21

maunds of licit ganja within the past six months;
and as this increase has been obtained by simply
checking the casual smuggling by pilgrims, it
may safely be assumed that, were all smuggling
put a stop to, at least 50 maunds of licit ganja
would be required to take the place of the ganja
now smuggled.

"From the last Excise Administration Report
I find that the average consumption of ganja in this
district for 1880-1885 was 122 maunds, of which
25 maunds were Gurjati. The stoppage of sale of
Gurjati ganja led to a falling off coresponding to
this 25 maunds as in 1885-86; only 105 maunds of
licit ganja was consumed, and it may safely be
said that the result of the stoppage of the sale
was simply to cause an increase in smuggling of
25 maunds a year, and the smuggling trade must
be an extensive one if it could increase so as to
meet one-fourth of the annual consumption in the
course of one year."

I cannot say that Mr. Metcalfe's is an exag-
gerated estimate; but I cannot see now where so
much illicit ganja comes from. I am not able to
say how much ganja is grown in the States. I
have myself not seen much of it. I should be
inclined to accept the opinion of Narayan Chandra
Naik as to the extent of the cultivation there at
present. He has much experience of these States.
He was examined before the Commission yesterday
(witness No. 73).

Cultivation of ganja within three miles of our
border was prohibited in 1878, and importation of
Gurjat ganja in 1882. The former order was
withdrawn in 1889, and the latter in 1892. In
1882 there was a jump of thirty maunds in the
Cuttack District in the consumption of excise
ganja, and there was a marked decrease in 1891-
92. The alterations in duty, which occurred mean-
time (especially in 1887-88 and 1889-90), have to
be borne in mind; but the figures undoubtedly
point to the extensive use of Gurjat ganja. The
districts of Puri and Balasore are said not to be
affected by the Gurjat ganja so much as Cuttack.
Balasore people are said to prefer Rajshahi
ganja. I cannot explain the figures for Puri,
which seem to indicate that it is also not affected
by Gurjat ganja. I know nothing personally
regarding the smuggling into Puri from Madras;
but I know there has been much correspondence
regarding it.

The smuggling of Gurjat ganja, which is known
to exist, certainly requires a remedy. I have
considered the matter carefully. I do not think
we can expect the States to provide a preventive
service. We must do it on our side; nor do I
think the Rajas have the establishment or energy
to prevent smuggling. I therefore said in my
answer No. 59 that the only remedy was to
strengthen greatly the preventive force. But, as I
have shown in my answer No. 70, this does not
appear to me to be a perfectly efficient method.
You may do something, but I do not see how
over such a border you can hope to succeed I see
no efficient method, except as was done before,
going to the fountain-head and getting the Rajas
enlisted in our system.

There was a proposal to have a licensing of
cultivation in the States by the Rajas and ad-
mission of the ganja into British territory as
excise ganja under regulations similar to those
regarding Rajshahi ganja. I do not think this
would succeed. For the success of the plan would
depend on the efficiency of the Raja's arrange-
ments.

The third method is to call on the Rajas to
prohibit growth, and get them to take their ganja
supplies from Government. I was not aware that
this has been done in the Feudatory States of the
Central Provinces, and that these States are now
carrying out this system. I see no difficulty in
this proposal except the difficulty of preventing
the order of the Raja, or his promise to issue the
order, remaining a dead-letter. If the Rajas
themselves agree, there is, of course, no objection
whatever to the consumer in their States being
taxed as consumers are in our territory. But it
would have to be considered how far it would be
wise politically to tax the excitable tribes, such as
Khonds, Bhunyas, and Santhals. I cannot say
how far these tribes use the drug. I have not
had opportunity of inquiring. In Mohurbhunj,
where the prohibition was carried out and excise
ganja used, there are many Santhals. This would
indicate that there was no difficulty with them.
None of the other States that agreed are remark-
able for these aboriginal tribes; but they all have
them to some degree.

*Vide his letter No. 1196,
dated 22nd July 1886.

†Vide his letter No. 414,
dated the 1st April 1889.

At present the Rajas derive no income from
ganja, and there would be no difficulty in this re-
spect. I am prepared to say that I hope "they
would be guided very much by our advice;" but I
am bound to say that Mr.
Metcalfe's* position was
stronger than ours is now, since the formal ruling
that these States are not British India. I think
they would be guided by our advice, but the
character of one Chief differs much from another's.
I observe, also, that the history of the matter, as
shown in Mr. Hopkins'†
letter, shows the complete
willingness of seven chiefs to meet the wishes of
Government. There were also four minors at the
time. Of the remaining four I am of opinion
that the objections (except, perhaps, in the case of
Keonjhar) are not boná fide. They amounted to a
polite evasion of dictation. I think that if the
measure were adopted for the majority of States,
dissentients might give way in time.

In regard to securing the co-operation of the
Chiefs, I see no necessity whatever for any com-
pensation in a lump sum. There is nothing for
which we have to compensate them, and we should
get nothing in return. But I am strongly in
favour of giving the Rajas the ganja at cost price,
and letting them receive all the duty. This
would make their interest in the matter coincident
with ours.

I am aware that the Government of Bengal,
in Sir Steuart Bayley's time, abandoned this
scheme on the ground that the Gurjat ganja was
less deleterious than the Rajshahi drug. This
has apparently been admitted to be a mistake of
fact. And the action taken is undoubtedly to be
regretted. The States had for the most part
agreed, and the system had been practically
introduced. I am in favour of the system. I am
in favour of it mainly from the point of view of
our excise. I see no cogent argument in favour of
it from the interests of the Gurjat States, as they
do not seem to have suffered from their drugs so
far as I know. But from the point of view of
our excise, and from the point of view of the evils
attending the illicit traffic, I am clearly in favour
of the system proposed. I think that the system
would tend also to reduce and restrict the con-
sumption of the drug in the Tributary Mahals.

There would be difficulty in carrying out the
measure. The Rajas might have difficulty in
enforcing it. In a paternal Government an order