Chapter X: Appendix: I

This despatch appeared in "The New York Times," the last of July or the first part of August, 1918:

FEAR OPIUM TRADE REVIVAL IN CHINA

BRITISH PROTEST LODGED AGAINST LARGE TRACT OF POPPY UNDER
CULTIVATION IN SHENSI. GOVERNMENT IS HELPLESS. AREA IS
PRACTICALLY RULED BY BANDITS. MAY TRY TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

_From a Special Correspondent. Peking, May 27, 1918:_

One of the very few things which China has done well
is the suppression of the opium practice with all its
baneful influences. Under the spur of enlightened foreign
opinion, the Chinese have rid themselves of opium much
earlier than was arranged for, and in their thoroughness
actually defied conventions to which the British
Government was a party.

This in other circumstances might have awkward
consequences. But those who took the risk knew that the
British people would not tolerate the continuance of
opium importation into China even if it did involve the
violation of certain agreements.

For several years now China has been certified as free,
that is to say, the cultivation of the poppy has been
entirely discontinued. Of course the habit has not been
completely eliminated--that takes time--and the fact that
a demand for the drug exists is sufficient temptation for
greedy officials and unscrupulous speculators to connive
at renewed attempts to cultivate the poppy and resume
its sale and use.

The state of lawlessness which prevails in China invites
disregard of authority, especially when it affords
lucrative possibilities, and the continued enfeeblement of
the administration in Peking contributes to conditions
favoring the resumption of the traffic in opium.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that reports
have been received by the British Legation in Peking, of
large tracts being under poppy cultivation in Shensi, a
province where lawlessness is rampant, and where the
unfortunate residents are harassed, plundered and
murdered by large roving bands of Tufei, the Chinese
equivalent for robbers or thieves. The reports come
from missionaries and foreign travellers and naturally
they could not be ignored.

Accordingly, the British Minister has lodged a protest
with the Chinese Government. _Under the Opium Convention,
Indian opium may be imported into China as long as the
poppy is cultivated in China. That is the legal aspect_,
but in these days of higher ideals, it may be presumed
that Sir John Jordan and the British Government, which he
represents, are more concerned with the moral aspect. _His
protest is not made in the interests of Indian opium_, but
in the hope that the national regeneration from a former
vice should not suffer a relapse.

The reply of the Chinese Government is not known, but it
is safe to infer that assurance would be given that orders
would be issued to the provincial authorities to enforce
the law prohibiting the cultivation of the poppy. Whether
these orders will be obeyed is not so certain.

Gone are the days when edicts from Peking concluded with
the warning, "tremble and obey." Then they were heeded,
but now the authority of the Government does not seem to
extend beyond the metropolitan area, and however ready the
administration may be to suppress poppy cultivation, it is
unable to control the more distant feudal tachuns. How
then, can a Government be held responsible when it is not
in a position to enforce its authority? This problem meets
the treaty powers at every turn. One or several must act
as did Alexander the Great when he cut the Gordian knot.
Who or which shall it be?

From an article in the "North China Herald," dated September 14, 1918:

The Government [Chinese] after concluding the opium deal,
farmed the right to sell the drug in Chekiang, Hupeh
and Kiangsu, to a specially formed company, called
the Hsichi Company.

We read further in the article that the Hsichi Company bought opium from the Chinese Government at the rate of 10,000 taels per chest, which it sells to district farmers at 23,000 taels per chest, and these latter retail it to drug-stores or consumers at 27,000 taels per chest.

From Millard's "Review of the Far East," October 12, 1918:

It would be advisable for the Peking government to
seriously consider the notes addressed to it on the
subject of opium by the British and American governments.
The trade in opium cannot any more be successfully revived
in China than could the African slave trade, and if Peking
proposes to make a few dollars by the sale of the
over-plus opium stock at Shanghai the venture is
dangerous. Only a few years ago China gave her pledge, in
the presence of the assembled nations at The Hague, that
the poppy plant should never again be cultivated within
her borders, nor would the traffic in opium be tolerated,
and in the notes from the British and American governments
the pledge given at The Hague is brought directly to the
attention of those in authority at Peking. The two Western
governments named would hardly have taken such concurrent
action without a significant meaning, and a meaning which
Peking will not be permitted to treat with indifference
and impunity. It is certainly not the policy of either
British or American governments to interfere in the
domestic affairs of China, but both of those governments
do intend that no business shall be carried on as
demoralizing and offensive to the moral sense of the world
as the business of debauching and drugging with opium.
London and Washington really do not appear to be fully
enlightened as to conditions at Peking and the motives and
inspirations influencing officials in that Capital, and a
reformation there is as much needed as in Russia. It may
be written that at no time in Chinese history, during the
past two hundred years, has the name of China been so
disparaged and her reputation besmirched. Representatives
of the Allied nations and America are in Russia charged
with the duty of aiding in bringing about the unity of the
Russian people that they may establish a stable
government, and representatives of a similar character for
a like purpose are as much needed in China. Russia will
soon have a stable government, the choice of her people,
but China promises to go on unsettled so long as Peking
governs as at present.

From the "New York Times," November 25, 1918:

CHINA TO DESTROY OPIUM

1,200 CHESTS TO BE BURNED IN DEFERENCE TO ALLIED
REPRESENTATIONS

Copyright, 1918, by The New York Times Company. Special
Cable to "The New York Times."

PEKING, Nov. 23.--The Government has decided to destroy
the remaining stocks of opium in Shanghai in deference to
Anglo-American representations. Three hundred chests have
been sold, and 1,200 will be burned in presence of the
allied representatives, the Government making a virtue
of necessity.

America to the rescue! It must have been a close squeak for poor old China.