Viewing page 24 of 31

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[two column page]]

[[begin column]]

It has been preparing for that in two ways. The company has used its excess earnings to repurchase its ordinary and regular capital shares by paying holders of such shares the par value and giving them, in addition, new certificates of beneficial interest in lieu of their shares.

The company has also been putting its accumulated earning in a new investment company that has procured large blocks of securities in France, England and elsewhere.

The original capital of the company was 400,000 shares of 500 francs par value. In the 1924 capital reorganization of the company, the original capital was split., two for one, and the par value of the shares was reduced simultaneously to 250 gold francs, which amounts to about U.S. $81.67 per share, based on present gold prices.

Of the 800,000 split shares, more than half have been repurchased. It was reported that in January, 1956, the capital shares of the company were represented in 378,768 of the original shares outstanding, and 421,232 of the certificates of beneficial interest.

Holders of the regular shares receive an interest payment of five per cent annually, or about ($4) a share, plus a dividend paid out of earnings. Holders of the certificates are not entitled to regular 5 per cent, but they have the same claim on the dividend payable from earnings as regular shares. Based on 1955 profits, the 1956 dividend is expected to be about $27 a share.

The British government holds 353,504 shares of the two types of stock, which is equal to 44 per cent. It is also estimated that, France has about 348,200 shares,
[[end column]]
[[start column]]

[[image - black & white photograph of President Sukarno of Indonesia with a group of people]]
[[photograph credit - Embassy of Indonesia]] 
[[caption]] President Sukarno of Indonesia, here seen with fellow- citizens in New York City during his recentvisit to the United States, has endorsed the nationalization of Suez Canal Company of Egypt. Heads of many other Moslem states have supported the Cairo action. [[/caption]]
 
and the balance is scattered around the world.

The total assets of the company appeared on the balance sheet of December 1955 at $240 million; cash securities, investments and real estate holdings amounted to about $131 million.

THE CANAL AND BRITISH OCCUPATION

Great Britain had its designs on Egypt long before the Suez Canal came into being. The assured success of this important waterway only stimulated British interest in Egypt-a much coveted prize during the last century.

To achieve their object, the British resorted to all kinds of intrigues, instigations and various incidents which they used as a pretext for their military intervention and subsequent occupation of Egypt in 1882.

It is of high interest to note in this connection that the British were the first to violate the neutrality of the canal which, up to then, had been respected. The canal was used by the British as a
[[end column]]

46   MOSLEM WORLD & THE U.S.A.

[[end page]]
[[start page]]
[[start column 1 of 2]]

base for their operations against Orabi's† troops, and later as a permanent British military base. This was in contrast with the action of Orabi ,who out of respect for the neutrality of the canal, had already turned down his general's advice to destroy the waterway as a precautionary defensive measure against the British invader. He was led by the self-centered de Lesseps to believe that the British would likewise respects the neutrality of the canal. As subsequent events proved, the was grossly misled by that belief.

By blocking the approach to the Suez Canal during the last two Worlds Wars, the British denied in effect enemy shipping the use of the canal.

Small wonder that in recalling these poignant historical facts, the Egyptians always associate the canal in their minds with foreign economic exploitation and political domination.

Neutrality of the Canal and Freedom
            of Navigation

The idea of the neutrality of the Suez Canal has always been deeply rooted in the minds of Egyptians. The act of concession of 1856 stipulated that "....the Grands Maritime Canal from Suez to Pelusium and the parts appertaining thereto, shall always remain open as a neutral passage to every merchant ship crossing from one sea to another, without any distinction, exclusion or preference of persons or nationalities...."

Navigation through the canal continued without any complication or interruption from its inception until the occupation of Egypt by the British, and their use
[[end column]]
[[start column]]

 of the canal as a military base.

To ensure free navigation in the canal and allay the maritime nations' fears aroused by Britain's violation of the neutrality of the canal and her subsequent occupation of Egypt, the Suez Canal Convention was signed at Constantinople on October 29, 1888.††
The first article of the convention reads: "The Suez Canal shall always be free and open in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or war, without distinction of flag. Consequently the High Contracting Parties agreed not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal in time of war as in time of peace."

Egypt was made to responsible for the execution of this convention. Article Nine reads: "The Egyptian Government shall, within the limits of its powers resulting from the Firmans and under conditions provided for in the present Treaty, take the necessary measure for insuring the execution of the said Treaty."

It should be pointed out here that the question of the canal's neutrality and navigation is a different subject from the question of its administration and maintenance. The canal and will always be an integral part of Egypt. This has been clearly affirmed in all international treaties, the last being the 1954 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. Article Eight of this treaty recognizes the canal as an integral part of Egypt and reiterates the freedom of navigation in the canal as enunciated in the 1888 Convention. The article reads: "The two contracting Governments recognize that the Suez Maritime Canal,

[[end column]]

† Orabi, Ahmed, Egyptian commander who led his troops against British. 
†† Parties to the 1888 Convention were Greece, Britain, France, Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Turkey and The Netherlands.

OCT.-NOV.-DEC.1956                47