The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MAY 11, 1908. THE SUEZ CANAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2187, 11 May 1908, Page 2

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MAY 11, 1908. THE SUEZ CANAL.

The question raised in the Commonwealth House of Representatives recently by Air Knox of securing a further reduction of Suez Cana 1 ! dues suggests that this aspect of Impel ial Federation which was 'brought up by Sir Joseph Ward at the last Colonial Conference in London is not to bo allowed to drop. Sir Joseph Ward pointed out that a reduction in the dues upon colonial produce passing through tho Canal! would greatly encourage trade within the Empire. Viewed' from .this standpoint tho subject is ono of great importance to Australia as well as to New Zealand, and it is Hoped that the representations by tilie Commonwealth to tho British Government will, by adding weight to thoso of British ship-ow-ners, have the necessary effect. Tho matter, however, is a difficult one, for the French shareholders in tho Canal Company have always shown much stubbornness in upholding tlicir own position. For tho first few years after it was opened tho canal was not a very remunerative concern, and, as the traffic increased, fresh capital outlay became necessary in improving and enlarging the course. But tho position now taken, up by the directors and' shareholders, both as regards dues and tonnage measurement in cortain cases, is not altogether defensible. In 18S3 a convention was made between the company and British ship-owners, which provided that after the -profits had increased sufficiently to enable a dividend of 25 per cent to be jiaid to tho shareholders the surplus was to bo a ppllied in reducing the dues until they were brought down to 5 francs per ton. In 1883 the dues were lOfr. 50 c. per ton, and reductions were made at various times until on January 1 1906, tho present rate of 7fr. 75c. came into force. But after the dividend reached the stipulated point of 25 per cent, the company did not carry out the promise that surplus profits wore to be applied,in reducing the dues towards the level of 5 francs. Tho directors, instead, proceeded to raise the dividend. This was loudly protested against in England, .but the directors contended that the 1883 arrangement was not a binding contract, but simply a programme, ancl from this attitude the British ship-owners have not been able to dislodge them. There lias been talk at various times of digging an opposition canal. The company has contended that it has a monopoly as regards the Isthmus of Suez, though this contention is not altogether admitted. A competitive canal, also, would occupy a number of yeans in construction. Looking at all the circumstances, it docs not appear obvious what form of pressure can be brought to bear by the Colonial Governments when the (British ship-ow-ners have been unsuccessful. ißut tile attempt should, ueverthd'.ess, be made. The purchase of Suez Canal shares by the British 'Government has turned out a profitable investment, though it need hardly be said that it was made as a matter of policy and not as a business speculation. The interest and dividends on the shares now amount to a little over a million sterling por annum — a handy contribution to tlio public revenue of the' United Kingdom, especially when an enormous naval and military expenditure has to be defrayed.