60TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( 2d Session. PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NAVIGATION CONGRESSES. JANUARY 19, 1909.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. FOSTER, of Vermont, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. J. Res. 203.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred House Joint Resolution 203, submits the following report: The Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses held its annual convention in the city of St. Petersburg in May and June, 1908. Previous to that time congresses had been held in Milan, Dusseldorf, Paris, The Hague, London, Manchester, Vienna, Frankfort, and other European cities. The rule now is to hold these congresses once every three years. The purpose is to bring representatives of the various governments together to discuss questions connected with inland or maritime navigation in their relation to commercial and industrial enterprises. The United States participates in the congresses, sending representatives under an act of Congress approved June 28, 1902. No Congress has ever been held in the United States. In view, however, of the increased interest in waterways in America, there is reason to believe that it would be agreeable to the permanent international association, the headquarters of which are in Brussels, Belgium, to have the next Congress, 1911, held in the United States. An invitation has already gone forth from the city of Philadelphia which has met with the approval of the official representatives of the United States. The Atlantic Deeper Waterways Association, representative of the Atlantic Coast States, at a convention held at Baltimore, November last, unanimously adopted a resolution approving of the invitation, and similar resolutions were passed by the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, which met in Washington in December. House joint resolution 203 proposes to authorize a formal invitation through the Secretary of State on behalf of the United States. The congresses have been largely attended by engineering and waterway experts of the old country, and it is believed the holding of a congress in the United States would be of material benefit, industrially and commercially, as well as from the viewpoint of international comity. This invitation will involve no charge upon the National Treasury. No appropriation of any kind will be asked for. The city where the congress is held will be required to pay all the expenses of the congress, including the entertainment of the foreign visitors. 60TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPORT 2d Session. No. 1878. TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF OPIUM FOR OTHER THAN MEDICINAL PURPOSES. JANUARY 19, 1909.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. MANN, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 24863.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 24863) to prohibit the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes, reports the said bill back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass with an amendment to the title by striking out the words "and use" in the title, so that the title will read, "To prohibit the importation of opium for other than medicinal purposes." This bill was prepared by the Secretary of State, as will appear by his letter hereto attached as a part of this report. The State Department prepared a bill on this subject, which was introduced by Mr. Denby, of Michigan, as H. R. 24154, to which objections were raised by your committee when taken up for consideration in the committee. Thereupon the bill which is herewith reported was prepared and has been considered by your committee. A conference or commission has been provided for which will meet at Shanghai the 1st of February to consider the subject of the traffic in opium and the use of opium. The suggestion for this conference came originally from the United States, and in the sundry civil bill of last year an item of appropriation was carried, authorizing the appointment of commissioners to the conference. The opium conference or commission will be participated in by commissioners from Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Persia, Japan, China, and Siam, as well as the United States. The bill as reported only affects opium imported for smoking and does not affect opium imported for medicinal purposes. Section 2 of the bill applies to opium brought into the country contrary to law, the language of section 3082 of the Revised Statutes now affecting merchandise brought into the country contrary to law. Section 1 of the bill has the approval of the manufacturing pharmacists, as smoking opium is not used for medicinal purposes. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 2, 1909. MY DEAR MR. MANN: Referring to our New Year's conversation, I beg to inclose herewith a letter addressed by Mr. Root to Mr. Sherman, whom he thought was chairman of the subcommittee which will consider the bill for the prohibition of opium. Mr. Root believes that the simplified form is far less liable to objection, and Senator Lodge, who has taken great interest in the matter, is ready to offer it in the Senate and do everything in his power to expedite its passage. If the department can be of any use in the matter, I hope you will let me know, as the Secretary is most anxious to strengthen as much as possible the hands of our commissioners to the international conference on the subject, to be held in Shanghai on the 1st of February. With kind regards, believe me, Very sincerely, yours, Hon. JAMES R. MANN, House of Representatives. ROBERT BACON. DEPARTMENT of State, Washington, December 26, 1908. MY DEAR MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Bacon has asked me to examine the bill to prohibit the importation of opium (H. R. 24154), introduced by Mr. Denby, together with a letter from Mr. Denby stating certain doubts that have been raised with regard to the bill. I think there are some serious questions arising as to some of the provisions of the bill, both as to constitutionality and as to expediency. I think it would be wise for the committee to report a substitute in the form which I inclose. As to the substitute, the title is better because it is short enough to quote. The first section is the same as the legislation already passed by Congress in regard to the Philippines in the act of March 3, 1905, except that instead of limiting importation to the Government for medicinal purposes as that act did, this provision permits importation by any one for medicinal purposes under regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture seems to be the proper officer, because he is enforcing the pure-food law. The form which I have given to the first section making the prohibition general and putting the permission to import for medicinal purposes in the form of a proviso is because of the rule of criminal pleading, which you will recall, that an exception has to be negatived in an indictment, while a proviso does not, so that the act in the form in which I put it would be much more easily enforced. The second section is a reproduction of section 3082 of the Revised Statutes, which was itself a development from practical experience in preventing importations contrary to law beginning in the revenue act of 1799. It has proved to be very effective, has been passed upon many times by the courts, and I think it would be much wiser to rely upon the method of enforcement it describes rather than to undertake to devise a new method. This is certainly so if we are to have legislation on this subject in time to save our face in the conference at Shanghai, which begins the 1st of February. In order to get quick legislation the bill must be very simple and the draft which I inclose really contains nothing whatever that is new. It merely applies to the United States in a less stringent form the prohibition which Congress has already adopted in regard to the Philippines and to China, and applies for the enforcement of that prohibition the provisions which have been the law of the United States for nearly half a century in regard to the violation of other prohibitions. Very sincerely, yours, Hon. JAMES S. SHERMAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. ELIHU ROOT. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GENTLEMEN: There is pending before Congress a bill which has been referred to the subcommittee of which I am the chairman, in reference to the importation of opium. I beg to ask you whether in your judgment a law which permitted the importation of opium and preparations and derivatives thereof, other than smoking opium, for medicinal purposes only, under regulations established by the Secretary of Agriculture, would by the use of such language make a sufficient distinction between opium and preparations and derivatives thereof used for medicinal purposes and opium prepared for smoking. In other words, is smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking used by the manufacturing pharmacists in the preparation of opium for medicinal purposes? So far as you know, are the two kinds of opium so distinctive in character in the trade as to be distinguishable? Can opium now imported for medicinal purposes be used in the preparation of smoking opium? An early reply would greatly oblige, Yours, very respectfully, PARKE, DAVIS & Co., JAMES R. MANN, M. C. Detroit, Mich. Parke, Davis & Co., Detroit, Mich., January 6, 1909. DEAR SIR: Answering your esteemed favor of the 4th instant, we really know little of smoking opium from personal experience. We never use it for medicinal purposes. A number of our chemists and experts have never seen it. In answer to your specific questions we can say definitely that we as manufacturing pharmacists never use for medicinal purposes smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking. The gum opium we use is very different in character, of a higher grade, and contains a greater percentage of morphine. Opium now imported for medicinal purposes can be used in the preparation of smoking opium, but it requires, we are told, special skill and manipulation and a long period of time. One of our informants, who had an intimate friend in the capacity of chief pharmacist of the French navy, stationed for ten years at Shanghai and Saigon, declares that eight months are needed for the preparation and curing of opium for smoking, the process being to a slight extent similar to the curing of tobacco. Now, as to whether the law can be so drafted and phrased as to permit the exclusion of smoking opium and the admission of medicinal opium under rules and regulations prepared by the Department of Agriculture, we do not want to return an offhand, superficial answer without making a special investigation, but our present impression is that the admission of the one and the exclusion of the other are practicable; that the difference in character and even in the appearance of regular gum opium and smoking opium is so great as to render the two distinguishable. Medicinal gum opium comes in the form of round balls, the hardness of which varies with the season of the year and the amount of moisture. Smoking opium is much softer than the regular variety, almost as soft as an extract or a jelly, and when pressed by the finger an indentation remains as in the handling of putty. As manufacturing pharmacists we have not the slightest interest in smoking opium; as citizens, we are in sympathy with every effort to reduce its consumption. But we earnestly hope-and here, as a fair-minded man you ought to be on your guardthat the rules and regulations to be drafted by the Department of Agriculture will be so carefully framed as to impose no unfair or unnecessary hardship on houses like our own, who import gum opium in good faith for strictly legitimate medicinal purposes. Trusting that we have been at least of some slight service, we remain, Very truly, yours, Hon. JAMES R. MANN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. NATIONAL WHOLESALE DRUGGISTS' ASSOCIATION, DEAR SIR: Following my letter of the 7th instant, I have just seen in the Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter of this date a draft of what is called "A simplified bill restricting opium importation," introduced by Representative Denby. |