Charlotte messenger. [volume] (Charlotte, Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) 1882-18??, 1882-07-08
The Motive for Interference in Egypt.
Baltimore Sun.

The Motive for Interference in Egypt.
Baltimore Sun.
A large portion of the American
press afflicts itself in contemplating
what 1t calls the "Wickedness" of En-
gland and France "in interfering in
Egypt to secure the payment of loans"
the bonds OF which are in the hands Of
a few great capitalists, and the pro-
ceeds OF which were squandered upon
objects in which the Egyptians had no
concern. But what are the factsY The
main object of the present interior
ence. as Of the institution of the Joint
control by Beaconsfield in 1879, is pOlit-
ical rather than financial. 1t is absurd.
therefore, to protest that the Egyptians
minister to the greed of international
loan-mongers." But putting out Of
view the necessity England is under OF
looking after the great waterway to
India and the interest in all North At
rican questions which the possession OF
Algiers, Tunis and part of Central At
RIGA gives to France, it is worth while
to recall the financial facts of Egypt's
history within the last half.dOzen years,
Ismall, the former Khedive, borrowed
money unstintedIy at very high rates
of interest from European lenders,
mainly French financiers, and part Of
the funds so obtained he spent in build
ing railroads and other works, which
to-day make a good return for the capt.
tai invested in them; the rest he squan-
dered. The failure of the Khedive to
pay interest on his debt brought with
it, beside the establishment of the
AnglO-French financial control, what
Gen. Malone would call "readjust-
ment" of the Egyptian debt. The sum
total was reduced and the interest on
to remainder was cut down to four
or fives per cent. per annum. Not
withstanding this scaling" Egyptian
securities, after England and France
took charge of Egyptian finances, i'm
proved in value and passed for the most
part out of the hands of the French
capitalists, who had up to this time
been the principal holders, into the
keeping of English investors. But, as
said before, it was not the cries Of bond
holders that led Lord BeacOnsfield to
consent to the Anglo-French control.
In his day, as now, it was held that q
bad financial administration of Egypt
would probably lead to internal trou.
bles, followed by Intervention on the
part OF Turkey or some other power,
and it was to institute financial reforms
that would prevent the recurrence Of
political complications that the joint
control was established. In this the
control has proved success, and has
greatly ameliorated the condition Of
the Egyptian peasantry. The land in
Egypt is owned by the State, and the
rent is paid as a tax. Under the old re-
gime the amount of the tax was con.
tinually being altered, the collectors
were usually corrupt and extorted extra
sums for the benefit of their own pOck-
cts, and, to add to the embarrassment
of the taxpayer, the tax was levied at
the beginning of the year, before the
farmers had gotten in their crops. The
consequence was that the local usurers
extOrted 80 or 40 per cent. on loans
made for payment of taxes. All this
the control has changed for the better,
so that the fellah is not to-day over.
taxed. When land subject to the State
tax sells for from SIS to $40 per acre, it
is plain that the burden upon 1t cannot
be considered excessive. The London
Truth holds that the Egyptian farmer,
in view of the excellence of his soil. its
annual fertilization by the Nile, and
the small proportion Of his earnings
exacted under the system established
by the AnglO-F French control, Is "far
less heavily taxed and far better of
than an English farmer holding the
same acreage"
The Threatening Outlook at Alexan.