Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-11-22
4 SECOND surz CANAL.
4, Scheme ON the rnrtof the sublime
t'urte.

4 Scheme ON the rnrt'of the subiimo
rorir.
When the Sultan OF Turkey sent to
Cairu the ilrmun Investing the new
ruler OF Egypt AZ khedise, he took
co nsion 10 atlirm tho exclusive claim
OF Turkey 10 tho Slual penintula. No.
body has ever known clearly where
Egyptian territory In the desert OF
Sinai en- led or where Turkish dominion
began. The Bedouins VI the desert
my tribute TO neither power, aud, Ia
tact, the sovereignty OF the peninsula
is supposed TO bc about ~ worthless "a
possession as can be imagined. ManY
pcoplo wondered, therefore, why the
Porto should have gone out OF its way
10 advance lite clnim TO the peninsula.
The London Standard suggests that
an explanation may be fought Ia tho
negotiations which took place some
yeufe ago with fsspeci 10 the constrnc-
lion OF second suoz canal. At that
time the Lrsseps canal was ut the
height Of It's success. Trade was
brisk, fFolghls were high, and Their.
was every prospect that tho canal
wogid yield oven larger dividends
than Il had already declared. Ger
tain capitalists, among whom wefo n
few EngliShmen, but more Lovnniine
iinanclers, thought II would be a
mouey.mal;ing scheme 10 build another
canal through the desert Of Sinai
parallel 10 the Suca canal. There ate
no engineering difficulties In the way.
iIpfseps had proven the praciicnblllty
OF the Suez canal. The carrying out
Of n similar work was only aqncstion
OF money. Tho promoters estimated
that they could construct u canal with
larger carrying powers atfrom n fourth
| 10 third OF the outlny expended OF
the Original work. Tile only difficulty
WAS t. obtain permission for it, con.
T siruction, and with this object In view
they applied to tue Egyptian govern.
mcnt.
The proposal was ut first viewed IA
voTably by the khedive, Tewfik Pnsha,
aud hia ministers. Their ideh was
that Egypt M n state derived absolute.
~ no benofl, IRON the enormous traffic
passing daily across her territory.
rewiik was disposed 10 look kindly
upon project by which Egypt would
become partner In new canal, and
would be entitled 10 u large revenue
or bonus from the profits OF the enter.
prise. The only question was whether
Egypt hld the power 20 grant n con.
cession for n second canal parallel 10
the one Count dc Lesscps had built.
lt happened that when DE Lesseps
built the canal he had omitted TO insist
that no other water connection between
the two seas should be allowed through
Egyptian territory during tbs period
oi the concession. The matter was
finally submitted 10 the law officers OF
tho crown, who were wholly under
British influence, aud they decided
that while no specified monopoly was
given In the original concession the
exIstence OF such monopoly might be-
argued from the assumption that DE
Lo,neps would never have constructed
his canal II II had not been taken for
granted that, II his sp,cu lation proved
u success, u second canal should not
be allowed hlongside the first. Then
the project war dropped aud has not
since been heard OF,
The StuIdaI n inlimates that the Sui
tau desires TO obtain from Egypt an
admission that thv territory Ia question
IL part Of the pOrte's own domlnions,
and In this event he could either direct
~ or indirectly obtain u large pocuniary
consideration for the right lie would &C.
lube Of either permitting or lorbidding
the construction Of q competing Suez
canal,