SUEZ CANAL

Hokitika Guardian, 12 June 1931, Page 2

SUEZ CANAL

Since the beginning of the year shipowners have been agitating for a re duction of the dues, in view of . the enormous dividends payed by the company. ,

Controlled by the Compagnie TJniversellc du Canal Maritime de Suez, which is an Egyptian company, the Suez Canal exacts toll of all vessels passing through it. The company was authorised in 1805, and was confirmed in 1860. It has a capital of 200,000,000 francs in 400,000 shares of 500 francs each. The British Government acquired from the Khedive in 1875 a total of 170,602 shares, which cost £4,000.000, and the value of these shares in 1930 was £45,990,992. Since 1924 each 500 franc share has been divided into two 250 franc shares. The management of the Canal is entrusted to a council of thirty-two administrators, of whom ten are British, throe representing the Government and seven, shipowning interests. The transit receipts in 1870 were 5,718,756 francs, and in 1929, 1,116,413,458 francs (paper). The dues are calculated on tonnage as follows: sfr. 65 (gold) per ton, and 3fr. 325 (gold) for vessels in ballast. The net dividends for the year 1929 amounted on the ordinary 2-"ofr. shares to 530 fr. fiticl oil the Actions tie Jouissance to 022f|v 60c.

DIRECT Oil’S INTEREST. (

Reply inn to recent questions in the House, Mr Arthur Hcnder-on said: The emoluments of all directors cf the company, who number thirty-two, are. the same. In accordance with the statutes of tho company, 2 per cent, of its net profits are reserved for payment of the directors, whose emoluments consequently vary from year _to year. The net profits for 1929-39 were approximately £6,000,000, and the total sum paid to the directors was, therefore, approximately £120,000.

Sir H. Samuel (T.> —Darwen): Are we to gather that each director receives a sum of about £-1000 a year, and that this sum will increase if the net profits increase?

Mr Henderson was understood to reply: That is obviously the case.

“AN ANACHRONISM.”

“The Suez Canal Company is a curious survival in more ways that one,” said a leading article in the “Manchester Guardian.” “It was the product of private enterprise and, indeed, one of its greatest monuments.. But it seems strange nowadays that one of tiie world’s greatest seaways should be run a.s a profit-making concern. That ships should pay toll as they pass through is a natural way of cliargihg, hut that the dues should he fixed with a view to the payment of maximum dividends rather than, on the principles bf a public trust, to the provision of services at the lowest possible cost is till nliaehronism. Perhaps the chief oh-' jeefiou to the rates of pay is not that they nre far beyond what thirty-two gentlemen cam really cam by attending hoard meetings, if that is all they do, but the fact that the remuneration varies with the profits so that when, as now, shippers believe themselves to be overcharged it is to the personal advantage of the directors to maintain dues at the highest possible profitmaking level. This is not merely not the principle of the public trust; it is the direct opposite. The British Government is supposed to have done very well out of its purchase of Canal shares, but it ought not to regard its interest in the Canal simply as a, good speculative investment.