The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-05-15
n SLCOND SCFZ CANAL,
The Unsuccessful Scheme for Parallelinr
Iesseps's Ditch.

When the Sultan of Turkey sent to Cairo the
frman investing the new ruler OF Egypt as
khcdivo. he took occasion to affirm tho exclu-
sive claim Of Turkey to the Sinai peninsula
Nobody has ever known very clearly whore
Egyptian territory in the desert of Sinai ended
or whore Turkish dominion began. The Bed
ouins OF tho desert pay tribute to neither
power. and in fac. the sovereignty OF tho Pc
ninsula is supposed to be about as worthless
possession as can be imagineds Many peo-
pie wondered. therefore why the Porte should
have gone out of its way to advance its claim
to the peninsula.
The London Standard suggests that an ex-
PLANTATION may be sought in the negotiations
which took place some years ago with respect
to tho construction of q second Suez canal. At
that time the Lesseps cana, was at the height
of its success. Trade was brisk. freiChts were
high. and there was every prospect that the
canal would yield even larger dividends than
it had already declared. Certain capitalists,
among whom We're few Englishmcn. but
more Levantinc fnanciers thought it would
be n moneymaking scheme to build another
canal through the desert OF Sinai parallel to
the Suez Canal: There arc no engineering
the practicabilty % tho Suez Canal Tine c,fr-.
ton Of HE TG Ms s tSat
they could construct 4 canal with larger car
rylnG powers ut n fourth to n third OF the out
lay expended on tho original work Tho only
difficulty was TO obtain permission for its con-
struction. and with this object in view they
applied to the Egyptian Government.
The prorosal was at first viewed favorabiy
by the khcdiye. Tcwiik Pa -ha. and his Minis
tiers. Their idea was that Egypt rs State
derived Il Lsolutely no benefit from the enOr-
nous traffic passing daily across her territo-
ry. Tewilk was disposed TO look kindly upon
n project by which Egypt would becoms a
partner in new canal and would be entitled
to large revenue or bonus from tho profits
Of the enterprise. Tho only question was
whether Egypt had the power to grant con-
cession for a second canal parallel to the one
Count dc Lcsscps had built.
1t happened that whom Lesseps built the |
canal ho had omitted to insist that no other
water connection between the two seas should |
be allowed through Egyptian territory during |
the period Of the concession. Tho matter was |
finally submitted to tho law officers, Of the |
Crown. who were wholly under British influ- |
nnce. and they decided that while no specified |
was given in the original conccs-
sion. the existence Of such u monopoly might |
BIO argued from the assumption that Lesseps |
would never have constructed his canal IL It |
had not been takcn for granted that. il his |
speculation proved success. a second canal |
l,hcn the project was dropped aud has not |
since been heard Of
The Standard intimates TINT the Sultan de- |
'ires to obtain from Egypt an admission that |
he territory in question IL part OF the Porte's |
,wn dominiOns. and IN this event he could |
either directly or indirectly obtain a large |
'ecuniary consideration Tor the right he would |
lcGuire Of either permitting or forbidding the |
construction OF II competing SueZ canal.