Coming fresh from a tour of the opium-dens of Singapore, I must say that item caused some mental confusion. It must also be confusing to the Chinese. It must be very perplexing to a Chinese sailor, who arrives in Liverpool on a ship from Singapore, to find such a variation in customs. To come from a part of the British Empire where opium smoking is freely encouraged, to Great Britain itself where such practices are not tolerated. He must ask himself, why it is that the white race is so sedulously protected from such vices, while the subject races are so eagerly encouraged. It may occur to him that the white race is valuable and must be preserved, and that subject races are not worth protecting. This double standard of international justice he must find disturbing. It would seem, at first glance, as if subject races were fair game—if there is money in it. Subject races, dependents, who have no vote, no share in the government and who are powerless to protect themselves—fair game for exploitation. Is this double-dealing what we mean when we speak of "our responsibility to backward nations," or of "the sacred trust of civilization" or still again when we refer to "the White Man's burden"?
Pondering over these things as I sat on the hotel verandah, I finally reached the conclusion that to print such a dispatch as that in the "Straits Times" was, to say the least, most tactless.
V
THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS OPIUM COMMISSION
From time to time, certain people in England apparently have qualms as to Great Britain's opium traffic, and from time to time questions are raised as to whether or not such traffic is morally defensible. In February, 1909, apparently in answer to such scruples and questionings on the part of a few, a very interesting report was published, "Proceedings of the Commission appointed to Enquire into Matters Relating to the Use of Opium in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty." This document may be found in the New York Public Library and is well worth careful perusal.
This Commission consisted of about a dozen men, some English, some natives of the Straits Settlements. They apparently made an intensive and exhaustive study of the subject, carefully examining it from every angle. Countless witnesses appeared before them, giving testimony as to the effects of opium upon the individual. This testimony is interesting, in that it is of a contradictory nature, some witnesses saying that moderate opium indulgence is nothing worse than indulgence in alcoholic beverages, and like alcohol, only pernicious if taken to excess. Other witnesses seemed to think that it was most harmful. The Commission made careful reports as to the manner of licensing houses for smoking, the system of licensing opium farms, etc., and other technical details connected with this extensive Government traffic. Finally, the question of revenue was considered, and while the harmfulness of opium smoking was a matter of divided opinion, when it came to revenue there was no division of opinion at all. As a means of raising revenue, the traffic was certainly justifiable. It was proven that about fifty per cent of the revenues of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States came from the opium trade, and, as was naïvely pointed out, to hazard the prosperity of the Colony by lopping off half its revenues, was an unthinkable proceeding.
The figures given are as follows.
| 1898 | Revenue derived from Opium | 45.9 per cent |
| 1899 | 44.8 | |
| 1900 | 43.3 | |
| 1901 | 53.2 | |
| 1902 | 48.3 | |
| 1903 | 47.1 | |
| 1904 | 59.1 | |
| 1905 | 46. | |
| 1906 | 53.3 |
There was one dissenting voice as to the conclusions reached by this Opium Commission, that of a Bishop who presented a minority report. But what are moral scruples against cold facts—that there's money in the opium trade?