South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1883-07-06
British Shipowners Insist upon a
New Suez Canal.

~NosNithstoHtihg tue iEu = u1il pro-
tests OF NJ. De Lesseps and the share
holders OF the Suez Canal Company
who see themselves threatened with q
loss OF dividends, the English mer.
chants and saipowners seen. resolved
TO have a waterway OF their own
That the lawyers consulted should
have given an opinion adverse to the
claim put forward by Lesseps to a mo.
noply OF water transit across the z.
gyptiau isthmus, will surprise nobody
at all cOnversant with the history OF
tue present canal. But while the
Khedive has right to empower an
English corporation TO open a second
ditch parallel to that which the French
engineer. Nj. Voisln. eXcavated be,
tween Port Said and Suez, il is by no
means certain that the promoters of
the new enterprise will not prefer a
fresh water canal. which would fol.
low q different course, aud which,
though longer, could be built and OF.
Grated more cheaply.
The monopoly of canal cutting ~
cross the lsthmus Of Suez, together
with good many other objec,iona>
bic concessions in the original charter
granted to the Lesseps company. was
swept away by Lord Palrnerston.-
That astute Minister had little faith
in the success of the undertaking, but
while he preferred that the French
should SINCE their fingers, he took
care to insure 10 his countrymen q
share Of any chestnuts extracted. 1t
was in obedience TO his peremptory
demand that the Egyptian Govern
ment bought back for some SIS ,ooo,-
900 wide belt of land running along
the whole leugth of the present water.
way-a belt for which the Lesseps
company had never paid penny, but
which they had acquired by the original
grant. 1t Is because this aud other
privileges tending TO create mono :
poly )lncluding the sole rights in the
Sweet Water Canal from Cairo to
Suez by way Of Ismailia) were SUR
rendered for valuable consideration
that both Egypt and England have
always regarded the French claim TO
control canal excavation on the 18TH
mus proper as entirely unfounded.
1t is not, however, necessary to cut
another saltwater ditch through the
! sand. An alternative route is that
proposed in 1874 by Ismail Khedire,
and Tor this good deal eau be said,
provided England is to permanently
occupy Egypt. We refer to The fresh
water channeI which, starting from
Alexandria AMI passing through Lake
Mareotis, would ouch the Nile at q
point near Cairo, AMI :hence follow
the line Of the existing Sweet Water
Canal TO lsmailia and S,.sz The
benefits which such waterway would
confer on the Nile country are sun .
ciently obvious 1t would make Alex
andria a mighty seaport, and convert
Cairo Itself into maritime town, by
opening a little TO the north dock
basin for seageing vessels II would
carry the traffic between Europe and
Asia through the heart o. the country,
instead of across an outlying desert !;
and, what is Of far more importance,
it would, by the system of barrage or
damming which it would involve,
provide high level irrigation for the
part OF lower Egypt already cuitiva.
ted, as well as means for retaining a
large area OF desert and marsh land.
These may be deemed weighty con-
slderations If. as all SIGNS now indi.
cate, England is forced, against the
wish Of the Liberal party, to assume
the task of governing the Nile land.
But how would the suggested fresh
water canal serve the turn of the
British shipowner, who looks only at
two things, viz, the rapidity and the
expense OF moving vessels across tire
| lsthlnus? AS regards the time occupi-
ed in transit, IT must be admitted that
where every hour gained would be OF
Importance, the present canal would
be preferred. For although the dis
lance to Suez from common point
IN tie Mediterranean is the same by
both routes, yet day longer would
| DO iC'l uIicu Wy Tue lIeSn water canal,
owing to It's greater length, and to
tic fact that the speed with which it
could be traversed would necessarily
be lower than the rate practicable at
sea. On the other hand, the dues
imposed on sbipowners would be
much less than those needed to pay q
satisfactory dividend on the I.esscps
waterway. For the total cost of tie
fresh-water canal, az well "a of the
barrage and an extensive irrigation
| system, would fall short, it is compu-
tel, of sixty million dollars. Not on
1 ly would the original outlay be re-
latively moderate, but the receipts
from water rates-a source Of income
not possessed by the Suez Canal
would, it is believed, be large enough
to permit Of great reduction in the
/ tolls.
OF course Teyfk KheGive, if he
be n sagQcjous ruler. will prefer 70 SEQ