, and this is a matter which must positively be put through. The governor of Peking and the Tartar generals, viceroys, and governors of the Provinces are commanded to issue strict instructions to their subordinates to put the prohibition into actual effect, to make it a matter of familiar knowledge in men’s houses, to get completely rid of the evil The maritime customs should keep a strict watch on the foreign opium which is imported, and the places in the interior which cultivate native opium must annually decrease the amount cultivated, in accordance with the dates sanctioned. It is further commanded that the relative merits of officials in this respect must be recognized. If the instructions are zealously carried out by an official in his own jurisdiction, it is permitted to memorialize the throne, asking for some encouragement to be shown him. If an official merely keeps up appearances and, while outwardly obeying, secretly disregards these commands, he is to be denounced by name for punishment.

“It is also commanded that an annual return of the land under opium cultivation be made, by way of verification and to meet the desire of the court to relieve the people of this evil.”

On November 27, 1907, Sir John Jordan was able to send a most important memorandum to his Government, showing that the edicts against the cultivation of the poppy and the use of opium by the Chinese had been most effective in many of the Provinces.³ On May 19, Mr. Morrison, the Times correspondent, was able to write from Peking:

“The first six months following the issue of the antiopium regulation expired on Friday, when the last of the opium dens in Peking was closed. All the restaurants and houses of bad character where formerly the use of opium was universal some time ago, ceased to permit smoking on the premises. Tang Shao-yi, the moving spirit in the campaign at Peking, assured a foreigner that the antiopium sentiment was constantly gaining force. He was satisfied with the effect of the new regulations, especially in this Province, where the public use of opium had almost disappeared, and in his own Province of Canton—with one or two exceptions he knew of no new office given to a known opium smoker—it is added the movement is certainly popular, and is supported by the entire native press, while a hopeful sign is that the use of opium is fast becoming unfashionable.”

In a later survey of some of the Chinese Provinces, especially Yunnan, Mr. Morrison was able to speak in high terms of the energy of the viceroys in stamping out poppy cultivation. During 1907 measures had been taken to close out the opium dens in the Japanese concessions. In the Russian concessions at Hankow and Tientsin opium smoking had been prohibited by order of the municipal council, and in the leased railway territory the administration came to an agreement with the Chinese to enforce the opium regulations in the near future. The French closed all of their dens in the French concessions at Tientsin, and in the French settlement at Shanghai steps were taken to close part of the dens there. Great Britain had closed all opium establishments in her concessions in China, and part of those in her settlement at Shanghai. Italy had closed out all the opium dens in her concessions of Tientsin by January, 1907; Austria also, in her concession of Tientsin by the 8th of August of the same year. China having no treaty relations with Persia and Turkey, was able, early in 1908, of her own free will, to regulate the opium trade with these two countries on the basis of the “ten-year agreement” with Great Britain. On April 17, 1908, an imperial decree was issued appointing imperial commissioners for the enforcement of the prohibition of opium. Under this decree Prince Kung, the Assistant Grand Secretary Lu Ch’uan-lin, and the associate directors of the Senate, Ching-hsing and Ting Chen-to, were named the imperial commissioners for the enforcement of the prohibition of opium. They were to engage skillful physicians, Chinese and foreign, and forthwith establish a special investigation office for the eradication of the opium habit. All officials in public office known to be addicted to opium smoking are to be reported to the president and vice president of the board concerned, for punishment. If minor officials are found addicted to opium, their superior officers must be reported to the board for punishment. The commissioners must put aside all personal feelings and perform their duty ceaselessly and fearlessly. Should the prohibition of opium still fail to show satisfactory results, the commissioners will be held to account. Thirty thousand taels were provided out of the revenue from the taxes on opium for expenses connected with establishing the office, and 60,000 taels for annual expenditure.

March 22, 1909, saw the issue of an imperial decree, especially thanking foreign philanthropists and governments for aid in the battle against opium.

On the 23d of May, 1908, the following imperial prescript was issued. It provides supervisory regulations for the prohibition of opium:

prohibition of opium—supervisory regulations.

Section 1.—Diminution of cultivation.

Article 1. Returns of the amount of land under opium cultivation, the names of the owners, and the amount of opium produced shall be made by all local officials within six months to the high provincial authorities, who shall forward collective reports to the board of finance and board of the interior.

Art. 2. The 10-year period within which opium is to be abolished shall be reckoned from Kuang Hsu (1906–7), and the cultivation of opium is to be diminished in accordance with the regulations laid down by the grand council. No opium must ever be grown on land not hitherto under opium cultivation, and in the case of land already under opium cultivation the amount must be annually decreased by one-eighth, taking as a basis the figure given in the returns for Kuang Hsu 34 (1908–9). The cultivation of opium will thus cease entirely in Kuang Hsu 41 (1915–1916). Returns shall also be made from time to time as to what crops are being grown on the land withdrawn from opium cultivation.

Art. 3. Permits, sealed by the provincial authorities, shall be issued by the local officials to opium growers, the permits being altered annually. Any person growing opium without a permit shall be liable to punishment. A fee of 15 cashmou shall be levied on each permit, but no further charge whatever may be made.

Section 2.—Public hongs.

Art. 4. Since the inauguration of a consolidated tax on native opium, the Provinces of Annul, Honan, and Shansi have already established a system of public hongs for the sale of native opium appointed by the branch consolidated tax office and the local official. These public hongs are responsible for the payment of the tax on native opium, and the grower must sell and the dealer purchase opium through them. The warehouseman must also report all purchases and sales of opium to the public hong, which sees that the taxes are paid. This system will now be extended to the other Provinces, and these public hongs shall keep a daily record of all sales of opium, giving the names of the purchasers, and shall report to the branch consolidated tax office. A general report, setting forth the reductions effected by each public hong, shall be furnished annually to the board of the interior by the directors-general of native opium taxation. In the case of Szechuan, Yunnan, Kweichow, Turkestan, and Manchuria, where there is no consolidated tax on native opium, the provincial authorities shall take action on the same lines.

Native opium warehousemen must hold permits from the local consolidated tax bureau and local official. Without such permits they will not be allowed to purchase opium either through the public hong or from the grower.

Section 3.—Opium shops.

Art. 5. Returns shall be furnished within six months by the local officials, through the provincial authorities, to the board of the interior of the number, situation, capital, etc., of opium shops in their jurisdiction. No new opium shops must be opened.

Art. 6. Opium shops must have permits issued by the provincial authorities and changed annually. Fees of from $2 to $6 will be charged for these permits, according to the capital of the shop.

Art. 7. Monthly returns shall be furnished by every opium shop of the amount of opium sold. No opium must be sold except to persons provided with permits. A general annual report shall be furnished by the provincial authorities to the board of interior.

Art. 8. All opium shops should endeavor to establish some other line of business apart from the trade in opium, for this trade must cease entirely within the fixed time limit.

Section 4.—Opium divans.

Art. 9. Under the instructions issued by the Government council in Kuang Hsu 32 (1906–7) all opium dens were to be abolished within six months. Should there still remain any opium divans or tea-houses, wine shops, etc., providing facilities for opium smoking, they must be closed at once under pain of severe punishment.

Section 5.—Utensils for opium smoking.

Art. 10. Instructions have already been issued in Kuang Hsu 32 (1906–7) for the closure of all shops selling utensils for opium smoking. The local officials must now investigate whether any shops for the manufacture or sale of such articles still exist, and, if any are discovered, they must be closed and the proprietors fined.

Section 6.—Opium smoking.

Art. 11. The authorities of each Province shall fix a time within which returns shall be furnished by each local official of the name, residence, and age of every opium smoker within his jurisdiction. An annual report embodying these returns shall be made by the provincial authorities to the board of the interior.

Art. 12. Opium smokers must obtain a permit from the local officials, stamped by the provincial authorities, and renewable annually. Only those holding such permits may purchase opium. The amount of opium required for daily consumption shall be entered on the permit, and not more than that amount can be purchased.

Section 7.—Cure of the opium habit.

Art. 13. Offices shall be established by local officials for the purpose of issuing to medicine shops and philanthropic institutions antiopium medicines recommended by the board of the interior. These medicines shall be sold at cost price or given free to poor persons. Provincial authorities should send to the board, for investigation, samples of any good antiopium remedies discovered by persons in their jurisdiction.

Art. 14. Local officials should encourage the foundation of societies for the cure of the opium habit, the publication of antiopium literature, etc., but such societies must not be allowed to concern themselves with anything apart from the abolition of opium.

Art. 15. Local officials shall investigate whether any of the medicines sold by drug shops or other establishments in their jurisdiction are compounded with morphia, and shall take steps to prevent the illicit sale of that drug.

Section 8.—Rewards and punishments.

Art. 16. A local official who has furnished by the proper date all the returns called for under these regulations may be recommended for favorable notice to the board by the high authorities of his Province.

Art. 17. A local official who has enforced within the fixed limit of time all the prohibitions specified in these regulations may be recommended for favorable notice to the board by the provincial authorities.

Art. 18. If a local official succeeds within the space of one year, and without inflicting undue hardship on the people in his jurisdiction, in reducing the amount of land under opium cultivation, the number of opium shops, and the number of smokers by more than three-tenths, the viceroy or governor may present a memorial recommending that he should be granted some special mark of approbation by the board.

Art. 19. A local official who fails to furnish the proper returns by the proper date or who makes false returns shall be reported to the board for punishment.

Art. 20. A local official who fails to enforce within the fixed limit of time the various prohibitions specified in the regulations shall be reported to the board for punishment. A false return under this article will involve still more severe punishment. The superior officials will also, if they were aware of the circumstances, be liable to the same punishment.

Art. 21. A local official who fails to effect within his jurisdiction in a year a decrease of at least one-eighth in the amount of land under opium, the number of opium shops, and the number of smokers shall be reported to the board for punishment.

Art. 22. The present regulations shall be carried out in accordance with those laid down by the Government council. Details shall be arranged by the provincial authorities in accordance with local conditions.

Art. 23. The amount of fees collected under these regulations must be reported periodically to the board, and will go to meet the expenditures connected with the prohibition of opium. No other charges beyond the fees fixed by these regulations may be levied, and should it afterwards appear advisable to increase the amount of these fees a joint memorial on the subject will be submitted by the board of revenue and the board of the interior.

regulation of import of persian and turkish opium.

It has been mentioned that China having no treaty relations with Persia and Turkey, was able to impose her will as to the importation of opium from these countries. In regulating the Persian and Turkish opium trade, she followed the lines of the Anglo-Chinese 10–year agreement. The regulation is as follows:

From the 1st of January, 1909, any merchant wishing to import into any open port of China any Persian or Turkish opium must apply to the commissioner of customs at Kowloon for a special permit—one for each chest of opium. This permit shall state that the opium may be shipped to any open port in China, and that, on its arrival, duty and likin will be paid in accordance with the regulations. Any Persian or Turkish opium shipped to China for which this special permit can not be produced shall be confiscated.

Taking 1,125 piculs as the mean annual import of Persian and Turkish opium, this quantity shall be reduced every year by one-ninth, i. e., 125 piculs. Thus in 1909 special permits will only be issued for 1,000 piculs, and by making a similar reduction annually the import will entirely cease in nine years.

After 1916 no more special permits will be issued, and the import into China of Persian and Turkish opium, as well as that of Indian opium, will be completely suspended.

The special permits will only be issued to merchants who have hitherto, to the knowledge of the imperial maritime customs, been engaged in the trade in Turkish and Persian opium. In fixing the number of special permits to be issued annually to each merchant, the totel import during the two years 1906–7, and the quantities imported by each merchant during those years will be taken as a basis, the number of permits being annually decreased.

It may well be asked at this point, What has been the effect of the edicts and regulations issued by the Chinese Government? The movement against opium in China operates over so vast a territory and affects so large a population that it would take up too much space to detail the whole extent of the reformatory movement. It is always difficult to reform a people by legislative enactment. Moreover, apart from this difficulty, the fiscal side of the opium question is a very important factor to China. The Chinese central and provincial governments have been in receipt of over £7,000,000¹ from a tax on the internal production of opium, and duty and likin on that imported from India. This must be replaced, and the matter is now being considered by the board of revenue. It is to the credit of the morals of the Chinese authorities that they are pushing the crusade against opium even though in their wisdom they have not yet found a means to replace the disappearing opium revenue. Beyond a doubt, in the near future the question of replacing the opium revenue will be put on a satisfactory basis.

A few instances will illustrate the vigorous manner in which the provincial and municipal authorities are attempting to carry out the spirit of the edicts and regulations.

“Foochow, with a population of 650,000, was one of the first great cities to be dealt with. The date fixed was May 12, 1907. Several days before a thousand threatened traders, conscious that their craft was in danger, met in one of the temples, drafted a remonstrance, and subscribed a large sum of money wherewith to defend their interests.

“They met in vain. The man who presented the petition was locked up. The resistance collapsed, and on the 12th 3,000 shops in Foochow city and suburbs ceased to traffic in opium. One man who held on, trusting to his influence with officialdom, was summarily lodged in jail and his property confiscated. Two or three others were marched through the streets in chains. So far as is known, there did not a week after exist a single opium den in the city. Strong vigilance committees helped the officials. The day of closing was a day of general rejoicing. Flags floated everywhere, and processions of students paraded the streets with banners; ‘unbounded joy’ was shown over the victory won. Months after, it is said, bands of students frequently go about the streets in order to see that the edict is complied with. Several hundreds of citizens have been fined or otherwise dealt with. There are three opium refuges in the city and four others on the island of Nantai. These are financed by the gentry. There are in addition many private refuges.’”²

The correspondent of the Morning Post observed, June 28, 1906:

“The closing of the opium shops in the native city (Shanghai) is apparently effective. The extraordinary precautions taken by the native authorities prevented the expected trouble. Two Chinese cruisers were anchored in front of the Chinese Bund to protect the opium hulks, while parties of soldiers and native volunteers and police patrolled the streets and visited the shops.”

Officials who have disobeyed the edicts have not escaped, for on October 10, 1907, an imperial edict appeared ordering Tsai Kung, Prince of Chuang, First Order; Lu Pao-chuang and Chen Min-Kan, president and vice president, respectively, of the Censorate, Kwei Pin, Prince of Jui, First Order, to resign their offices because they had not broken off the opium habit. As a result of these enforced resignations, large numbers of the various ministries and the metropolitan departments were awakened. Sick leave was granted to opium-smoking officials at the rate of three or four per day. The places of those taking sick leave were kept open for three months, and if at the end of that time they had not effectively broken off the habit, their positions passed to others. The late Empress Dowager gave the inmates of the palaces three months to get rid of the opium habit. Those who did not do so were punished with 100 blows and expelled the palaces. Dr. Morrison of the Times stated on the 19th of May, 1907, that in the capital Province of Chihli—

“The results of the antiopium movement are wholly satisfactory. In Canton Province and in Kwang-si also they are satisfactory, and to a less degree in Szeehuan, Che-kiang, Nganwhei, and Shansi. Unsatisfactory are Shantung and Shanghai; but in Nanking, while practical effects as regards the general public are not apparent, effective measures have enforced the suppression of the habit among the military and student classes. Especially unsatisfactory are the Yangtsze Provinces under Chang Chih-tung, who formally wrote against opium. Hsu Chih-chang, the new viceroy of Manchuria; Tsen Chun-hsuan, the new president of the ministry of communications, and Duke Tsai-tse, the new president of the ministry of finance, are all strongly against opium, as are the new viceroys of Yun-nan and Sze-chuan, two of the greatest opium-growing Provinces.”

Correspondents of the European and American papers have for the past two years been telling of bonfires made of opium pipes and the disgrace of officials who have not got rid of the opium habit, and of the closing up of the opium dens in all the large centers of population. Mr. Leech, councilor of the British Legation at Peking, reported on June 24, 1908, that there was some apathy amongst the provincial authorities. He cites two principal reasons for this, i. e., the fact that so many public officials are still addicted to the drug, and the question of provincial finance and the finding revenue to replace that at present derived from opium. But he observes that—

“On the whole, it may be said in regard to the antiopium regulations that officials showing sufficient force of character to uphold them are almost sure of support from the people, prompted as the latter are by the force of public opinion, a force formerly unknown in China and of recent growth, but which is well upheld by the native press and incipient moral education of the nation and the awakening of a national conscience. The Times correspondent has aptly used the expression bad form in describing the view of the educated Chinese toward opium smoking in public, and should this sentiment gain in moral force there seems no reason why it should not develop into ‘losing face,’ that most powerful of all rules of conduct in China, corresponding either to ‘dishonorable’ or ‘ungentlemanlike,’ as the case may be.”¹

Mr. Leech then reviews the question of opium suppression in the various Chinese Provinces. On the one side of the account we have such Provinces as Shansi, where the dens and shops may be said to be generally open and uninspected, and the poppy cultivation has been slightly reduced. In the Province of Shensi there is no lack of proclamations; but the officials take no material steps to stop the use of the drug. In some districts poppy cultivation has been reduced by means of high taxation. On the other side, we have a Province like Kansu where the use of the drug is restricted by proclamation, and the restriction is enforced, causing heavy losses to merchants. In the south of Shantung Province the cultivation of the poppy has been reduced 5 per cent, wheat being substituted. Kiangsu Provinec continues to be amongst those foremost in combating the evil; a stigma has been attached to opium smoking which it has not previously possessed. In Fukhien Province the area of cultivation of the poppy has been reduced about one-fourth. In Hunan Province a Wesleyan missionary, who had recently traveled 2,000 miles in the eastern part of the Province, reported to Mr. Leech that he had found that in some places it was impossible to purchase opium, and the provincial treasurer, who was a warm supporter of the antiopium movement, was prepared to guarantee that no poppy would be grown in the Province in 1909. There is no doubt that a substantial decrease in poppy cultivation has taken place throughout China. To what extent it is impossible to state, for the Chinese Government has no scientific system of record. Morse² has estimated that the total production in all China for 1905 was 376,000 piculs. For the year 1906 an estimate, based on customs reports, places it at 584,800 piculs.³ Mr. Leech⁴ estimates that for 1907 the total production was 331,000 piculs. An estimate, based on customs reports gives the total production for 1908 at 367,250 piculs. The Chinese themselves accept the estimates for 1906 and 1908 as based on the customs report. Although these figures are estimates only, still they will have to be taken as the official estimate of the Chinese Government. If so taken, there appears to have been a reduction since 1906 of 217,550 piculs in the internal production of opium. This reduction, or a fair part of it, indicates that China is capable of acting up to the “Ten-year agreement.”

As the time for the meeting of the commission approached, Great Britain not only expressed sympathy for the Chinese Government in its effort to suppress the misuse of opium, but carried out practical measures to that end, and at the same time in regard to her problem in India and the Crown Colonies. In regard to India, it has already been pointed out that the British House of Commons passed a unanimous resolution condemning the Indo-Chinese opium trade (vide supra, pt. 1), and Lord Morley’s speech in support has been partially quoted. Since then Lord Morley has stated the position of the Indian Government not only in regard to China, but to the whole question of the Indian opium trade, and in a way not to be misunderstood. In August, 1907, Lord Morley authorized the following statement:

“The first concerning his insistence that China must fulfill her part of the agreement founded on her own proposals,¹ if England is to do the same. Mr. Morley explained that from his point of view such insistence was intended, not as a threat to China, but rather as a help to her to hold fast to her obligations, and to go forward with their fulfillment.

“The second point concerned the action of our (i. e., the British) Government in case China should fail to carry out her own proposals—was it to be understood that the present movement for the gradual extinction of the Indian opium export should, in that case, come to an end? Mr. Morley did not see that that was implied. There were two broad grounds for the present movement; one, the proposals of the Chinese Government, the other the resolution of the House of Commons on the 30th of May, 1906. If the first should fail, the second did not necessarily cease to be a ground of action.

“The third point concerned a possible plea on the part of China that the process of reduction might go on more swiftly than her own first proposals contemplated. Would Mr. Morley be prepared to consider such a plea if deliberately put before him by the Chinese authorities? In reply Mr. Morley said that he could only refer to his statement on May 30, 1906, that any deliberate proposals from the Chinese Government on the subject of opium would meet with sympathetic consideration.”²

It will be seen that the British Government in contracting the 10–year agreement with China intended that it should be a help to her to hold fast to her obligations, for the Indian side of the opium question was, under certain circumstances, a question by itself, and would be treated quite apart from any action of the Chinese Government on its own internal opium problem, and if China wished for further assistance from Great Britain, her proposals would be sympathetically considered. There can be no doubt that this is the confirmed view of the British Government and of a large majority of the British nation. To substantiate the British position, the House of Commons took a step further on May 6, 1908, when the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously:

“That this House, having regard to its resolution unanimously adopted on May 30, 1906, that the Indo-Chinese opium trade is morally indefensible, welcomes the action of His Majesty’s Government in diminishing the sale of opium for export, and thus responding to the action of the Chinese Government in their arrangements for the suppression of the consumption of the drug in that Empire; and this House also urges the Government to take steps to bring to a speedy close the legislation licensing the opium dens now prevailing in some of her Crown colonies—more particularly Hongkong, the Straits Settlements, and Ceylon.”

Col. Seeley, the under secretary of state for the colonies, accepted the resolution on behalf of the Government and announced that the following telegram had already been sent to the governor of Hongkong:

“His Majesty’s Government has decided that steps must be taken to close opium dens in Hongkong, as they recognize that it is essential in dealing with the opium question in Hongkong that we must act up to the standard set by the Chinese Government.”

That this was no mere party resolution is proved in that it passed unanimously and that it was strongly supported by the Right Hon. Alfred Littleton, secretary of state for the colonies in the late Conservative government.

As completing the position of the British Government, the chief of the Indian administration may be quoted in regard to the opium traffic. Lord Minto said, in speaking on the Indian budget, March 27, 1907, that—

“The Indian government is not entitled to doubt the good faith of the Chinese Government as to the objects of their proposals (i. e., the ‘10-year agreement’). There is, no doubt, throughout the civilized world a feeling of disgust at the demoralizing effect of the opium habit in excess; it is a feeling which we can not but share. We can not with any self-respect refuse to assist China on the ground of loss of revenue to India.”

The self-governing colonies have not lagged, for Canada prohibited the importation of opium, except for medicinal purposes, in July, 1908. The Governor General of Australia, by virtue of the Commonwealth customs act mentioned above (pt. 1), issued a declaration dated December 29, 1905, that after the 1st of January, 1906, the importation of opium, suitable for smoking, into Australia will be prohibited absolutely, and that opium shall only be imported for medicinal uses and by persons licensed. Anticipating the House of Commons resolution of May 6, 1908, in regard to the use of opium in the Crown colonies, the government of Ceylon appointed a committee on the 12th of June, 1907, to inquire into and report upon opium. The committee reported on the 5th of December, 1907, condemning the Ceylon opium trade, recommending that the importation, distribution, and sale of opium be made a Government monopoly and that the use of the drug, except for medicinal purposes, should be entirely prohibited after a definite period.¹ On the 19th of July, 1907, the governor of the Straits Settlements appointed a commission of six members for the purpose of inquiring into the opium habit. On the 15th of June, 1908, the commission reported. The report may be said to have been profoundly influenced by the royal commission report of 1895. Its conclusions were about the same. But it is expected that the British Government will disregard it and order the closing of the opium business in the Straits and Federated Malay States.² At Hongkong discussion has waged furiously as to the right and the wrong of the opium habit, but the local government has gone as far as to prohibit by ordinance the exportation of smoking opium to China and to French Indo-China. Although, by special pleading and otherwise, the Government is fighting hard for its opium revenue, the British colonial office has ordered the closing of the opium dens by March 1, 1910. This will mean a loss of revenue to the country of about $700,000 gold. But it is possible that the Imperial Government will make some sacrifice to assist not only Hongkong, but the Straits and Ceylon and the other colonies whose finances will be affected by the loss of the opium revenue. Thus history repeats itself. For having recognized the immorality of the opium traffic and its consequences, the British people have begun a determined effort to sacrifice a large revenue to the end that a widespread evil may cease. The historic parallel is the old British slavery question.

France has placed herself in line with the new movement. On the 22d of August, 1907, a commission was appointed to study measures to be progressively adopted for the gradual suppression of opium smoking in French Indo-China. As the result of the work of the commission,³ no new opium dens are to be authorized. The price of the drug is to be increased and officials known to be opium smokers are excluded from promotion. The minister of the French marine has issued a circular prohibiting opium smoking on board French men-of-war. On October 5, 1907, the governor general issued a circular forbidding in the most formal terms the use of opium to all European civil servants and agents of all services and of all ranks. Anyone infringing this prohibition is to be denounced at once and rigorous measures will be taken against him. Culprits are to be deprived of all “inscription en tableau,” and of all promotion. All European officials who are such confirmed smokers that they can not abandon the habit at the end of three months, will be immediately dismissed the service. Of great importance has been the prohibition of the sale of Yunnan opium in Cochin China and Cambodia. The result of all these measures has been a decrease in the purchase and sales of opium by some 45 per cent. The very heavy tax which the French Indo-Chinese Government has imposed on the sale of opium has restricted its use to the wealthier Chinese. The only notable exception to this is the coolie population of the town of Cholon in Cochin, China, where one-half of the male adults smoke. The French Government is hopeful that in the near future the entire traffic in and the use of smoking opium will come to an end.

In the United States public opinion was aroused as the result of the work of the American Opium Commission¹ during the summer of 1908. Investigation showed that the use of morphine was a widespread evil, and that the habit of smoking opium was no longer confined to the Chinese population. On the 9th of last February a statute was passed making it a penal offense to import opium into the United States except for medicinal purposes. This statute went into effect April 1, 1909. The prohibitory legislation of the Philippine Islands went into effect March 1, 1908.

Japan can not be said to have made any step toward regulating her opium business in Formosa to final extinction, although it is her professed object to do so.

On the 21st of September, 1908, the King of Siam declared that:—

“It was unquestionable that opium had an evil effect upon its consumers and casts degradation upon every country where, the inhabitants are largely addicted to, the habit of opium smoking. There is no reason to doubt that the most earnest desire of nearly every country in the world is to suppress this noxious habit.”

The King goes on to discuss the financial difficulties confronting him in his desire to suppress the use of opium. But he continues:

“Notwithstanding these great obstacles which we see standing in our way, it is, nevertheless, our bounden duty not to neglect our people and allow them to become more and more demoralized by indulgence in this noxious drug.”

Since that speech the Siamese Government has executed special measures in the administration of the opium monopoly whereby the spread of the habit will become gradually lessened until it is entirely suppressed. Thus Siam has joined the new movement against opium which began with the more active entrance of the United States into far eastern affairs.

This review of the movement against the misuse of opium in its later phases has made no mention of the efforts of the various antiopium societies to call the Governments to action. It should be mentioned to their credit that when the new movement began their interest in it was active, self-contained, and effective. Before dealing with the commission itself it is fair to plead that much of the antiopium legislation that occurred prior to the meeting of the commission should be placed to the credit of the commission. From the date of the original letter calling for the commission the United States Government made strenuous efforts both by study and legislation to appear at Shanghai with clean hands. The other Governments taking part were beyond doubt animated by a like motive.

the opium commission itself.

When the commissioners representing the various powers concerned met at Shanghai it was found that they had to all practical purposes followed the program as laid down by the United States Government—that is, each delegation came prepared to lay before the commission as a whole a report on opium as it affected their national, dependent, and protected peoples. On the American delegation naturally devolved the leadership in the commission. Organization was quickly completed, largely through the courtesy of the British and Chinese Governments in instructing their delegations to support Bishop Brent for the presidency of the commission.²

The American delegation approached its work with some diffidence, for, although it had developed that the American people were more largely interested in the opium problem than was at first thought, still the revenue at stake was a small matter compared to that of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Siam, and other countries represented. However, the American delegation were animated by a few fundamental principles. It was assumed that the mere existence of the commission was tantamount to acknowledging that the traffic in opium and its misuse was immoral; therefore the American delegation determined to use the term “moral” as seldom as possible in any discussion. Then, again, it was decided that the opium problem should be regarded as a problem of to-day, and that no historical references should be needlessly made. It was agreed that the last century phase of the question was of interest to the historian, but that discussion of it would lead to no practical results and might considerably fog the issue. The American delegation concluded that the bane of all past reports on opium was the minority report or the dissenting opinion; that time after time such reports and opinions had thrown the opium question again into the melting pot. It was decided, therefore, that no conclusion would be urged that could not be carried by an overwhelming majority or unanimously. It was recognized, too, that the acts of the commission would be important as an historical precedent, and it was determined that the commission, so far as the American delegation was concerned, should strictly adhere to the rules in regard to commissions of inquiry as propounded by the First Hague Conference and that the rules under which the commission operated should, as nearly as possible, comply with the rules of the Second Hague Conference. As illustrating the spirit in which the American delegation entered the commission, the address of the president on taking the chair may be consulted.

Bishop Brent, on taking the chair, read for the benefit of the delegations the letter of instructions issued by Mr. Boot to our conferees at the Second Hague Conference.¹ That had a good effect in that it showed that the American delegation was not at Shanghai to take an extreme position, even though it was recognized by all the delegations that the United States Government and people stood for immediate and total prohibition of the misuse of opium. With some 35 or 40 delegates present, there was the danger that there might be much useless and perhaps emotional discussion. But this was avoided by according to each delegation but one vote, and thereby making the leader of each delegation on the floor the mouthpiece of his Government. This practically confined discussion and oratory to 13 delegates. The rules under which the commission worked may be of interest and are therefore included in a footnote.²

It will be seen by rule 5 that each delegation was required to report on its own opium question without discussion or debate. That rule resulted, in the first half dozen sessions of the commission being very businesslike and of:short duration, and by the 22d of February each delegation had placed its report before the commission as a whole, and the entire opium question was in scientific form and open to discussion and debate. The United States Government being the conveners of the commission, the other delegations naturally looked to the Americans for a program. It was decided that it should be in the shape of a series of resolutions. Such a program¹ was drawn up by the American delegation in informal consultation with several of the other delegations, and on the 23d of February it was submitted for discussion and amendment. It was clearly stated, on submission, that the American delegates, after due consideration of the historical aspects of the opium question, after a complete and careful study of the literature on the general question of opium abuse throughout the world, and more particularly after a specific study of the various reports laid before the commission in Pleno, had considered and drawn up a series of resolutions which they hoped might receive, along with others of similar sense, the unanimous approval of the international commission. In considering and drawing up the resolutions, the American delegation had kept in mind the magnitude of the question they were instructed to review, and the relative values of the economic, moral, and international interests of the different Governments represented in the commission, though it was distinctly stated that in spite of the sympathy and interest which the American delegation had for the difficulties, financial and other, they had concluded that the traffic in opium for other than necessary uses could not much longer continue, or there would still loom between the East and West a problem that in its magnitude and potentialities for strife would outstrip the magnitude and forces of the long since happily settled slavery question. It was pointed out that the American people were watching with admiration a repetition of history; that they saw the beginning of a determined, and they hoped a final, effort of Great Britain and others to sacrifice a great revenue to the end that another widespread evil might cease. They showed their appreciation of the effort that Great Britain particularly was making, and the large financial interests it involved; that the American people realized that, as in the slavery question so in the opium question, Great Britain was ready to sacrifice. It was pointed out that the American program was presented more in the shape of a skeleton which it was hoped that the wisdom and thought of the other delegations would be able to clothe.

Without going into particulars as to the debate which led to the modification of the American program, it may be stated that of the final resolutions¹ Nos. 4 and 9 are American and were accepted without material modification; Nos. 2, 3, and 6 were compromise resolutions of the American and British delegations: Nos. 1 and 5 were resolutions introduced by the British delegation and modified at the suggestion of the American delegation; and resolutions 7 and 8 were introduced by the Chinese delegation. Resolution 1 was a very necessary expression of sympathy with China in her fight against the production and consumption of opium. Resolution 2 was a frank recognition of the action taken by the Government of China in suppressing the vice of opium smoking, and of other Governments to the same end, and calls upon the Governments for further action. Resolution 3 in spirit delegates opium to its proper use in medicine, but takes into consideration the difficulties to be encountered by the different Governments in determining what legitimate medical practice may mean. It was recognized by the American delegation that the strict regulations that obtain in western countries could not be made to apply to China and India, where medical education is on a low plane and where most morbid conditions are treated by household remedies, opium being in most common use. But the resolution is a practical condemnation of the illiberal use of opium even in India. Resolution 4 was the most important resolution passed. It recommends for adoption a new principle in international law. In presenting it the American delegation urged that the time had come for opium-producing countries to control the export of their product to countries that prohibit its entry. It was pointed out that in our national pure-food law we had, without pressure from foreign Governments and as a matter of courtesy, placed the same penalties on a shipper of misbranded or adulterated foods and drugs abroad as on shippers in our interstate commerce, and that the time had come for an international recognition of the fact. It was urged, further, that in prohibiting the entry of opium into the Philippines and United States the United States Government was confronted by smuggling operations on a large scale, and that in addition to sacrificing a considerable revenue, especially in the Philippines, it would be necessary to add considerably to the budget for a preventive service, if the prohibitory laws were to be made effective. It is to the great credit of all the delegations present that this principle was accepted without demur. To the British delegation especial appreciation is due, for it was realized in the commission as a whole that the resolution aimed at the export of crude opium from India and of opium manufactured for smoking from Hongkong, the Straits Settlements, and British North Borneo. Resolution 5 aimed at the international control of the manufacture and distribution of morphia. The American delegation, as will be seen by referring to the original American program, had drawn up a strict resolution in regard to morphia; however, it was at once withdrawn as a concession to the British delegation when it was found that they were to submit one of similar purport, except that it applied to China and far eastern countries alone. The British delegation accepted an amendment of the American, making their resolution international in application, and as amended it was passed unanimously. Resolution 8 aims at a striking evil that has supervened on the fight of China against opium smoking, for it was developed in the commission that that country has been flooded with antiopium remedies containing high percentages of morphine and opium and that the cure threatens to become worse than the disease. Chemists of all nationalities in the settlements and concessions in China have manufactured these antiopium remedies by the ton, and the well-meaning but gullible Chinese habitues have given up opium smoking in their favor, few of them realizing that they are taking opium in another form. No doubt many other Chinese who can not stand the odium now attached to opium smoking secure and use these remedies secretly. Resolution 6 must be considered an unfortunate one. It was precipitated by an attempt on the part of the American delegation to have the scientific and medical aspects of the use of opium thoroughly investigated. But the British delegation took the ground that the commission was not constituted in such a manner as to permit the investigation from the scientific point of view of antiopium remedies and of the properties and effects of opium and its products; that, too, in spite of the fact that there were several experts in the commission. It was urged by the American delegation that the time was ripe for a fresh utterance on this side of the opium question; that the royal commission of 1895 had but one medical expert; that his report had colored to a great extent the final judgment of the royal commission; that, on the other hand, that expert’s opinion had not proved to be satisfactory to the great majority of scientists who had examined it in detail; and that if one expert was enough for a royal commission two or three should be warrant for action by the international commission. The American delegation was strongly supported in this view by the Japanese, the German, the Chinese, and other delegations; but it was lost by a majority vote of 1. Resolution 7 was necessary as a reminder that the opium dens in the foreign concessions and settlements in China had not all been closed. Some were still open in the French and the international settlements of Shanghai and in the French and Japanese concessions in other parts of China. Resolution 9 calls for the application of the pharmacy laws of western powers to their subjects in the consular districts, concessions, and settlements in China. As matters stand at present it is within the power of anyone calling himself a physician to prescribe opium, morphine, etc., in any quantity he pleases to those who apply to him and has led to a widespread use of the internal administration of opium to combat or displace the smoking habit. Of course it will be recognized that these resolutions were simply declarations based on a study of the opium problem by the commission as a whole and have no force as international law, and will have no force except as they affect public opinion until they are conventionalized in an international pact. Undoubtedly this will be the next and final step in placing the entire production, manufacture, and trade in opium under an international convention. Considering what an inflammable subject the opium question has been for a hundred years or more, it was remarkable and greatly to the credit of all powers represented that the commission succeeded in achieving results without a display of feeling. The delegations realized their responsibility and that disagreement on the part of the commission would throw the whole subject of opium open to a further emotional discussion. Most happily this was avoided. In calling for thorough reports on the opium question, not only of the Far East but of the entire world, and in placing it on a scientific basis where statesmen may deal with it the opium problem is near its final solution.

Some of the most important points gained by the calling of the commission has been the willingness of China to consult with countries like Persia and Siam on her opium question, though with these countries she has no treaty relations. Again the question has been elevated from the narrow confines of dual agreements and treaties to a plane where every civilized nation may have a voice in its final settlement. One more question is before the world at large for final adjustment. In its broader effects it impressed China—both Government and people—with the fact that the western powers deeply sympathize in her effort to suppress an evil which undoubtedly lies at the bottom of her past inertia. It has shown that the western powers may consult on her territory on a problem which affects her relations to them, act in her interest, and not demand a quid pro quo. It has taught her that an international commission can meet on her territory, interest themselves in her welfare, and break up without demanding a Province or an indemnity. It has done more than the remission of the Boxer indemnity to impress on the Chinese that the American Government and people are sincerely friendly. The remission of the Boxer indemnity appealed to the official and educated classes as a generous act, but no more than was due, while the work of the International Opium Commission and the leadership of the United States in it has penetrated not alone the upper classes but into the humblest hovel in China.¹

Hamilton Wright.

Appendix III.

[Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law for October, 1912, pp. 865–889.]

The International Opium Conference.

(Part I.)

This conference—the latest of The Hague conferences to which the United States was a party—was proposed by the United States on September 1, 1909, and convoked by the Netherlands Government on December 1, 1911. It dealt in a judicial manner with the varied and conflicting interests, diplomatic, moral, humanitarian, and economic, of those Governments represented and with the known similar interests of those not represented. Several of the Governments in making pledges for the obliteration of the opium evil did so in the face of an eventual large financial sacrifice, but this was done thoughtfully and generously.

The conference determined upon, and on January 23 last signed, a convention for the suppression of the obnoxious features of their national and of the international opium, morphine, and cocaine traffics, and for the regulation of that part of the production of and trade in the drugs which may be said to be legitimate. To China was confirmed much that she had contended for for a hundred years or more as to the vexatious export of Indian opium to her shores. This act, however, was but a broader recognition of what the British Government had, as between India and China, already yielded to China by virtue of the so-called 10-year agreement of 1907,¹ and by the modification of that agreement signed at Peking on the 8th of May, 1911.²

To the United States is due the credit of having initiated an international and national movement of such wide scope, involving diplomatic and economic interests and difficulties that scarcely anyone foresaw. For in the autumn of 1906 the American Government, after repeated urging, and as the result of a pressure not easy to define, boldly ventured on a solution of the opium problem as seen in the Far East, a venture which has been extended by the cooperation of 12 other powers to a solution of the problem as it affects the world generally.

President Roosevelt and Secretary of State John Hay had held favorable, though judicious, hearings on the subject with many people representing humanitarian, moral, and economic interests; following these Mr. Elihu Root, the then Secretary of State, formulated a plan, the design of which was to bring the Far Eastern opium traffic to an end, it being plain that that traffic was generally regarded as deplorable, as one of the most serious causes of the first Anglo-Chinese war,³ and of repeated, if not continuous, friction between China and Great Britain, with adverse economic and diplomatic consequences felt by every power having intercourse with the former.

To secure the end sought for, it was essential that the United States obtain the support of those western powers having territorial possessions in the Far East, and of certain of the oriental States, more particularly China and Japan. The United States had become a Far Eastern power in the larger sense through the acquisition of the Philippine Islands, and having maintained a fairly high record of accord with China as to the viciousness of the opium traffic⁴ and having attempted, as far as this could be done by national and local legislation, to protect the population of the Philippine Islands from the opium vice,⁵ it was in the best diplomatic position to approach the interested Governments.

The cooperation of the major powers having treaty relations with China was early and willingly offered to the United States, but one may suppose not without some misgivings in European chancelleries at the temerity of this Government’s venture. From that moment the design of the Department of State broadened and embraced several other Governments directly or indirectly interested in some phase of the problem. By the autumn of 1908, 12 States of Europe and Asia had ranged themselves beside the United States in international brotherhood, and up to the present moment have remained there.

Mr. Robert Bacon was Assistant Secretary of State at the time the American Government initiated the international movement for the settlement of the opium problem, and upon him fell the responsibility of the negotiations which led to the assembling of the International Opium Commission. If The Hague conference—with which this paper particularly deals—achieved a decisive result, it was largely due to the broad lines upon which Mr. Bacon encouraged and kept the negotiations for the International Opium Commission, and to the official support and confidence which later as Secretary of State he accorded to the American representatives on that commission.

The International Opium Conference, composed of delegates with full powers, was a sequel of the International Opium Commission which met at Shanghai, China, February, 1909. That commission was, generally speaking, a commission of inquiry, somewhat conforming in action to such commissions as provided for by The Hague Peace Conference of 1899.¹ What that commission accomplished, both directly and indirectly, was described in the journal for July and October, 1909, and the progress of the movement since the commission adjourned has been outlined in the editorial columns of the journal for April, 1911.

It is the purpose of this paper to continue the narrative of international cooperation to solve the opium and allied problems, and to demonstrate that by the steady, persistent effort of the United States, by a continuity of policy running from the hands of Mr. Root into the hands of Mr. Bacon and Mr. Knox, the world will shortly see the obliteration of the Indo-Chinese opium trade, the release of China from the bonds of her own unnecessary production and vicious consumption of opium, as well as the regulation of the legitimate opium and allied traffics of the nations of the four continents.

As stated above, the International Opium Commission met at Shanghai in February, 1909. Its conclusions that the opium vice should cease and that the illicit morphine traffic must be discontinued, were unanimous.² But these conclusions were on their face only moral in effect. Nevertheless they cleared all doubt as to future action, and left it open to the United States to proceed to propose that a conference, composed of delegates with full powers, should meet at The Hague to conventionalize the conclusions of the commission. Therefore on September 1, 1909, the Department of State addressed a circular proposal³ to the interested governments—that is, to those represented on the International Opium Commission—in which inter alia it was stated that the Government of the United States had learned with satisfaction of the results achieved by the International Opium Commission; that it was the opinion of the leaders of the antiopium movement that much had been accomplished and that both the Government and people of the United States recognized that the results were largely due to the generous spirit in which the representatives of the governments concerned approached the questions submitted to them. The American appreciation of the magnitude of the opium problem and the serious financial interests involved were dwelt upon, and it was pointed out that as the result of inquiries in the Philippine Islands and the United States itself, the opium problem was of great material as well as humanitarian interest to the American people and Government. Mention was then made of the fact that on February 9, 1909, during the sitting of the International Opium Commission, the Congress had passed and the President had approved of an act forbidding the importation of opium into the United States except for medicinal purposes, thus cutting out by a stroke of the pen a previous per annum importation of nearly 200,000 pounds of opium prepared for smoking, used mostly by Chinese residents in the United States, but also of over 150,000 Americans. Continuing, it was stated that the United States was not an opium-producing country, and that to enable it to effectuate the above-mentioned legislation, it was necessary to secure international cooperation and the practical sympathy of opium-producing countries. Further, that although no formal declaration had been made at the International Opium Commission, it was a matter of discussion by the commissioners that however important the commission’s conclusions were morally, they would fail to satisfy enlightened public opinion unless by subsequent agreement of the powers they and the minor questions involved in them were incorporated in an international convention. Greatly impressed by the gravity of the opium problem and the desirability of divesting it of local and unwise agitation, as well as the necessity of maintaining it upon a basis of fact, as determined by the Shanghai commission, the United States proposed an international conference to be held at The Hague, and that the delegates thereto should have full powers to conventionalize the resolutions adopted at Shanghai and their necessary consequences. A tentative program, composed of 14 items, was submitted, nearly all of these items becoming a part of the definite program of the conference. They included such items of interest as follows: Effective national laws to control the production, manufacture, and distribution of opium; restriction of the number of ports through which opium might be shipped by opium-producing countries; prevention at the port of departure of the shipment of opium to countries which prohibit or wish to prohibit or control its entry; reciprocal notification of the amount of opium shipped from one country to another; regulation by the universal Postal Union of the transmission of opium through the mails; restriction or control of the production of opium by countries which did not then produce it to compensate for the reduction in production being made in British India and China; the restudy of treaty obligations under which the opium traffic was being conducted; uniform provisions of penal laws concerning offenses against any agreement entered into by the powers in regard to opium production and traffic; uniform marks of identification of opium in international transit; government authorization to be granted to exporters and importers of opium; reciprocal right of search of vessels suspected of carrying contraband opium; measures to prevent the unlawful use of a flag by vessels engaged in the opium traffic; the application of a strict pharmacy law to the nationals of the powers in the consular districts, concessions, and settlements in China; the advisability of an international supervisory commission to be intrusted with the carrying out of any international agreement concluded by the powers.

The proposal of the United States did not attempt to prescribe the scope of the conference or to present a program which might not be varied or enlarged; and finally the powers were asked that a delegate or delegates be appointed, furnished with full powers, to negotiate and conclude an agreement based on the conclusions of the Shanghai commission and other important questions involved in them.¹

It is to the great credit of 11 of the powers to which this proposal was made that they promptly and heartily responded and offered to continue cooperation with the United States for final international settlement of the opium problem. By the middle of May, 1910, the American proposal had been almost generally accepted and the Netherlands Government had very courteously and quickly offered to assemble the conference at The Hague.

However, one power had regretted its inability to send delegates to the conference,² and another had failed to respond definitely to the American proposal by May, 1910, namely, Great Britain. There has been considerable ill-advised criticism of this delay on the part of the British Government, but the delay, as will be shown later, was due not to a want of sympathy or to a determination not to cooperate with the other Governments, but partly because Great Britain was then negotiating a modification of the 10-year agreement made between herself, and China in 1907—it being the natural desire of statesmen like Sir Edward Grey and Lord Morley that the opium question as between Great Britain and China should be advanced more nearly to the fulfillment of China’s desires before the conference met. In addition to this, the British Government was greatly concerned over the morphine and cocaine traffics; for it had been shown beyond a doubt that immense quantities of these drugs were being smuggled into British India to take the place of opium, also that in China they tended to supplant the use of opium which the British Government had agreed that India should soon cease to export, and the production and use of which China on her part had agreed to suppress. But in September, one year after the American proposal was made, the British Government tendered its cooperation with the American and other Governments, laying down as a condition of its acceptance of the American proposal that the powers should agree before the conference met to study the question of the production of and traffic in morphine and cocaine, and pledge themselves beforehand to the principle of drastic legislation against such production and traffic equally effective with the measures she had taken or proposed to take for the ultimate obliteration of the Indo-Chinese opium trade.¹

Had the British proposals in regard to the morphine and cocaine traffics not been made, there is little doubt that the conference would have assembled early in 1911, but it was recognized by all concerned that though the British proposals were sound and necessary, they required the grave consideration of several of the Governments whose subjects were heavily interested in the manufacture of and traffic in these drugs. They were particularly important to Germany, as one of the largest producers. Nevertheless, after due consideration, all of the Governments accepted the British proposals, and the date of the assembling of the conference was finally fixed by the Netherlands for December 1, 1911.² In the meantime the Italian Government had proposed that the production and traffic in the Indian hemp drugs be included as part of the program of the conference.

It was stated above that the delegates to the International Opium Commission which met at Shanghai in February, 1909, felt on the whole that the conclusions of the commission as embodied in its resolutions would be only moral in their effect unless by subsequent agreement amongst the interested States the resolutions and their necessary consequences were converted to and given the force of international law and agreement. This, too, undoubtedly was the popular estimate of the work of the commission. Soon, however, this conclusion had to be modified, for within a few months from the adjournment of the commission several of the powers more particularly interested gave the resolutions of the commission a binding effect by legislating in accord with them. This was notably true of the British Indian Government, of the Governments of the British self-governing colonies, and of several of the Crown colonies; also of the French colonial governments. These actions were in accord with modern statecraft, which recognizes that moral conclusions unanimously arrived at by an authoritative international body of wide representation have nearly the force of distinct pledges entered into by a conference composed of delegates clothed with the full power of their States.

In former articles dealing with the International Opium Commission there was outlined the opium problem as seen in the home territories and possessions of the Governments represented in the commission, and an account was given of the different measures taken by the different Governments to put new restrictive or prohibitory opium laws into effect before the commission assembled. The same plan will be followed in the present paper.

china.

The first resolution of the Shanghai commission is as follows:

“That the International Opium Commission recognizes the unswerving sincerity of the Government of China in their efforts to eradicate the production and consumption of opium throughout the Empire; the increasing body of public opinion among their own subjects by which these efforts are being supported; and the real, though unequal, progress already made in a task which is one of the greatest magnitude.”

It will be noticed at once that, though the commissioners at Shanghai recognized the unswerving sincerity of the Chinese Government in its attempt to suppress the production and use of opium in China, there was prevalent, nevertheless, the feeling that China’s effort to this end had been unequal. It may be stated that the commission contained many doubting Thomases who could not believe in the ability of the Chinese Government to accomplish the task to which it had set itself or to fulfill its part of the so-called 10–year agreement of 1907. There were a few, however, who believed that the Chinese Government and people had at last been aroused to the truth, that the individual Chinese, as well as his Government, could not command the entire respect of those powers having treaty relations with China until China had shown a capacity to secure the great moral and economic reform in view. It had become only too obvious that China’s inertia both at home and abroad was due to the poppy, and that if she had been unsuccessful in some of her dealings with the western powers it was not because of any superiority of intelligence on the part of the representatives of those powers so much as the inability of a number of Chinese metropolitan and provincial officials to efficiently transact business and perform their duties after emerging from an atmosphere of opium smoke.

At the International Opium Commission the Chinese representatives made a strenuous effort to bring under discussion and secure a modification of the 10–year agreement between China and Great Britain such as would be more in accord with and more helpful to the Chinese Government in the task before it. There can be no doubt that the strong men at Peking and in the Provinces were in hearty sympathy with the efforts of their representatives in the commission, for the commission had no sooner adjourned than the Peking Government renewed its efforts to secure a modification of the 10–year agreement. The attitude of the British Government was not unsympathetic, for the world at large had had it from Lord Morley,¹ who was then at the head of the India office, that Great Britain would meet China more than halfway in the event of her showing a determination and capacity to suppress what was now being generally recognized as the great economic as well as moral obstacle to the advance of the Chinese Government and people. Quite naturally, however, the British Government was loath to make further concessions to China in regard to the Indo-Chinese opium traffic until China had demonstrated beyond per adventure of a doubt her capacity to fulfill her part of a solemn engagement.

China was determined to show the world her latent energy. To this end the authorities at Peking, encouraged by the proposal for an international conference made by the United States, and aided by energetic, enlightened, and faithful viceroys in the Provinces, renewed their efforts to suppress the cultivation of the poppy and the use of opium in the Empire, expecting thereby to secure from Great Britain terms as to the Indian opium trade which would be more helpful. In this they were successful, as will be presently shown.

During the months from the end of February, 1909, to the spring of 1911, there were varying and sometimes contradictory reports from many observers as to what the Chinese Government and people were accomplishing toward the suppression of the production of opium and its abuse in the Empire. To those who were watching the situation closely it was seen that decided progress was being made, and that China was more than carrying out her part of the terms of the 10–year agreement.

China is so vast a country, with so great a population and such varying local conditions that it would be quite impossible to give in this paper in detail the methods adopted and the results attained by the central and provincial authorities in achieving her reform,² so that a statement of the case must be based on memoranda compiled from many sources by one of the highest authorities on the question, Mr. Charles D. Tenney, Chinese secretary of the American Legation at Peking, and one of the commissioners for the United States at the International Opium Commission.

Mr. Tenney’s conclusions follow:

“It is now possible to make a general statement in regard to the progress of the crusade against the growth of the poppy and the production and use of opium in the Chinese Empire, By the agreement with Great Britain in 1907—the so-called 10–year agreement—China undertook to suppress the growth of the poppy within a period of 10 years, by gradual reduction, and Great Britain agreed, on her part, to reduce the amount of opium exported from India to all countries by one-tenth annually; this agreement was to continue only if after three years China was able to show that she had lived up to her part of the program.³ A great moral awakening had occurred in China before this agreement was entered upon. Upon the conclusion of the agreement a remarkable impetus was given to the movement both in Government circles and amongst the scholars and gentry throughout the Chinese Empire, and there arose a general determination to suppress entirely and at once the production of native opium without reference to the 10–year agreement. The difficulty of dealing with this question in so vast an area as that of the Chinese Empire and through a body of subordinate officials, many of whom are corrupt, must be evident, and the results that have been obtained, though somewhat uneven, are in the aggregate surprising and most gratifying. The evidence of both Chinese and other observers is conclusive that the growth of the poppy has been practically suppressed in the Provinces of Manchuria, Chihli, Shantung, and all the other central and southern Provinces of the Empire. In all this part of China other crops have taken the place of the poppy. The latter, if found, is only in small patches in remote and secluded places. Shansi, Szechuan, and Yunnan were the three Provinces largely given up to the poppy culture before the new awakening. But, on the evidence of many observers, practically no poppy has been planted in them this year, and very little was grown last year. There are of course remote spots where the prohibition of cultivation has not been, made effective. A consequence of effective prohibition, and diminution in the supply of opium has caused the price of the drug to advance until it is worth four or five times its normal price, so that the temptation to grow the poppy is strong. This, however, has caused no general relaxation of the prohibitory movement. Up to last year the reports from the two northwest Provinces, Shansi and Kansu, were less favorable than from other parts of the Empire. The attention of the Central Government being called, stringent orders were issued that these Provinces should fall in line with the rest of the Empire. Such reports as are now available indicate that prohibition is generally effective in that region also. In view of the present conditions, it would seem probable that if China enjoyed full sovereign rights as to the control of the importation of foreign or Indian opium, the opium evil might be thoroughly stamped out of the Empire in a very short time. So much for the cultivation of the poppy and the production of opium. The present situation in regard to the use of opium is that wealthy Chinese victims of the habit continue to smoke in private, while the poor have been obliged to give it up on account of the high price of the drug and the difficulty of obtaining it. It is gratifying to be able to state that public opium-smoking shops have largely disappeared from Chinese towns, and that the use of opium is no longer fashionable; the habit, when indulged in, is kept as secret as possible. Wonder has been shown that the Central Government which, seemingly so weak on other lines, has been able to make so marked a showing in carrying out the opium reform. The explanation is that the conscience of the country has been awakened, so that the arbitrary measures taken by officials in many localities against those who have tried to produce opium for the pecuniary profits of the trade, have been supported by general public opinion and by the most influential members of society. It would seem that international justice now demands that China should be allowed to strike off opium from the list of her legalized imports, so that the Government may have full control of the situation and be able to carry to a conclusion the reform so well commenced unhindered by vexatious agreements with other powers.”

This is a review of the situation up to June, 1910.

Another close observer of the Chinese opium reform may be quoted, namely, Sir Alexander Hosie, most learned in Chinese affairs, and one of the commissioners on the part of Great Britain to the International Opium Commission.

Sir Alexander’s report was made on behalf of his Government, for the final determination as to whether or not China had carried out her part in the tentative period of three years of the ten-year agreement. There was little credible doubt as to what would be the conclusion. On June 15, 1911, the British foreign office published an official White Paper containing Sir Alexander Hosie’s observations. It had been estimated by friendly observers of the opium reform that China had reduced her home production of the drug from 60 to 75 per cent during the three years following the issue of the antiopium edict in the autumn of 1906. The Hosie report applying only to the five Provinces of Shansi, Shensi, Hansu, Yunnan, and Szechuan—the most important being the latter which used to produce nearly half the opium grown in China—nearly confirms this estimate.

Sir Alexander Hosie’s report on these five Provinces is, in brief, as follows:

“Shaatsi—There is reason to believe that the poppy has ceased to be cultivated in this Province for the last two years.

“Shensi.—I have not the least hesitation * * * in saying that so far as my personal observations extended, the official claim that there has been a diminution in the cultivation of from 60 to 80 per cent is excessive. It may be as much as 30 per cent, but it is certainly much under 50 per cent.

“Kansu.—From what I have seen and heard, the conclusion which I have arrived at in regard to Kansu is that on the whole there has been a reduction in cultivation, and that reduction amounts to something under 25 per cent.”

These three Provinces, however, are of relatively minor importance from the point of view of opium cultivation. In the Province of Shansi, for instance, the production of opium, even on the highest estimate, never exceeded 30,000 piculs (piculs=133⅓ pounds avoirdupois). But formerly the situation was entirely different in the Province of Szechuan and that of Yunnan. The former was for many years the greatest opium-producing Province in China—the production exceeding 200,000 piculs per annum, and Yunnan always ranked next to Szechuan in point of quantity, and first throughout the Empire in point of quality of its opium. The conclusion arrived at by Sir Alexander Hosie in regard to these Provinces may be stated in his own words:

“Szechuan.—As the result of my own personal investigation, extending over 34 days’ travel overland, and of the testimony of others, I am satisfied that poppy cultivation has * * * been suppressed in Szechuan.

“Yunnan.—Taking the Province of Yunnan as a whole* * * it may, I think, be fairly assumed that the estimated production of 60,000 piculs prior to the introduction of the measures is correct. The suppression has been very materially reduced, and I venture to hazard the opinion that the output of 1910 and 1911 will not exceed 15,000 piculs. In other words, that there has been a reduction of about 75 per cent.”

Commenting on Sir Alexander Hosie’s report, the London Daily News, from which the foregoing statement is taken, said: “To appreciate the extent of the miracle (i. e., opium suppression in China) one must resort to analogy. It is as if the tobacco habit had come to an end in Europe a few years after decision to that effect by The Hague conference.”

To accomplish this result the Chinese Government had issued numerous edicts and many regulations to be enforced by the central and provincial authorities. It is impossible to record all of these, but as an evidence of the thoroughgoing manner and of the high spirit which has animated the major and minor officials of China, attention may be called to the regulations adopted by the official antiopium commissioners shortly after the adjournment of the international opium commission. By these regulations it is provided that Princes Kung and Pu Wai are appointed antiopium commissioners to revise the regulations for suppressing the practice of opium smoking among the metropolitan and other officials and those who are in government service in the various yamens. They make it the duty of superior authorities to detect opium smokers among their underlings and subordinates, and those who have already given up the vice; to keep track of the latter class and deposit their certificates as to being nonsmokers in the antiopium bureau for inspection and examination, lest they impose upon their superiors. Commissioners are appointed as inspectors of opium smoking, whose sole duty it is to go about China inspecting and detecting with diligence and care those who are still deep in the opium-smoking habit; and those who are ingenious in concealing their vice, it having been discovered that there were many Chinese officials who having abandoned the opium-smoking habit fell into the vice again. It is further provided that should the latter class be detected in this offense they shall not only be cashiered but never be reinstated in their official rank. Moreover, no official post is to be given them by any provincial authorities. And then follow the 10 regulations providing for the suppression of the opium-smoking vice amongst officials.¹

The above-mentioned regulations apply more particularly to officials, but many antiopium ordinances have been issued which apply to the people at large, one of the most recent being a part of the new criminal code for China, promulgated January, 1911. This ordinance not only prohibits and proscribes the cultivation of the poppy and the use of opium but the possession of instruments and apparatus used in connection with opium. In short, to prohibit anything and everything which tends to aid in or encourage the use of opium.²

Therefore, the Chinese Government having satisfied the British Government not only as to its willingness but also as to its ability to suppress the production and use of opium,³ chiefly as the result of Sir Alexander Hosie’s report, the two Governments entered into a new agreement on May 8, 1911, the essentials of which follow:

1. The British Government recognizing the sincerity of the Chinese Government and their pronounced success in diminishing the producton of opium in China during the three years from January 1, 1908, expressed their willingness to continue the arrangement for the unexpired period of seven years on the following conditions:

2. From the 1st of January, 1911, China shall diminish annually for seven years the production of opium in China in the same proportion as the annual export from India is diminished until the total extinction of the Chinese production in 1917.

3. The Chinese Government having adopted a most rigorous policy for prohibiting the production and the transport of native opium produced in China, the British Government expressed their agreement with this policy and their willingness to give every assistance. With a view to facilitating the continuance of this work His Majesty’s Government agree that the export of opium from India to China shall cease in less than seven years if clear proof is given to the complete suppression of the production of native opium in China.

4. His Majesty’s Government also agreed that Indian opium shall not be conveyed into any Province of China which can establish by clear evidence that it has effectively suppressed the cultivation and import of native opium produced in China.

5. During the period of the new agreement China shall permit His Majesty’s Government to obtain continuous evidence of the diminution of production of native opium by local inquiries and investigation conducted by one or more British officials, accompanied—if the Chinese Government so desire—by a Chinese official. The decision of these inspectors as to the extent of the production of native opium in China is to be accepted by both parties to the agreement.

6. By the arrangement of 1907 the British Government agreed to permit China to dispatch an official to India to watch the opium sales, on condition that such official would have no power of interference. His Majesty’s Government now agree that the official so dispatched may be present at the packing, as well as at the sale, of opium on the same conditions.

7. The Chinese Government undertakes to levy a uniform tax on all opium produced in the Chinese Empire, while the British Government consents to the increase in the present import duty on Indian opium to taels 350 per chest of 100 catties, such increase to take effect as soon as the Chinese Government levy an equivalent excise tax on all native opium.

8. With a view to assisting China in the suppression of opium the British Government undertakes that from the year 1911 the Government of India will issue an export permit with a consecutive number for each chest of Indian opium declared for shipment to or for consumption in China. During the year 1911 the number of permits so issued are not to exceed 30,000, and shall be progressively reduced annually by 5,100 during the remaining six years ending 1917. His Majesty’s Government undertakes that each chest of opium for which such permit has been granted shall be sealed by an official deputed by the Indian Government in the presence of the Chinese official, if so requested.

9. Both parties agree that should it appear on subsequent experience desirable at any time during the unexpired portion of seven years to modify the agreement, or any part thereof, it may be revised by mutual consent.

The agreement of 1911 has an annex providing for the release into China of some thousands of chests of opium held by traders. But the number of these chests are to be deducted from the annual exportation of 5,100 from India, the chests permitted by the agreement of 1907 and by the later agreement.¹

The agreement of 1907 between Great Britain and China and the modification of that agreement of May 8, 1911, just outlined, is perhaps the finest example of the comity of nations recorded in modern times. After a controversy sustained for over 100 years both parties to the Indo-Chinese opium trade have now determined upon its gradual and effective suppression, and one of them—China—has agreed, and has so far most effectively carried out the agreement, to suppress an internal production of opium seven times greater than the foreign traffic in the drug.

When the International Opium Conference assembled at The Hague on the 1st of last December representatives of the British and Chinese Governments were at last able to look one another in the face and without reserve show the representatives of the other Governments that a great reconciliation had taken place.²

The Manchus have gone, but not before their distinguished representative at the conference¹ had signed on their behalf the international opium convention, which confirms to China on the part of the other treaty powers all that was conceded to her by Great Britain by virtue of the agreement of May 8, 1911. It was under Manchu sway that the Indo-Chinese opium traffic and the vice of opium smoking first seriously appeared in the empire.² The early emperors of that dynasty fought against the traffic and its consequences in vain. Under the weakest of the later emperors of this house the Indo-Chinese opium traffic grew to enormous proportions and the opium-smoking vice took an apparently unrelenting hold of the Chinese people. The traffic became legalized by the Tientsin treaties, and the internal production of opium in China was given free rein. The Manchus were not to depart ingloriously, however, for there was the old Buddha who came to recognize the economic and moral degradation that was attendant on the opium vice. In the latter years of her reign there was a revival by her ministers of the old contest against the Indo-Chinese opium trade and the opium vice in China. The old Buddha died on the eve of the assembling of the International Opium Commission. Under her successors and the statesmen who served them the latest great acts of the contest were accomplished by the signing of the Anglo-Chinese agreement of last year and of the international opium convention of January 23.

great britain.

Since the adjournment of the International Opium Commission Great Britain has set a splendid example in the putting of an end to the unnecessary production, traffic in, and use of opium and other narcotics. Her recent agreement with China in regard to the Indo-Chinese opium traffic has been mentioned at length, but in addition to that special agreement other actions have been taken by the London and the colonial governments which are of international significance.

For instance, the International Opium Commission had no sooner dispersed than the Crown colony of Hongkong adopted the principle of resolution 4 of that commission,³ and immediately prohibited the export of opium to countries prohibiting its entry, while in the summer of 1911 Sir Edward Grey informed the interested Governments that India would, quite independently of the prospective conference, forbid the exportation of opium to countries which prohibited or desired to prohibit its entry. Moreover the antinarcotic laws of Great Britain were strengthened and a compulsory declaration of all importations and exportations of morphine and cocaine was put in force.

In the Crown colonies of Wei-hai-wei and Ceylon, where the number of opium consumers is small and the population more or less stable, it was found possible to institute a system for the registration of smokers of opium which is to be used for the gradual obliteration of opium consumption, whereas in Hongkong and the Malay Peninsula, where the Chinese population fluctuates and fresh immigrants are constantly arriving, the registration was not found to be practicable. As an illustration of what has been done in these Crown colonies, Ceylon and Hongkong may be taken as illustrations.

The situation in Ceylon was somewhat peculiar. Besides those persons who were habitual consumers of opium, the vederalas, or native doctors, who are trained in the traditional Ceylonese system of medicine, habitually used opium in their prescriptions. Some difficulty therefore, was encountered in the settlement of the question of what persons professing to be vederalas had any claim to knowledge of ancient medical tradition. The matter was, however, decided by careful inquiry, and those persons who were found to be qualified vederalas were registered, and are now entitled to use opium in treating their patients.

An ordinance which came into force on the 1st of October, 1910, regulates the general opium traffic. The right of importing opium, whether raw or prepared, is vested solely in the Government, and is delegated to the principal medical officer who has charge of the distribution of the drug. Opium for purely medicinal purposes may be supplied by the principal civil medical officer to qualified medical-men and veterinary surgeons and to registered vederalas. It can only be supplied to other persons on their registration as habitual consumers. No person may be registered except on production of satisfactory evidence that at the time when the ordinance was passed he was an habitual consumer, together with evidence of the amount of opium which he was accustomed to consume and the manner and form of consumption. Thus, the opium consumers in Ceylon are at the present moment a definite number, to which additions can not be made. The use of the drug, except for medicinal purposes, must therefore disappear in the course of time. Further precautions against undue use of the drug are taken by limiting the annual amount allowed to a registered consumer or vederala to 8 ounces. The importation, possession, or sale of opium except by the authorized officer—the principal civil medical officer—and for the purposes described above is illegal.

In Hongkong it has not been found practicable to take the monopoly of the importation, preparation, and sale of opium into Government hands, but since the adjournment of the International Opium Commission restrictions on the traffic have been made by the limitation of the farmer to a certain number of chests per annum—800 in 1911—by the suppression of the opium divans and by forbidding the sale of prepared opium to any person other than an adult male. The preparation and sale of opium is vested in the farmer, and raw opium can only be imported by him or by a person possessing a permit signed by a Government officer and countersigned by the farmer. By resolution of the legislative council which came into force on the 1st of September, 1911, the importation of any kind of raw Indian opium is forbidden unless covered by export permits from the Government of India to the effect that it has been declared for shipment to or consumption in China. This resolution does not apply to opium imported by or for the use of the farmer. The resolution of the legislative council just referred to was made to effectuate article 8 of the Indo-Chinese agreement of May 8, 1911. Hongkong has gone further and has forbidden the exportation of prepared opium or of dross opium—that is, a preparation of opium in which the residue of opium which has been smoked forms the main ingredient—to China, French Indo-China, the United States, the Philippine Islands, the Netherlands, Indies, Siam, and Japan, while the exportation of opium to those places which permit its importation can only be carried out with the written permission of the superintendent of imports and exports.

The British self-governing colonies have not lagged in the forward movement set by the mother country and its Crown colonies. The Government of New Zealand, which had prohibited by law the importation of opium in any form suitable for smoking, added a further restriction by statute No. 30, of 1910, which enacts that opium in any form which, though not suitable for smoking, may yet be made suitable, may only be imported by permit issued by the minister of customs.

Canadian legislation of 1908 declared the importation, manufacture, sale, or possession for sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes or of opium prepared for smoking to be an indictable offense. By act No. 17, of 1911, the law as to opium, cocaine, morphine, etc., is made more stringent. The importation, manufacture, sale, possession or offering for sale or traffic in Canada in these drugs, except for scientific or medicinal purposes, is a criminal offense. The smoking of opium, the possession of opium prepared or in preparation for smoking, and frequenting of opium dens are criminal offenses, while the exportation, without lawful excuse, of any of the drugs to any country which prohibits their entry is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both.

It may be stated that the author of the admirable Canadian law was the Hon Mackenzie King, Minister of Labor in the late Liberal cabinet. As a profound student of labor conditions in the Far East, as well as in Europe and America, he has lent the whole weight of his authority and knowledge to the suppression of the opium vice in Canada, and the law for which he was responsible was in part designed to enable the United States to protect its northern border from smuggled opium. It is an excellent example of the assistance which Canada and the United States may render each other in a great moral and economic cause, but which so far in this case has only been rendered by Canada.

The Governments of Australia and the Transvaal have strengthened laws which were in existence four years ago, and by these laws the use of opium and allied drugs, except for medicinal purposes, has been reduced to a minimum.

It has been stated above that the British Government laid particular emphasis on the morphine and cocaine questions on accepting the American proposal for an International Opium Conference. This emphasis was based on the necessity of the situation and on action which had been taken in British oriental possessions to prevent the opium habit being substituted by the morphine and cocaine habits. There were previous restrictions on the importation and sale of morphine and cocaine in the eastern colonies and protected States, but since the meeting of the International Opium Commission the legislation on the subject has been amended so as to impose greater restrictions, and it may be said that the morphine and cocaine laws of the eastern Crown colonies and protected States are noteworthy examples of restrictive legislation and will become wholly effective when the sources of supply of these drugs in Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States are under efficient control, as provided for in the International Opium Convention.

The British Government was not only concerned about the morphine traffic from Europe to its own colonies and possessions, but also to China, where the use of this drug and cocaine threatened to supplant opium. A quotation from the address of the Hon. Murray Stuart, of the Hongkong Government, is of interest in this connection. On October 29, 1910, Mr. Stuart pointed out that two years before public attention had been drawn very emphatically to the increased consumption of morphia in China, although the Chinese customs statistics seemed to prove the contrary. For, whereas they showed in 1902 an import of morphia into China of 195 and odd pounds, only 120 ounces were shown for 1904. Yet everybody knew that during the six previous years the increase in the consumption of morphia in China had been truly enormous. Morphia was being smuggled into China under some other name. When the anti-opium movement in China reached the stage at which the Chinese Government threatened all opium smokers with heavy fines and penalties if they persisted in continuing the habit, there arose throughout the land a demand for an opium cure. An antiopium pill made its appearance on the market, and an enormous demand for this antidote set in. But the cure proved to be simply another form of taking the drug. These pills, on being subjected to analysis, were found to contain an antidotal drug, no stimulant or scientific ingredients, but simply morphia made into a tabloid with ordinary household flour. Some time before Mr. Stuart had asked the legislative council for information as to the amount of morphine and compounds of opium imported into Hongkong. The answer given by the Government was that between the first of March and 30th of September, 1910, over 7,000 pounds of morphine were imported into the colony, the whole amount being shipped from London. It was very easy for Mr. Stuart to point out that, with a great show of virtue, the London Government had insisted on the colony marching in line with China in the suppression of opium smoking to the extent of large sacrifice of public revenue, and all the while the export of opium from England to China in the more deadly form, morphine, was permitted to flourish and increase, and he asked the council to pass a resolution humbly praying the secretary of state for the colonies to lay before the Parliament the propriety of assisting the government of Hongkong in its endeavors to discourage the opium vice in its most injurious form by restricting the export from England of the means—morphia—of gratifying it. On a later page it will be shown that the International Opium Convention contains the means whereby the exportation of morphine in unnecessary quantities will be brought to a stop.

In British India official opinion still leans to the view that opium eating is on the whole not injurious to those members of the Indian population who practice it. The vast majority of medical men hold the contrary view; but it will be some time before that view prevails. Meantime the Indian Government is strengthening its laws so as to confine the habit and keep it in channels which they regard as legitimate. But the considerations which have caused the Government of India to regard a certain amount of opium eating as legitimate in present circumstances do not apply to the smoking habit, which has never taken root in the country, and is strongly condemned by public opinion. The Indian Government have therefore endeavored for a good many years past to reduce it to a minimum by repressive action. Thus, while some 20 years ago there were some 600 shops for the sale of smoking preparations, the sale of such preparations was subsequently and still remains absolutely prohibited. Vigorous measures are enforced by the police and the excise preventive service for punishing infractions of the law, such as are occasionally attempted in large and metropolitan centers like Calcutta and Rangoon.

It will be seen from what has been stated under this heading that Great Britain had not only acted on the results of the International Opium Commission up to the time The Hague Conference assembled, but was prepared to go to the fullest extent in cooperation with the other governments to make the conclusions of that commission effective.

italy.

Italy is one of those happy countries in which the opium vice in any form does not exist, and despite the fact that the Italian Government has little material interest in the opium question, it has nevertheless continued to cooperate with the other Governments in the international phases of the question.

germany.

The German Imperial and State laws in regard to opium and its allies are all that can be desired, and are effectively enforced. This may also be said of the German colonies and protectorates. In Kiaochou, on the China coast, steps have been taken which mark the sincere desire of the German Government to cooperate with the Chinese in stamping out the opium vice. But to Germany the morphine and cocaine questions are serious, not because of any abuse of these drugs in German territory, but because of the large financial investment in their manufacture. When the British proposals in regard to morphine and cocaine were made to the United States it was thought that the large German interest in the manufacture and export of these drugs would interfere to prevent German cooperation with the United States for their control. But this proved to be unwise thinking, and it will be shown later that Germany, by virtue of the International Opium Convention, stands ready with the other powers to solve this problem, even at considerable financial sacrifice on the part of her manufacturers and exporters.

holland.

The immediate concern of the Netherlands Government in opium is that a considerable revenue is derived by the Netherlands Indies Government from the importation, manufacture, and distribution of opium for smoking purposes; but it has been the high endeavor of both the home Government and the Governments of the East Indian islands to ultimately abolish the pernicious habit amongst the natives. Since the adjournment of the International Opium Commission, many ordinances have been passed by the Batavia Government aimed to extend Government control over the habit of opium smoking, and this has so far succeeded that the Netherlands Government and people look forward to the obliteration of the habit in the near future. No doubt there will be many difficulties to meet, as the net revenue from the opium régie last year was in the neighborhood of 18,000,000 florins. But that this revenue will shortly be abandoned in favor of a more legitimate revenue is clearly evidenced by the hearty cooperation which has been extended by the Netherlands to the United States in its endeavor to secure international agreement on the opium problem.

persia.

Of Persia it may be said, in addition to what was stated on page 664 of the Journal for July, 1909, that early in 1911 the Persian Government enacted legislation aimed to abolish opium smoking and other misuses of opium in Persia.

portugal.

Although in Portugal itself there is no abuse of opium, its colony of Macao on the China coast still continues to import large quantities of the drug and manufacture it into smoking opium, which is used locally, or exported for revenue purposes. This opium, however, has been practically outlawed by every country a party to the International Opium Convention, and by the provisions of that convention the trade should be speedily ended.

russia and japan.

Russia fortunately has no opium problem, nor has Japan, except in the island of Formosa, where an opium régie exists for the avowed purpose of finally suppressing the opium vice.

siam

Although no opium is produced in Siam, large quantities are imported and manufactured into smoking opium under a system of Government monopoly for the use of Chinese resident in that country. But it is the purpose of the Siamese Government to gradually extinguish the vice, and ordinances aimed to this end have been passed since the adjournment of the International Opium Commission. The Siamese Government also purposes legislation for the control by the Siamese Government over the amount of morphine and cocaine which may be imported, and the rendering of account by sellers showing that they have disposed of their supplies in a legitimate manner.

france.

Since the adjournment of the International Opium Commission, French public opinion has been aroused on the question of the abuse of opium and morphine in the large seaports of that country, and the Government is making strong efforts to root out the evil. In French Indo-China the Government has control. It has taken strong measures to bring to an end the abuse of opium in the colonies, and it is earnestly believed that in a short time the abuse of opium will be reduced to a minimum. Further, the French Indo-Chinese Government has forbidden the exportation of opium prepared for smoking to those countries which prohibit its entry.

Upon the above summaries, it may be repeated that the resolutions of the International Opium Commission were more than moral in their effect. They created sufficient energy to enable the Governments concerned to enact practical, effective legislation. The United States is the exception, as will be shown later. With these preliminaries we may now pass to the International Opium Conference and its results.

Hamilton Wright.

Note. Appendix IV, which here follows, consists of a few introductory and concluding words accompanying the text of the report made to the Department of State on May 15, 1912, by the delegates to the First International Opium Conference (see For. Rel. 1912, pp. 207–221) with the omission of the digression in the report (For. Rel. 1912, pp. 216–217), concerning the British-Chinese agreements of 1907 and 1911.

Note. On September 1, 1913, the Netherlands Minister notified the Department that the Opium Convention had been signed on June 25, 1913, by Great Britain in behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia; by Chile on July 2, 1913; by Nicaragua July 18, 1913; and by Peru July 24, 1913; and that the Governments of Denmark and Siam had deposited their acts of ratification of the convention. (File No. 511.4 A1/1422.)

The same Minister delivered to the Department on September 22, 1913, a certified copy of the Protocol de Cloture of the Second International Opium Conference; and on October 12, 1913, he delivered copies of the Proceedings of that conference. (File Nos. 511.4A1/1429 and 1438.)

On November 29, 1913, the Netherlands Minister notified the Department that the Opium Convention had been signed on August 27, 1913, by Sweden with the following reservation: “Opium not being prepared in Sweden, the Swedish Government will for the present content itself with prohibiting the importation of prepared opium, but at the same time declares itself ready to take the measures set forth in article 8 of the Convention if experience demonstrates the advisability thereof.” Also that the Convention had been signed by Norway on September 2, 1913; and ratified by Denmark, Siam, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela. (File No. 511.4A1/1437.)

In the same communication the Minister gave notice that the Convention had not yet been signed by Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Roumania, Servia, Greece, Switzerland, Turkey nor Uruguay.

1. Not printed in For. Rel.; see Senate Doc. 377, 61st Cong., 2d sess.; see also For. Rel. 1912, p. 182, footnote 2.
2. For. Rel. 1912, pp. 207–221.
1. Contains the report of January 1, 1910, referred to in footnote 1 on p. 221.
2. Contains the report of May 15, 1912, referred to in footnote 2 on p. 221. This document also contains the texts of the Opium Convention and the Protocol de Cloture. To the text of Article 13 of the Opium Convention as there printed and as printed in For. Rel. 1912, p. 200, the words “shall not take place” should be inserted after the word “powers.”
3. For. Rel. 1912, p. 202.
1. For. Rel. 1912, p. 188.

1. The letter is dated the 25th, not the 20th, and is as follows:

   Berne, October 25, 1912.

   Mr. Chargé d’affaires:

   With a note of February 26 last, H. E. Mr. van Panhuys was pleased to transmit to us the text of the International Opium Convention concluded at The Hague on January 25, 1912, by the representatives of twelve Powers, viz: Germany, China, the United States of America, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, and Siam. At the same time we were requested by the Netherlands Government to have Switzerland adhere to the convention and designate a delegate to sign the protocol of signature which is kept open at The Hague by virtue of article 22 of the convention.

   We acquainted ourselves with and took the most lively interest in the documents that were submitted to us, and we admit our high appreciation of the moral and social motives that led to the conclusion of the new convention. We hold, nevertheless, that the cooperation that Switzerland could afford to the contracting States would amount to next to nothing, and we consider this circumstance as making it superfluous for us to adhere to the opium convention.

   Indeed, Switzerland, not being an opium-producing country, does not export the drug, and therefore has no occasion to regulate and supervise the trade; besides, the use of opium otherwise than as a medicine has not as yet found its way in our midst, and the habits of our people do not leave much room for foreseeing a change in that respect. Finally, the use of opium and its alkaloids—as also that of cocaine—as medicine is strictly regulated by our National Pharmacopoeia and cantonal laws. So much so that we do not think that any one can go further in that direction than we have. As for the few chemical works that are preparing morphine and cocaine, their supervision is within the province of cantonal authorities, and the Federal power is at present without authority to regulate the matter.

   We therefore hold, as we said above, that Switzerland’s adhesion to the opium convention could serve no useful purpose under existing conditions, and we beg you so to inform your Government while conveying to it our very warm thanks for the invitation it was pleased to extend to us.

   Be pleased to accept, Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, the assurances of our high consideration.

   In the name of the Swiss Federal Council.

   Forrer,
   President of the Confederation.

   Schatzmann,
   Chancellor of the Confederation.

   Mr. Mosselmans,
   Chargé d’Affaires of the Netherlands, Berne.

2. The letter referred to is as follows:

   Sublime Porte,
   November 30, 1912.

   Mr. Envoy:

   I have had the honor to receive the two notes, Nos. 400 and 1445–41, dated March 4 and October 4, 1912, in which your excellency expressed the hope that the Ottoman Government would give its adhesion to the International Opium Convention of January 23, 1912.

   I regret to have to inform your excellency that the reasons of a financial character which prevented the Imperial Government from participating in the conference held at The Hague for that purpose also prompt it not to adhere to the convention there drawn up in which it did not cooperate.

   Be pleased, etc.,

   Gabriel Noradounghian.

   His Excellency Mr. Jonkheer van der Does de Willebois,
   Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.

1. See note 3, next page.
2. Should be 63d Cong. See ante, p. 215.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
1. Original signatories of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
2. Supplementary signatures, in accordance with article 22 of the convention.
3. This is a mistake; Uruguay did not sign during the year 1913; see editor’s Note, p. 283, last line of the note.
3. This is a mistake; Uruguay did not sign during the year 1913; see editor’s Note, p. 283, last line of the note.
1. The various treaties and statutes mentioned herein appear in the Supplement, pp. 253–276. (The foregoing is a footnote in the American Journal, referring to its Supplement for 1909. All the footnotes to these appendices are those of the Journal, except that the page numbers of references to passages of this text have been adapted to this volume.)
1. Vide post, p. 241.
2. P. 269.
3. P. 255.
1. Chapter 18, 32 Stat. L., 33: see Supplement, p. 256.
2. Vide post, p. 247, under subhead “The recent anti-opium movement.”
3. The picul being 133 1/3 pounds avoirdupois.
1. China Correspondence 1859, p. 306.
2. R. C. Report 1, p. 90.
1. China Correspondence, 1859, p. 394.
2. Vide supplement, p. 269.
3. Vide supplement, p. 262.
4. China Correspondence 1859, p. 401.
5. Ibid, 4, p. 425.
6. Vide supplement, p. 263.
1. Idem, p. 264.
2. Vide supplement, p. 259.
3. Pp. 260–261.
1. So said Lord Morley in the House of Commons, May 30, 1906.
1. Ante, pp. 240–242.
1. See preceding page.
1. See preceding page.
2. China, No. 1, 1908.
1. Idem.
1. page 264.
1. China, No. 1 (1908), p. 11.
2. Ibid, p. 19.
3. Ibid, p. 31.
1. Mr. Leech’s estimate, Opium Question in China. China No. 1 (1908). The estimate is probably too high.
2. Rowntreq: “The Imperial Drug Trade” p. 297.
1. Opium Question in China. China No. 2 (1908).
2. The Trade and Administration of the Chinese Empire, p. 350.
3. Chinese Report International Opium Commission.
4. China No. 1 (1908).
1. The 10–year agreement; vide supplement, 264.
2. Rowntree: “The Imperial Drug Trade,” p. 285.
1. Correspondence on Consumption of Opium in Ceylon, White Book, 1908.
2. Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Opium Commission, Singapore, 1908.
3. The so-called Opium War of 1839–1841.
1. Report on Opium, its Derivatives and Preparations, February, 1909.

2. Upon taking the chair Bishop Brent said: “Fellow members of the International Opium Commission, in electing me your chairman you have conferred an extraordinary honor on the Government which I represent. In behalf of the United States of America and also, in behalf of my esteemed colleagues, I beg to thank you for this distinction. * * *

   “The question that brings us together—the opium question—is an extremely difficult one, and I think the very first thing that all of us should do is to frankly recognize the fact and openly admit it. It is a great problem and we can hope to reach a successful solution of it only by facing facts and facing them squarely. We must have courage, and it seems to me that two principal features of courage are sincerity and thoroughness. All great problems go through two distinct stages. The first stage is what might be termed the emotional stage; it is based largely upon sentiment and ideals that are conceived in the inner self, sometimes more independent of facts than is warranted. In the problem before us for a long period we have been passing through this preliminary stage—what I have termed the emotional stage. The emotional stage finds expression in agitation. We have had agitation. Now I believe we are at least midway in the second stage, when men deal with ascertained fact, and on the basis of ascertained fact reach certain conclusions of a practical character that will enable those upon whom the responsibility rests to arrive at some final conclusion.

   “The first steps toward this international commission were taken some time since by the Government which I have the honor of representing. The negotiations for the establishment of the commission have covered a considerable period of time. At first it seemed wise to restrict the nations that would take part in this investigation, or commission of inquiry, to those which through territorial possessions, agriculture, or commerce were actively interested in the opium question in the Far East. Since that time the scope has been considerably widened. Countries that have not the problem in its more acute form, as in the case of my own country and that of other countries similarly situated, were by mutual consent included by the powers already interested, so that now I think we may say we are in a very real sense an international commission. Almost at the last moment—indeed, at the very last moment—two countries without a serious opium problem of their own were included by their expressed desire and by the ready acquiescence of all other countries that up to date had notified their willingness to take part in the inquiry. Last summer it was decided by the American commission—and notification was sent to all other Governments concerned—to study every phase of the opium question in their own territory, including the homeland. So that, presumably, in this international commission, as we are desirous to ascertain all facts that will enable us to come to some satisfactory conclusion, we shall agree in the desire to receive such information as is presented regarding the various aspects of the question in all the countries represented on the commission.

   “It devolves upon me to pronounce with emphasis that this is a commission, and as those who are informed—as all of you must be in matters that pertain to international affairs of this kind—a commission is not a conference. The idea of a conference was suggested, but it seemed wise to choose this particular form of action rather than a conference, because, for the present at any rate, we are not sufficiently well informed and not sufficiently unanimous in our attitude to have a conference with any great hope of immediate success. Further, this commission is a temporary commission as distinguished from some of the permanent commissions already in existence, and if we were to look for the source of our origin I think we would find it in the articles of the First Hague Conference, which provides for such international commissions of inquiry where points of difference on matters kindred to that which is before us arise between the powers. So that in all our deliberations and in all our committee work we must bear in mind that we are to confine ourselves to facts that will enable us to reach, I trust, certain unanimous resolutions and perhaps some recommendations of a practical, broad, and wise character in connection with those resolutions. But, if I may be permitted to make a suggestion to this assembly, it seems to me that it would be extremely wise if we were to rule out of our deliberations what might be termed useless historical questions beneath which a great deal of controversy lies hidden and which would only tend to fog the issue. The one way to reach a satisfactory solution of a grave problem is to simplify as far as possible the elements of that problem, and I believe that history bears me out when I say that no great question has ever been satisfactorily settled until men have come to a realization of the fact that purely side issues and controversial matters which do not touch the main question must be set aside and ignored. They may be of interest, but they are of no practical importance, and, indeed, are impediments in the actual working out of the main question.

   “I feel that I am speaking not merely for myself and my colleagues on the American commission but for this distinguished assembly when I say that we are here to do such work as will bring the utmost credit to our respective countries and the utmost benefit possible to mankind. We must study this question in its every aspect—moral, economical, and commercial, diplomatic also, if you will—and we must study it, as I have already said, with those two phases of courage which will bring us to a happy conclusion of our labors—with sincerity and thoroughness.

   “Nothing more remains for me to say, gentlemen, except to announce that this International Opium Commission is now organized and ready for business.”

1. Second International Peace Conference, p. 7.

2. It is resolved—

   (1) That the Chair shall be addressed as “Mr. President.”

   (2) That no delegate shall continue to speak until recognized by the Chair.

   (3) That when a vote is taken each delegation shall have only one vote. On questions of procedure or discipline the president, in the event of a vote being equally divided, shall have a deciding vote.

   (4) That immediately upon the adoption of these rules, the president shall call for the presentation of reports concerning the various phases of the opium question in the territories and dependencies of their respective countries from the delegations taking part in the International Opium Commission.

   (5) That each delegation in its turn (alphabetically) shall then lay a report covering its data on the opium question before the commission, without discussion or debate. It shall be within the power of the president to allow the presentation of any report to be postponed on due cause shown.

   (6) That a copy of each report shall be supplied to each member of the commission, and a reasonable time allowed to members of the commission generally for the examination of the report presented; and that thereafter the president shall call upon the commission to discuss any report that may be ready for investigation.

   (7) That one or more committees may be appointed for the purpose of studying the reports referred to under rules 4, 5, and 6, or any specific portion of them, when it is apparent that previous study by a limited number of delegates is necessary for arriving at a conclusion regarding any problem under consideration.

   (8) That any committee so appointed for the detailed study of a report, or section of a report, shall, upon the termination of its labors, report the result of its examination to the commission in plenary session, whereupon a general discussion on the report of such committee will be in order.

   (9) That the number and constitution of committees shall in every case be decided by the commission in plenary session; but a committee may complete its own organization.

   (10) That the manner of forming committees shall be as follows: Each delegation shall hand in the name of one of its members to the president, who from amongst them will proceed to nominate the number necessary to serve on any one committee; any delegate who is not himself a member of a committee may attend the sittings of such committee without taking part in any of its proceedings.

   (11) That all proposals submitted to the commission shall be handed to the president (or chairman of a committee) in writing, and a copy supplied on request to each delegation.

   (12) That the public shall not be admitted to the commission, but that such information regarding the progress of the general proceedings as may be deemed expedient to make public shall be communicated to the press by a committee of three to be elected for that purpose.

   (13) That the minutes of the plenary sessions of the commission shall give a succinct resume of the deliberations, and that a proof copy shall be opportunely delivered to the members of the commission; and the minutes shall not be read at the beginning of a session unless specially called for. Each delegate shall, however, have the right to request the insertion in full of his special declarations, according to the text delivered by him to the secretary, and to make observations regarding the minutes.

   (14) That both English and French shall on principle be recognized as the languages to be used in the commission, and that steps shall be taken to insure that the deliberations be rendered, if necessary, and the minutes recorded in both languages.

   (15) That each delegation shall have the right to introduce a secretary of delegation to the meetings of the commission, providing that such secretary holds a substantive post in his Government service. Exception to this rule may be made in the case of a delegation of a country having no consular or diplomatic representative in China; but under no circumstances will other than bona fide secretaries be admitted. The names of secretaries to delegations shall be formally reported to the chair.

   (16) That, except when otherwise decided by the commission, the hours of meeting of the commission shall be from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., and from 2 to 5 p.m., on every day of the week except Saturday and Sunday.

1. American program:

   (1) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present recognize that opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations are, or should be, confined to legitimate medical practice:

   Be it resolved, therefore, That, in the judgment of the International Opium Commission a uniform effort should be made by the countries represented at once or in the near future to confine the use of opiuim, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations to legitimate, medical practice in their respective territories; and be it further

   Resolved, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission each Government represented is best able to determine for its own nationals, dependent, or protected peoples, what shall be regarded as legitimate medical practice.

   (2) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present recognize that, as the result of inadequate knowledge in the past of the baneful effects of the unguarded and indiscriminate use of opium, alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations, there have arisen certain revenue problems which depend upon the production, sale and use of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations; and further, whereas in the judgment of the International Opium Commission these revenue problems remain and will require a certain time for solution.

   Be it resolved, therefore, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission no Government, should, as a matter of principle or necessity, continue to depend upon the production of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations for an essential part of its revenue; and be it further

   Resolved, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission such revenue problems as exist are not of a nature to baffle the Governments confronted by them; and that they, should be settled as soon as possible, to the end that opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations should be relegated to their proper use in legitimate medical practice.

   (3) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present state that opium smoking is prohibited to their nationals; further, that some of the reports submitted state that opium smoking is prohibited to protected and dependent peoples of some of the Governments here represented:

   Be it resolved, therefore; That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission the principle of the total prohibition of the manufacture, distribution, and use of smoking opium is the right principle to be applied to all people, both nationals and dependent or protected; and that no system for the manufacture, distribution, or use of smoking opium should continue to exist, except for the express purpose and no other of stamping out the evil of opium smoking in the shortest possible time.

   (4) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present record that each Government has strict laws which are aimed directly or indirectly to prevent the smuggling of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations into their respective territories:

   Be it resolved, therefore, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission it is the duty of all countries which continue to produce opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations, to prevent at ports of departure the shipment of opium, and of its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations, to any country which prohibits the entry of opium or of its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations.

   (5) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present indicate that the use of morphia, its salts and derivatives, is indissolubly bound up with the abuse of opium itself, and that their use accompanies, or sooner or later supervenes, on the use of opium itself:

   Be it resolved, therefore, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission strict international agreements are needed to control the trade in, and the present or possible future abuse of, morphia, and its salts and derivatives, by the people of the Governments represented in the International Opium Commission.

   (6) That whereas the reports submitted to the International Opium Commission by the delegations present indicate that though each Government represented is best able by its national laws to control its own internal problem as regards the manufacture, importation, or abuse of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations, yet that no Government represented may by its national laws wholly solve its own opium problem without the conjoint aid of all those Governments concerned in the production and manufacture of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives, and preparations:

   Be it resolved, therefore, That in the judgment of the International Opium Commission a concerted effort should be made by the Governments represented in the commission to assist every other Government in the solution of its opium problem.

   (7) Be it resolved, That in the opinion of the International Opium Commission, every nation which effectively prohibits the production of opium and its derivatives in that country except for medical purposes should be free to prohibit the importation into its territories of opium or its derivatives, except for medical purposes.

1. The final resolutions, adopted February 26, 1909, were:

   Be it resolved:

   1. That the International Opium Commission recognizes the unswerving sincerity of the government of China in their efforts to eradicate the production and consumption of opium throughout the Empire; the increasing body of public opinion among their own subjects by which these efforts are being supported; and the real, though unequal, progress already made in a task which is one of the greatest magnitude.

   2. That, in view of the action taken by the government of China in suppressing the practice of opium smoking, and by other governments to the same end, the International Opium Commission recommends that each delegation concerned move its own government to take measures for the gradual suppression of the practice of opium smoking in its own territories and possessions, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned.

   3. That the International Opium Commission finds that the use of opium in any form otherwise than for medical purposes is held by almost every participating country to be a matter for prohibition or for careful regulation; and that each country in the administration of its system of regulation purports to be aiming, as opportunity offers, at progressively increasing stringency. In recording these conclusions the International Opium Commission recognizes the wide variations between the conditions prevailing in the different countries, but it would urge on the attention of the governments concerned the desirability of a reexamination of their systems of regulation in the light of the experience of other countries dealing with the same problem.

   4. That the International Opium Commission finds that each government represented has strict laws which are aimed directly or indirectly to prevent the smuggling of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations into their respective territories; in the judgment of the International Opium Commission it is also the duty of all countries to adopt reasonable measures to prevent at ports of departure the shipment of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations, to any country which prohibits the entry of any opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations.

   5. That the International Opium Commission finds that the unrestricted manufacture, sale and distribution of morphine already constitute a grave danger, and that the morphine habit shows signs of spreading; the International Opium Commission, therefore, desires to urge strongly on all governments that it is highly important that drastic measures should be taken by each government in its own territories and possesions to control the manufacture, sale and distribution of this drug, and also of such other derivatives of opium as may appear on scientific enquiry to be liable to similar abuse and productive of like ill effects.

   6. That as the International Opium Commission is not constituted in such a manner as to permit the investigation from a scientific point of view of anti-opium remedies and of the properties and effects of opium, and its products, but deems such investigation to be of the highest importance, the International Opium Commission desires that each delegation shall recommend this branch of the subject to its own government for such action as that government may think necessary.

   7. That the International Opium Commission strongly urges all governments possessing concessions or settlements in China, which have not yet taken effective action toward the closing of opium divans in the said concessions and settlements, to take steps to that end, as soon as they may deem it possible, on the lines already adopted by several governments.

   8. That the International Opium Commission recommends strongly that each delegation move its government to enter into negotiations with the Chinese government with a view to effective and prompt measures being taken in the various foreign concessions and settlements in China for the prohibition of the trade and manufacture of such anti-opium remedies as contain opium or its derivatives.

   9. That the International Opium Commission recommends that each delegation move its government to apply its pharmacy laws to its subjects in the consular districts, concessions and settlements in China.

1. The author also desires to add that on looking further into the subject and after rereading Mr. Reed’s letter that appeared in the supplement (p. 269) to the July number of the Journal the statements made on p. 641 of the journal (July) in reference to Americans not engaging in the opium trade after the negotiation of the treaty of Wang Hea of 1844 must be modified. It seems certain that the treaty of Wang Hea did not drive Americans from the opium trade. This was largely due to the connivance of Chinese port authorities with the traders. Had the Chinese Government attempted to effectuate the opium article of the treaty of Wang Hea by dealing with American opium traders under its own laws, these traders would not have received either countenance or protection from the United States.
1. Vide this Journal, October, 1909, p. 835 (this volume, p. 249 et seq.).
2. Vide post, p. 276–277.
3. The so-called Opium War of 1839–1841.
4. Vide Journal, October, 1909, p. 649 (this volume, p. 237 et seq).
5. Vide Journal, October, 1909, p. 670 (this volume, p. 247–248).
1. International commissions of inquiry recommended by The Hague Peace Conference, 1899. articles 9–14.
2. Vide resolutions supplement to the Journal, 3:275 (July, 1909).
3. For. Rel. 1909, pp. 107 et seq.
1. For proposal, vide supplement, p. 258.
2. Austria-Hungary, which nevertheless expressed a determination to watch the conference with sympathy. (For. Rel. 1910, pp. 307–308.)
1. For. Rel. 1910, pp. 312–313.
2. For. Rel. 1911, p. 56.
1. Vide Journal, October, 1909, p. 847.
2. For the important beginnings, vide Edicts, etc., Journal, October, 1909, pp. 828–842.
3. For agreement, vide Journal, October, 1909, p. 835.
1. For the full text of the regulations, vide supplement, p. 266 (this volume, pp. 250–254).
2. Vide supplement, p. 273.
3. For a Chinese estimate of the suppression of opium since 1906, vide table, supplement, p. 276.
1. For full text of the agreement, vide supplement to this Journal for October, 1911, p. 238.
2. The negotiator in chief of the later agreement on behalf of the British Government was Mr. Max Müller, at one time counselor of embassy at Washington. Mr. Miiller was a British representative at The Hague conference.
1. Sir Chen Tung Liang Cheng, former Chinese Minister at Washington.
2. See edict of the receiver general of the customs at Canton, supplement, p. 264.
3. Vide supplement July, 1909, p. 276. (In this volume see p. 66, footnote.)