SUEZ CANAL DUES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 71, 26 March 1910, Page 9

SUEZ CANAL DUES.

SHIPOWNERS' PROTEST. AFFECTING COLONIAL TRADE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, Uth February. At the annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom to be held this month, the oro(x)sed convention between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company, whereby the Company's concession is to be extended on certain terms until the year 2008, is to come up for discussion. British shipowners havo given notice of resolutions urging a reduction of the exceedingly heavy dues now levied Ly the Suez Canal Company, and asking for increased representation of British 'hip ping on the Canal Company's board. When it was first announced that the Suez Canal Company was endeavouring to secure an extension of its concession from the Egyptian Government, Mi\ W. H. Cooke, Secretary of the Chamber of Shipping, wrote to Sir Edward Grey, asking hie Majesty's Government not to sanction any new arrangement without taking the opportunity of securing for Great Britain an adequate representation upon the Suez Canal Company. THE OFFICIAL REPLY. The reply of the Foreign Office was of a formal character. "Should the occasion arise," was the answer, "the observations contained in your letter will be borne in mind." Later, after a further meeting of vhj Council of the Chamber of Shipping, another letter was addressed to Sir Edward Grey again urging the close scrutiny of any clause* in the proposed convention bearing on the question of Suez Canal dues. The letter continued: — "You are, of course, well aware that the Suez Canal Company has for several years past paid, and is still paying annually, enormous dividends to its Rliar--holders — the continued payment of whieti is alone rendered pos-Fi'blo by the monopoly which the company enjoys, and by the extremely heavy due* which it exacts from all vessels, of which Great Britain provides by far the largest number, which are compelled to make use of the Suez Canal. My council are extremely anxious that his Majesty* Government will exert to the uttermost their influence- in order to secure that in any new concession which may be granted to the Suez Canal Company by the Egyptian Government, power shall not be given to that company to enable it to continue— for a fnrther prolonged series of years— to charge the exorbitant dues which it at present does. British shipowners do not object to the shareholders in the Suez Canal Company receiving a reabonablo and even a liberal rate of interest from their investment, but my council strongly submit that the dividend of 28 per cent, per annum which tho Suez Canal Company has for several years past paid, and is still paying, to its shareholders, is an unieat-on-ably high one. That the heavy toll upon venseU now 'exacted by the Suez Canal Company is most detrimental to the trade between Great Britain and her pouesfiiona in India, Australia, and New Zealand cannot, in the opinion of my council, ndmit of doubt." The letter brought no response, so thnt a- further communication was addressed to Sir Edward Grey, asking for an answer. This produced an intimation that there was nothing to add to previous letters. In thefe circumstance! the Chamber of Shipping has a strong feeling that further action must be taken if British shipping is not to be prejudiced by the "imposed convention.