SUEZ CANAL CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 31 October 1935, Page 16

SUEZ CANAL CONTROL

FRANCE COMMANDS POWER. 21 OF THE 32 DIRECTORS’ SEATS. Somewhere in Paris, in a lofty room suitably decorated, 32 enpnent gentlemen in morning coats sit around a huge table at the head of which is the president, the Marquess de Vogue, says an overseas paper. He is the president of the Compaigne Universelie du Canal Maritime de Suez, and his 31 colleagues are the directors of this undertaking, the major asset of which is a lengthy stretch cut for 100 miles through the sandy desert of Egypt. : But this ditch, 34 feet deep is one of the world’s two most important maritime highways, and as such it has proved to be a very profitable enterprise, a 20,000ton ship paying £3OOO for the privilege ,of passing through it—once. Recently the directors, have been discussing the application of n 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 at 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. Of the 32 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; 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, Mr. T. Harrison Hughes, Sir Alan Anderson, Sir 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 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, of the nett 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 has pointed 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, since the amount would be too small to have any appreciable effect on earnings, which run into several million pounds sterling annually.