The Opium Monopoly Part 5

Situated in South America. Area, 89,480 square miles. Population at census of 1911, excluding aborigines in the unfrequented parts of the colony, 296,000. The Statesman's Year Book, which gives us these brief facts, has very little to say about this British colony in our Western Hemisphere, and gives no dates or information as to how and when it was acquired. The Government reports are also meager and unsatisfactory, and there is no wealth of detail as to exports and imports. The country, however, is rich in gold, mining having commenced in 1886.

Diamonds have also been discovered.

The chief sources of revenue, however, are customs, excise and licenses. With the word "excise" we have come to have unpleasant a.s.sociations. From "The Statistical Abstract for British Self-Governing Dominions, Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates" we find a table showing the imports of opium into the various countries under British rule. The opium imports into British Guiana are as follows:

1910 1,251 pounds sterling 1911 1,270 1912 2,474 1913 4,452 1914 5,455 1915 4,481

These figures would seem to indicate that even on the Western Hemisphere the taste for opium may be cultivated. It need not necessarily be confined to the Oriental peoples. The population of much of South America is a mixed lot, the result of mixed breeding between Spanish settlers, Indians, native tribes of all sorts. All this jumble, including the aborigines referred to, might, with a little teaching become profitable customers of the Opium Monopoly. Time and a little effort, given this fertile field, ought to produce a "healthy expansion" in the opium trade.

And that this insidious habit is indeed taking hold, in at least one more country in South America, one may infer from the following paragraph which appeared in the New York Times, 4 October, 1919:

DRUG EVIL IN ARGENTINA

Buenos Aires Opens Fight on Use of Narcotics

The city government of Buenos Aires, Argentina, has begun a determined fight to wipe out the drug evil by the enactment of stringent laws governing the sale of narcotics. This step was taken after an investigation by the authorities had disclosed that not only was the narcotic habit strong among the poor, but that it was spreading throughout virtually every cla.s.s in the city.

Until the pa.s.sage of the laws druggists were permitted to sell cocaine, morphine and opium to any purchaser. The new laws forbid the sale of these drugs except in filling prescriptions prepared by registered physicians. The city also has established dispensaries for the treatment of drug addicts.

XV

HISTORY OF THE OPIUM TRADE IN CHINA

In a vague way, we are familiar with the "opium evil" in China, and some of us have hazy ideas as to how it came about. The China Year Book for 1916 has this to say on the subject: "The poppy has been known in China for 12 centuries, and its medicinal use for 9 centuries.... It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking purposes was introduced into China. This habit was indulged in by the Dutch in Java, and by them taken to Formosa, whence it spread to Amoy and the mainland generally.

There is no record to show when opium was first smoked by itself, but it is thought to have originated about the end of the 18th century.

Foreign opium was first introduced by the Portuguese from Goa at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1729, when the foreign import was 200 chests, the Emperor Yung Ching issued the first anti-opium edict, enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. The importation, however, continued to increase, and by 1790 it amounted to over 4,000 chests annually. In 1796 opium smoking was again prohibited, and in 1800 the importation of foreign opium was again declared illegal. Opium was now contraband, but the fact had no effect on the quant.i.ty introduced into the country, which rose to 5,000 chests in 1820; 16,000 chests in 1830; 20,000 chests in 1838, and 70,000 chests in 1858."

The China Year Book makes no mention of the traders who carried these chests of opium into China. The opium came from India, however, and the increase in importation corresponds with the British occupation of India, and the golden days of the East India Company. "Opium was now contraband, but that fact had no effect on the quant.i.ty introduced into the country,"--smuggled in wholesale by the enterprising British traders.

China was powerless to protect herself from this menace, either by protests or prohibition. And as more and more of the drug was smuggled in, and more and more of the people became victims of the habit, the Chinese finally had a tea-party, very much like our Boston Tea Party, but less successful in outcome. In 1839, in spite of the fact that opium smoking is an easy habit to acquire and had been extensively encouraged, the British traders found themselves with 20,000 chests of unsold opium on their store-s.h.i.+ps, just below Canton. The Chinese had repeatedly appealed to the British Government to stop these imports, but the British Government had turned a persistently deaf ear.

Therefore the Emperor determined to deal with the matter on his own account. He sent a powerful official named Lin to attend to it, and Lin had a sort of Boston Tea Party, as we have said, and destroyed some twenty thousand chests of opium in a very drastic way. Mr. H. Wells Williams describes it thus: "The opium was destroyed in the most thorough manner, by mixing it in parcels of 200 chests, in trenches, with lime and salt water, and then drawing off the contents into an adjacent creek at low tide."

After this atrocity, followed the first Opium War, when British s.h.i.+ps sailed up the river, seized port after port, and bombarded and took Canton. Her s.h.i.+ps sailed up the Yangtsze, and captured the tribute junks going up the Grand Ca.n.a.l with revenue to Peking, thus stopping a great part of China's income. Peace was concluded in 1843, and Great Britain came out well. She recompensed herself by taking the island of Hongkong; an indemnity of 21 million dollars, and Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai were opened up as "treaty ports"--for the importation of opium and the "open-door" in general.

Mr. Wells, in his "Middle Kingdom" describes the origin of this first war with England: "This war was extraordinary in its origin as growing chiefly out of a commercial misunderstanding; remarkable in its course as being waged between strength and weakness, conscious superiority and ignorant pride; melancholy in its end as forcing the weaker to pay for opium within its borders against all its laws, thus paralyzing the little moral power its feeble government could exert to protect its subjects.... It was a turning point in the national life of the Chinese race, but the compulsory payment of six million dollars for the opium destroyed has left a stigma upon the English name."

He also says, "The conflict was now fairly begun; its issue between the parties so unequally matched--one having almost nothing but the right on its side, the other a.s.sisted by every material and physical advantage--could easily be foreseen" and again, after speaking of it as being unjust and immoral, he concludes "Great Britain, the first Christian power, really waged this war against the pagan monarch who had only endeavored to put down a vice harmful to his people. The war was looked upon in this light by the Chinese; it will always be so looked upon by the candid historian, and known as the Opium War."

Within fifteen years after this first war, there was another one, and again Great Britain came off victorious. China had to pay another indemnity, three million dollars, and five more treaty ports were opened up. By the terms of the Treaty of Tientsin, the sale of opium in China was legalized in 1858.

From a small pamphlet, "Opium: England's Coercive Policy and Its Disastrous Results in China and India" by the Rev. John Liggins, we find the following: "As a specimen of how both wars were carried on, we quote the following from an English writer on the bombardment of Canton: 'Field pieces loaded with grape were planted at the end of long, narrow streets crowded with innocent men, women and children, to mow them down like gra.s.s till the gutters flowed with their blood.'" In one scene of carnage, the _Times_ correspondent recorded that half an army of 10,000 men were in ten minutes destroyed by the sword, or forced into the broad river. "The Morning Herald" a.s.serted that "a more horrible or revolting crime than this bombardment of Canton has never been committed in the worst ages of barbaric darkness."

Naturally, therefore, after the termination of these two wars, China gave up the struggle. She had fought valiantly to protect her people from opium, but the resources of a Christian nation were too much for her. Seeing therefore that the opium trade was to be forced upon her, and that her people were doomed to degradation, she decided to plant poppies herself. There should be compet.i.tion at least, and the money should not all be drained out of the country. Thus it came about that after 1858 extensive tracts of land were given over to poppy production. Whole provinces or parts of provinces, ceased to grow grain and other necessities, and diverted their rich river bottoms to the raising of opium. Chinese opium, however, never supplanted Indian opium, being inferior to that raised in the rich valley of the Ganges.

The country merely had double quant.i.ties of the drug, used straight or blended, to suit the purse or taste of the consumer.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium. In all history, no nation has ever set itself such a gigantic task, with such a gigantic handicap. China, a country of immense distances, with scant means of communication; with no common language, a land where only the scholars can read and write, suddenly decided to free herself from this vice. The Emperor issued an edict saying that in ten years' time all opium traffic must cease, and an arrangement was made with Great Britain whereby this might be accomplished. To the honor of America be it said that we a.s.sisted China in this resolution. We agreed to see her through.

A bargain was then made between China and Great Britain, in 1907, China agreeing to diminish poppy cultivation year by year for a period of ten years, and Great Britain agreeing to a proportional decrease in the imports of Indian opium. A three years' test was first agreed to, a trial of China's sincerity and ability, for Great Britain feared that this was but a ruse to cut off Indian opium, while leaving China's opium alone in the field. At the end of three years, however, China had proved her ability to cope with the situation. Thus, for a period of ten years, both countries have lived up to their bargain, the amount of native and foreign opium declining steadily in a decreasing scale.

April 1, 1917, saw the end of the accomplishment.

China's part was most difficult. In the remote, interior provinces, poppies were grown surrept.i.tiously, connived at by corrupt officials who made money from the crops. However, drastic laws were enacted and severe penalties imposed upon those who broke them. If poppy cultivation could not be stopped, England would not hold to her end of the bargain. Not only was there a nation of addicts to deal with, but these could obtain copious supplies of opium from the foreign concessions, over which the Chinese had no control. We shall show, in another article, to what extent this was carried on. Yet somehow, in some manner, the impossible happened. Year by year, little by little, one province after another was freed from poppy cultivation, until in 1917, China was practically free from the native-grown drug, and foreign importation had practically ended.

In this manner, first by large smuggling, then by two opium wars, was China drugged with opium. And in this manner, and to this extent, has she succeeded in freeing herself from the curse. But in one way, she is not free. She has no control over the extra-territorial holdings of European powers, for in each treaty port are the foreign concessions already mentioned--German, Austrian, British, French, Russian. And in these concessions, opium may be procured. Simply by crossing an imaginary line, in such cities as Shanghai and Hongkong, can the Chinese buy as much opium as they choose. China will never be rid of this menace till she is rid of these extraterritorial holdings. Opium shops, licensed by foreign governments, are always ready to supply her people with the forbidden drug.

We say that the China market is closed. So it is, in one way. But the British Opium Monopoly is not ended. The year 1917 saw a tremendous blow dealt to the British opium dealers, but other markets will be found. There are other countries than China whose inhabitants can be taught this vice. The object of this discussion is to consider these other countries, and to see to what extent the world is menaced by this possibility.

XVI

CONCLUSION

There are many people who advocate the use of opium, and who defend the policy of the Opium Monopoly. They argue that it is not harmful--if taken in moderation. They even a.s.sert that it is no more objectionable than alcohol or tobacco. Leaving out of account, therefore, the consensus of opinion of the medical profession as to the evils of habit-forming drugs, and accepting the theory that opium is harmless, we should then like to ask why the use of opium is so carefully restricted to the peoples of subject states, who have no voice in their own affairs? Why should the benefits of opium be confined to Oriental races, and why should not the white race be given the same opportunities for indulgence? Is there any reason for this discrimination? As a source of revenue, it certainly has advantages.

Yet curiously enough, those European countries which derive much profit through the sale of opium to their subject races, seem to have an aversion to introducing it to their people at home. And there is a further coincidence in the fact that none of the self-governing colonies of European countries--Australia, New Zealand and Canada--permit this traffic. It appears to be only the subject peoples, whose well-being has become the White Man's Burden, who receive the blessings of this peculiar form of altruism. Is it because the white race is worth preserving, worth protecting, and because subject nations are fair game for exploitation of any kind?

Another argument advanced by advocates of Government opium is that the Oriental peoples are "different"--that opium does them no harm. Every writer on the subject of opium in China, produces evidence to show the shocking results upon that country, during the hey-day of the deluge.

The complete moral degradation, and economic ruin of thousands of helpless individuals. Nor do we think the medical profession would agree with this a.s.sumption that opium is harmless to Orientals, because they are "different." Their only real difference lies in their helplessness to protect themselves from foreign aggression.

Another argument advanced by the upholders of the Monopoly is that the Orientals have always been users of opium, that they like it, it suits them, it would be unfair to deprive them of it. We have seen to what extent the Chinese liked it, and how it was forced upon them by two wars. Not until they were completely crushed, and had to accept the terms of the conquerer, did they submit. It can hardly, therefore, be called a vice indigenous to the Chinese. j.a.pan is another Oriental nation that disproves this argument. As we have said before, there are no opium shops in j.a.pan, and the sale of opium is not conducted by the j.a.panese Government. On the contrary, the j.a.panese have the same fear of this drug that a European nation has, and exercises the same precautions to protect its people. But, as we have said before, j.a.pan is the only Oriental nation that has not been subjugated by a European nation, and therefore has never had opium thrust upon her. She is the only country in the Far East that has managed to preserve her sovereignty, and has never been subject to certain blighting influences of European culture.

Another exception to this a.s.sumption that the Orientals cannot do without opium lies in the Philippines. When America acquired those islands some twenty years ago, our first act was to eliminate the opium traffic, which had been established there by our predecessors. It had been in existence for decades, but we immediately set about to abolish it. Root and branch we did away with it, and shed no crocodile tears as to the "hards.h.i.+p" this would be to the people who had come under our protection. We wished no revenue coming from such a source as this. Yet we might have cut in half the cost of our Philippine budget had we followed the example set by other nations. We have seen that certain British colonies, Hongkong and the Straits Settlements, for example, derive from one-third to one-half of their upkeep expenses from this traffic. But we refrained from treating our Filipinos in this manner.

We are called sentimentalists out in the East--at such times as we are not called money-getters. To-day, the Philippines are very nearly ready for self-government. Would they have been so nearly ready had we continued to drug them as they had been drugged before we took possession? Drugged peoples are usually docile and submissive--perhaps that is the secret of much of the successful colonizing, about which we hear so much.

But let us leave aside the question of the Orientals, and whether or no opium is good for them. We recognize quite clearly that it is not good for ourselves, for Americans. We recognize that fact quite as clearly as England realizes that it is not good for the inhabitants of the British Isles. Quite as clearly as France, while setting up opium shops in her colony of Indo-China, refuses to establish them in Paris or Ma.r.s.eilles. America is unique in the fact that although we have colonial possessions, we do not have a double standard of morality. We attempt to throw around our colonies the same safeguards that we throw around ourselves at home. But the question arises, how successful are we in protecting ourselves at home? Not particularly so, according to the daily press.

How great the danger to ourselves was recognized some thirty-seven years ago by an Episcopal missionary to China, the Rev. John Liggins.

In 1882 he published a small book, already referred to, ent.i.tled: "England's Coercive Opium Policy and Its Disastrous Results in China and India." The preface to this unheeded warning runs thus. "Our aim in this sketch is to present, as briefly as possible, the most important facts and testimonies concerning a traffic which is as disgraceful to England as it is ruinous to China and hurtful to India.... It is also of the highest importance that the people throughout our wide domain should be aroused concerning the new, fascinating and deadly foe which has entered our country through the Golden Gate, and which already numbers its victims by the thousands, and will soon do so by the tens of thousands."

The Rev. Mr. Liggins saw it coming--that danger which is almost ready to overwhelm us to-day. He recognized clearly that the Opium Monopoly of that great nation which rules nearly one-third of the world--the British Empire--would in time reach further and further afield for new victims. It is too lucrative a trade to be confined to only a few countries. Markets must not only be created and legalized in subject states, but new ones added in outside countries, through smuggling. All too fatally easy of accomplishment, and so profitable, financially, as to be worth any risk and effort. The prediction as to our own danger, made in 1882, seems to be abundantly realized.

The number of drug addicts in America to-day are fairly startling. The number is variously estimated in New York City alone as from ten thousand to one hundred thousand. It is said that there may be a million in the country. Yet these figures are the merest guesswork, by no means substantiated. Certain it is that the campaign of the New York Health Department has uncovered thousands of them, and any other city that chose to do so, could produce facts equally startling.

The laws on our statute books concerning the prescription of narcotic drugs are powerless to deal with the situation. It is shooting into the air to try to "regulate" this condition. It is as thoroughly well "regulated" as it can ever be by the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, a Federal Law whose enforcement is in the hands of the Internal Revenue Department. By the provisions of this Act, every pound of opium or its derivatives that comes into this country, legitimately, is accounted for, and its distribution, both wholesale and retail, made a matter of record. Thus, the Board of Trade returns show the amount imported by the big wholesale drug houses. These must account for their sales to the retail drug stores, and the amounts must tally. The drug stores can only sell narcotic drugs on a physician's prescription, and the prescriptions are kept on file, and the quant.i.ty sold must correspond to the quant.i.ty called for by these prescriptions, as well as to the amount obtained from the wholesale drug house. In prescribing narcotics, the physician is obliged to write his prescription in triplicate--one copy for his own protection, one copy for the local druggist, and one copy to be filed with the health department. Nor is he allowed to prescribe narcotics for an addict without decreasing the dosage. His prescription cannot call for thirty grains of morphia day after day--it must show, in a chronic case of this kind, a daily diminution of the amount prescribed, thus indicating a desire to get the patient off the drug, eventually. All these records are kept on file, open to inspection whenever an accounting is demanded, consequently any leak can be instantly accounted for. This Harrison Act is as comprehensive and as nearly perfect as possible, yet it does not cover the situation. By this means, violations can be detected, whether on the part of an unscrupulous physician or druggist, or even the wholesale house, but these violations are only occasional. The root of the evil remains untouched.

At one time, it was believed that carelessness on the part of the physician was chiefly responsible for creating drug addicts, but the recent campaign against violators of the Harrison Act seems to have completely exonerated him of this charge. For one patient who becomes a drug addict while under a doctor's care, through the accidental misuse of morphia, there are a hundred who form the habit through other ways.

It is not the occasional, accidental victim, given morphia for the relief of pain, which is creating our thousands of drug users. It is not the occasional unscrupulous physician who is responsible. If this was all, we could easily cope with these unwitting abuses, or even deliberate instances of misuse. But the question goes deeper than this.

The Opium Monopoly was not established for any humane or altruistic purpose. It was not established to provide the medical profession with a drug for the relief of pain, to ease the agony of the injured and wounded, or to calm the last days of those dying with an incurable disease. This, which may be called the legitimate use of opium, is not the object of the Opium Monopoly. Used only in this manner, there would be no money in it. It is only when opium is produced in quant.i.ties far in excess of the legitimate needs of the world that it becomes worth while--to the Opium Monopoly. That Monopoly was established not to relieve pain and suffering, but with the deliberate intention of creating pain and suffering, by creating drug victims by the thousand.

It is these hundreds of thousands of customers that are profitable. The menace to America lies in the large amounts of opium which are smuggled into the country for this purpose. Boys and girls of sixteen and seventeen first acquire this habit through curiosity, through a.s.sociation with what they call "bad company," peddlers who first offer it free, as a gift, well knowing that after a few doses the fatal habit will be formed. Where do these vendors obtain their supplies?

The daily papers often contain suggestive paragraphs. Thus the "New York Times," under date of February 28, 1919: "Seize Opium in Schenectady. Opium, valued by Federal officials at $10,000 was seized in Schenectady, and four Chinamen were arrested in a raid on Chinese places of business on Centre street to-day. The Federal officials expressed the belief that opium had been smuggled, and that Schenectady is the distributing point for this part of the State."

An item in the "Seattle Union Record," of June 24, 1919, gives us cause for further consideration.