Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:39:25.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Opium Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Quincy Wright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Congressman Porters resolution of January 28, 1924,1 authorizing an appropriation for American participation in two international conferences on the opium and narcotic drug traffic to be held in the latter part of this year is the most recent step in the long history of mankind's fight against his own desire for narcotics. This fight has progressed by three stages.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 1924 , pp. 281 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1924 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 68th Cong., 1st sess., H. J. Res., 162.

2 See League of Nations, Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and other Dangerous Drugs (hereafter referred to as Opium Committee), 5th session,Minutes, p. 187. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Limiting Production of Habit-Forming Drugs and Raw Materials from which they are made, 67th Congress, 4th Session, House of Representatives,1923 (hereafter referred to as H. of R.,Hearings),p. 124.

3 Articles concerning opium in treaties before 1909 are printed in the Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 3, pp. 253-253. Americans were extensively engaged in the opium trade before 1844 and the treaty was not effectively enforced. See Dennett, ,Americans in Eastern Asia, pp. 115-127,168.Google Scholar

4 See letter of American Minister Reed and British Commissioners, Lay and Oliphant,Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 3, pp. 269-269. But see Dennett, op. eit., p. 325.

5 See Moore's, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, p. 651; League of Nations Official Journal,Vol. 3, p. 1038. On negotiation of this treaty see Dennett, op. cit., pp. 520, 543.Google Scholar

6 H. of R.,Hearings, 1923, p. 125.

7 This Journal, Vol. 7, p. 139. See also ibid., Vol. 7, p. 872.

8 Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 187. For Chinese laws as revised in 1921 see H. of R.,Hearings, 1923, pp. 134-136.

9 This Journal , Vol. 3, pp. 835, 878; Vol. 7, p. 873; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 3,p. 264 and statement o f Lord Minto, Governor-General of India, 1910, quoted ibid., Vol. 5,p. 471.

10 H. of R., Hearings, 1923, p. 125; Opium Committee, 5th sess., June, 1923, Minutes,p. 186; Statement of Chinese representative Koo, ,League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, 1920, p. 543; Records of the Second Assembly, 5th Committee,p. 347.Google Scholar

11 See agreement between Great Britain and Portugal, 1913, Supplement to this Journal,Vol. 8, p. 163.

12 See 6th resolution, Opium Committee, 2nd sess., April, 1922, Report, p. 12. The League Secretariat estimated the 1920 crop at 10 per cent of the 1906 crop (ibid., 5th sess., Minutes,p. 192), but this was considered much too low by the committee (ibid., p. 106). A British report in 1922 says: “The law which operates in restriction of opium production in the great majority of the poppy-growing provinces is the ordinary law of supply and demand, while in not a few of the provinces, there is an artificial stimulus to production in the form of compulsoryplanting under order from the military chiefs (Tuchuns) who derive a substantial revenue by taxing the ensuing crop” (ibid., p. 172).

13 This Journal , Vol. 6, pp. 870, 885; Statement of Chinese representative Koo, ,League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, 5th plenary session, p. 543.Google Scholar There has been much smuggling from the United States (H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 83, 101).

14 See articles by Wright, Dr. Hamilton , this JOURNAL , Vol. 3, pp. 648, 828; Vol. 6, pp. 865,867 and Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1909, p. 89.Google Scholar

15 See statement by Bishop, Brent, Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 50.Google Scholar

16 This Journal,Vol. 5,p. 468.

17 Ibid.,Supplement, Vol. 3, p. 275.

18 Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 469.

19 See articles by Wright Dr. Hamilton this Journal , Vol. 6, p. 865; Vol. 7, p.108.

20 Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 6, p. 177; H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 127-134;17. U.S. Treaty Series, No. 612;League of Nations, Document, O. C. 1(1).

21 On this principle see H. Wright, this Journal , Vol. 7, p. 122.

22 See this Journal, Vol.7, p.125, on Article 24 of the convention

23 League of Nations, Document, O. C. 1(1), pp. 23, 25; the United States signed the convention,January 23, 1912, deposited ratifications December 10, 1913, signed the protocol February 11,1915, and proclaimed the convention, March 3,1915 (ibid., p. 28, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 612).

24 Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minitues, p. 28.

25 See Opium Committee, 4th sess., Minutes, p. 28; 5th sess.,Minutes, p. 28; Journal of the Fourth Assembly, p. 28; League of Nations, Monthly Summary, Vol. 3, p. 28.

26 Journal of the Fourth Assembly, pp. 156, 210.

27 For state of legislation in 1912 see this JOURNAL , Vol. 6, pp. 28 et seq.; reports on recent legislation, Opium Committee, 4th sess.,Minutes, pp. 28 et seq.; 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 28 et seq.

28 The Act of February 23, 1887 (24 Stat. 409, Comp. Stat. sec. 8792-8799) prohibited importation of non-medicinal opium into the United States by Chinese or into China by Americans. An Act of February 14,1902 (32 Stat. 33, incorporated in the Federal Criminal Code, 1910, Art. 308) forbade the sale of opium to natives of the Pacific Islands. An Act of February 9,1909 (35 Stat. 614, Comp. Stat. sec. 8800) prohibited all importation of nonmedicinal opium into the United States. On January 17, 1914, this act was amended (38 Stat. 275, Comp. Stat. sec. 6287, a-f, 8801, a-f) to prohibit exportation from the United States of narcotics, contrary to the law of the importing country The Harrison Act of December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 785, Comp. Stat. 6287, g-q) required registration of persons producing, importing or manufacturing opium, coca leaves or their derivatives and limiting their sale of these products in the United States and its territories. This Act was amended by the Jones-Miller Act of May 26, 1922 (42 Stat. 596), which established the Federal Narcotic Control Board composed of the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce with power to determine the amount of narcotic products to be imported for medicinal and scientific purposes, to prevent export of such products to countries not parties to the opium convention of 1912 and to restrict export to countries parties to that convention to “ authorized permittees.” For discussion of these laws see League of Nations Official Journal, 1922, Vol. 3, p. 1038; Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 24, 27.

29 Supra, notes 12, 13.

30 Report on the discussions of the mixed sub-committee of the Health Committee and of the Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Opium, Jan. 9,1923,Opium Committee, 4th sess.,Minutes, pp. 43-44, 126-128; Statement on the manufacture of morphia, other opium derivatives and cocaine, May 11, 1923, ibid., 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 67-80, 153-165; H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 25-28, 118-119.

31 H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 28, 119-120.

32 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, 1920, Plenary Meetings, p. 28.

33 League of Nations Official Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 114-115. The Serb-Croat-Slovene state has been asked to send a representative, but has not replied (ibid.). The Fourth Assemblysuggested an invitation to Turkey (Resolution 2, Journal of the Fourth Assembly, p. 210).

34 See resolution 12,Records of the Second Assembly, 1921, Plenary Meetings, p. 541; Opium Committee, 2nd sess., Report, pp. 2-3.

35 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, 1920, Plenary Meetings, p. 538; Monthly Summary, Vol. 2, pp. 244,266; Opium Committee, 4th sees., Minutes, p. 9; 5th aess., Minutes,p. 123; The Traffic in Habit-Forming Thugs, Statement of the attitude of the United States,Washington, 1923, pp. 1-3.

36 Opium Committee, 2nd sess.,Resolutions, p. 2.

37 The American representatives at the Fifth session of the Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium were present also at the meetings of the fifth committee of the Fourth Assembly which dealt with the opium question. See Journal of the Fowth Assembly, p. 156.

38 Supra, notes, 24-26. Ireland, though now an independent member of the League, was presumably included in the British ratification of the Opium Convention of 1912.

39 Supra, note 33.

40 The world production of opium has been estimated by the League Secretariat at about 3500 tons per year for 1920 , 1921 , and 1922 (Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 17).Mr. Porter has estimated the production for exportation at 1500 tons and for home consumption at 1000 tons (H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 12-16, 24J. He has estimated the amount necessary for medical and scientific purposes at seventy-five tons (ibid., p. 12). Dr. Lambertestimated twenty-two tons as the medical requirements of the United States (ibid.,p. 27), which would make the world requirements 440 tons if the sameratio were applied to all countries.

41 For statistics on production and consumption of narcotic drugs, see supra, notes, 30, 31.

42 Supra, note 27.

43 Opium Committee, 5th sess.,Minutes, pp. 29-32,36-37, 133-135. Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, Vol. 4, p. 14. (Feb. 1924).

44 Resolution 5, League of Nations, Records of the Second Assembly, 1921, Plenary Meetings,p. 640; Resolution 1, Journal of the Fourth Assembly, 1923, p. 210 and Resolutions 4 and 5,Opium Committee, 5th sees., Minutes, p. 209. For form of report, see ibid., 2nd sess., pp.13-17.

45 Resolution 7, Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 109-110, 210.

46 See Resolution No. 4, Opium Committee, 1st sess., 1921, pp. 4, 6; Resolution 3,Records of the Second Assembly, 1921, Plenary Meetings, p. 539; Resolution 2, Third Assembly,1922, Opium Committee, 4th sess., p. 12; Resolution 4, Journal of the Fourth As sembly,p. 211.

47 Opium Committee, 5th sess.,Minutes, pp. 124-125.

48 Ibid, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 24, 27. For United States attitude on Resolution 2 of Third Assembly (Opium Committee, 4th sess., pp. 10-21; 5th sess., pp. 120-121), which provided that importation of opium and narcotics be refused from countries not parties to the 1912 Convention and which have not adopted the import certificate plan, see Secretary Hughes' letter of May 10,1923, saying: “ The United States is of the opinion that it would be better to obtain the adhesion of producing countries to the convention than to attempt a boycott.” (The Traffic in Habit-Forming Narcotic Drugs, Washington, 1923, p. 3). The Jones-Miller Act of 1922 provides for such a boycott on exports (Opium Committee, 5th sess., p. 11).

49 League of Nations, Records of the Second Assembly, 5th Committee, p. 429.

50 League of Nations, Records of the Second Assembly, 5th Committee, p. 344.

51 Ibid., p. 350.

52 Resolution 10, ibid., Plenary Meetings, p. 540. See also League of Nations Monthly Summary, Vol. 1, pp. 127, 145.

53 Resolution 4, Opium Committee, 2nd sess., Report, pp. 5,12, Third Assembly Resolution 3, Monthly Summary, Vol. 2, pp. 225, 244.

54 Supra, note 35.

55 Opium Committee, 4th sess., Minutes, pp. 38-48.

56 Letter of Secretary Hughes, February 13, 1923, H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 3-4; 67th Cong., 4th sess., H. of R.,Report No. 1678, pp. 5-6.

57 H. J. Res., 453,42 Stat. 1431. See also, H. o f R., Hearings,1923; 67th Cong., 4th sess.,H. of R.,Report No. 1678; Remarks of Hon. Stephen G. Porter in the House of Representatives,Feb. 26, 1923.

58 The Traffic in Habit-Forming Narcotic Drugs, Washington, 1923, pp. 1-3.

59 Opium Committee, 5th sess.,Minutes, pp. 11-13.

60 Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 13-16.

61 Ibid., p. 23.

62 Ibid., p. 19.

63 Ibid., pp. 21, 23.

64 Ibid., pp. 81-105,111-119, during part of this discussion the American delegates retired.

65 Ibid., pp. 118, 202, 208.

66 Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 203.

67 Ibid., p.119.

68 Ibid., pp. 208-209.

69 League of Nations, Journal of the Fourth Assembly, pp. 210-212; Monthly Summary,Vol. 3, p. 310. On March 15, 1924, the council authorized the special preparatory committee on which the United States is represented by E. L. Neville, to draft the agenda for both of these conferences.

70 Supra, note 1.

71 Opium Committee, 5th sess., p. 11.

72 H. of R., Hearings, 1923, p. 124.

73 Dixon, ,The Truth about Indian Opium,India Office,1922. See H. of R.,Hearings,1923, pp.88 et seq. and Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 111 Google Scholar.

74 League of Nations Third Assembly, 11th Plenary Meeting, Sept. 19, 1922. See also statement of Lieut.-Col. Ward,John British Empire (ibid.), of Mr.Sastri, , India (Records of the Second Assembly, 5th committee, p. 343)Google Scholar and of Mr.Campbell, ,India. (Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 17-18.Google Scholar

75 Supra, note 7. See also Das, Taraknath (H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 94-96);Google Scholar U. S. Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, March 25, 1918 (ibid.,p.121); Bishop, Brent (Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes,pp. 11-12);Google Scholar League of Nations,mixed subcommittee of health and opium committees, Jan. 9,1923 (ibid., 4thsess., Minutes,pp. 126-126); Lord Minto, Governor-General of India (this Journal , Vol. 5, p. 466) and Hamilton Wright (this Journal , Vol. 6, p. 886.

76 Supra, notes, 40, 41. Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 80.

77 Ibid., pp. 68-72.

78 The influence of the financial situation in Persia, Turkey, and India is discussed in a memorandum by Mrs. Hamilton Wright, June 6, 1923 (Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, pp. 193-200). Seealso statement by Bishop Brent, ibid., p. 11. The importance of opium in the Indian budget has been much discussed. In 1910 the Indian Government appears to have derived 8,000,000 pounds from the domestic excise and the sales for export which constituted 10 per cent of the total Indian revenues. Half of this revenue was sacrificed by the Chinese agreement of 1911 while the revenue from other sources increased with the result that at present 4,000,000 pounds is received from opium, about 3 per cent of the total revenues. (Statement by Mr. Sastri, Records of Second Assembly, 5th committee, p. 340, and by Mr. Campbell, Opium Committee, 5th sess., p. 18. See also H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 24, 96-98.) The value of the poppy crop to the producer is twice its value to the government according to the Maharajah of Nawanagar (3rd Assembly, 11th Plenary Meeting, 1922), but he overlooks the possibility of substituting other crops. (See Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 194, H. of R., Hearings, p. 98.)

79 See statistics of world production of opium, Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes,p.178, and U. S. resolution, 1923,supra, note 57.

80 League of Nations, Third Assembly, 11th Plenary Meeting.

81 See 13th Resolution of Second Assembly, Records, Plenary Meetings, p. 541, and speech of French representative,ibid., p. 537; Opium Committee, 2nd sess., Report, pp. 9, 29; 4th sess., Minutes, p. 43.

82 Supra, note 68.