THE SUEZ CANAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 28, 14 November 1935, Page 8

THE SUEZ CANAL

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. _Somewhere in Paris, in a lofty room suitably decorated, thirty-two eminent gentlemen in morning coats sit around a huge table at the head of which is the president, the Marquess do Vogue, says an overseas paper. He is the president of the Compaigne Uniyerselle (111' Canal Maritime de Suez, and his thirty-one colleagues are the directors of this undertaking,'whose major asset IS a lengthy stretch out for 100 miles through the sandy desert of Egypt. . But this ditch, thirty-four feet deep, ls one of the world’s two most important‘maritime highways, and as such it has proved to be a very profit—able enterprise, a 20,000~t0n ship paying £3OOO for the privilege of passing through it—once. Recently the directors have been discussing the application of sanctions against Italy and the position of the Suez Canal. - ~ Although the company which ,owns and operates this canal is registered in Egypt, its headquarters are in Paris, at No. 1 Rue d’Astorg, and it is here that the directors meet to discuss the disposal of the annual profits and other matters. 0f the thirty-two directors ten are British, one is Dutch, and the remainder are French, so that the French vote always commands a majority. Although Italy, Germany, Japan, and other nations are the chief customers of the company, these countries are not represented on the board. Three of the British. directors represent ,the British Government. Sir lan Malcolm had the distinction of marrying the daughter of the eminent actress, Lily Langtry 3 Sir John Davies enjoyed the honour of being private secretary to .Mr Lloyd George; and the Earl of Cromer is the son of a. famous father. In addition, there are seven British .directors' ‘representing shipping and commercial interests’,'l\lr T. Harrison .Hughes, Sir Alan Anderson, lSir John Cadman, Sir August Cayzer, Sir Robert Horne, Sir Wyldbore Smith, and Sir Thomas Royden. Each of these gentlemen receives in return for his labours approximately £4OOO per annum, a total of £120,000 being annually available from the company’s profits for distribution among the directors. The fees are assessed on a profit-sharing basis, the larger the profits of the year’s operations the greater being the remuneration of the directors; Originally, the directors shared among them 3 per cent. 01‘ the net profits, but this was subsequently reduced to 2 per cent. Considerable criticism has been offered by the ship.owners who provide the tolls for these fees, but the president haspointed out that the scale of directors’ fees is a minor issue. Even if the total amount divisible among the board were _reduced from £120,000 to half that amount, the saving of £60,000 would ‘in no way affect the scale of tolls and {charges levied on shipping, sincethe lamount would be too small to. have any appreciable effect on earnings, ‘which run into several million pounds :sterling annually. - p