1190                         FOREIGN     RELATIONS.,

  recommended rules for ascertaining the net tonnage from the gross. In consideration
  of the small return the company had yet received from its investment, they
recom-
  mended a surtax over and above the 10 francs per net ton. This surtax,
which varies
  with various classes of vessels, is to be diminished by half a franc as
soon as the ton-
  nage of vessels passing the canal shall reach 2,100,000 toils in a year,
and every addi-
  tional increase of 100,000 tons per annum is to be followed by a deduction
of half a
  franc until such tonnage shall reach 2,000,000 ions, when the surtax is
to cease al-
  together, and the original tax of 10 francs per ton remain permanently
as the toll.
  This does not. on the face of it appear hard-dwiling with the company.
The Porte,
  though it does in the exercise of its acknowledIged authority define the
ton on which
  the charge is to be made, deals justly and, as we conceive, liberally with
the company.
  Even M. Rumeau makes no protest, but appends his name with the rest. The
real
  grievance of the company lies, not in this decision, but in the unfortunate
fact that,
  financially, the canal has been far from successful. The shareholders have
conferred
  great benefits on the world to their own loss, sometimes almost to their
ruin. This
  circumstance necessarily affects the acts of the company's managers, and
its influence
  may be discerned in the present instance.



                                  [Inclosure 7 in No. 193.]
                          [From the London ]Wail of April 24, 1-874.]

                                THE SUEZ CANAL.
                              [From our own correspondent.]
                                                        CONSTANTINOPLE, April
17.
   M. de Lesseps has at last, after a few interlocutory negotiations, made
his final
 declaration, which is, that rather than submit to the decision of the Porte,
founded on
 the conclusions of the international commission, ho will suppress the navigation
of
 the canal by withdrawing his pilots and extinguishing his lights and signals;
in other
 words, he will close the canal., This is a bold declaration, and resembles
the throwing
 down of his last card, if, indeed, M. de Lesseps is in earnest and not playing
the game
 of "brag."  This threat, if carried out, simply entails the forfeiture
of the concession;
 and although M. de Lesseps affects to believe that "11la compagnie,
c'est moi," yet it is
 incredible that he should venture on such a step without the authority of
the share-
 holders. It is not, therefore, improbable that this declaration is a mere
menace, which,
 he more than once before has repeated. On a certain occasion, at an interview
with
 a grand vizier, M. de Lesseps astonished the Porte and the foreign powers
by saying
 that if they interfered with his pretensions he would put chains across
the two en-'
 trances of the canal and sink every ship that dared to navigate his waters.
   Before making the above portentous threat M. de Lesseps might have reflected
that
it could do no good. The verdict of the international commission as to the
principle on
which the tolls should be levied wa, s unanimous. Even the French delegates,
one of
whom was the nominee of MA. de Lesseps, acceded to the general view of the
commis-
sion. The Porte thereupon undertook a solemn engagement that the dues should
be
levied on the principle laid down, and cannot therefore surrender its decisions,
which
France and the other powers assisted in forming.
  Under these circumstances the Porte has only one course to pursue, and
the Khe-
dive it is understood will be instructed, should M. de Lesseps attempt to
carry out his
threat, to take possession of the canal and secure its free navigation. In
the interest
of the company, however, it is to be hoped that M. de Lesseps will not drive
the Porte
to this extreme course of proceeding, which would be in fact the death of
the com-
pany. As to the fact of the canal continuing its ultimate operations there
can be no
doubt. If the company should be destroyed by M. de Lesseps, the canal would
never-
theless be maintained; in other words, the suicide of the company would never
pro-
duce the death of the cana'.
  But let me consider for one moment how far M. de Lesseps has any right
to com-
plain of the treatment the company has received at the hands of the Porte
and the
international commission. The company is entitled by its charter to levy
a tax of 10
francs per ton on a11l shipping passing through the canal. This tax was at
first levied
on the tonnage of ships as stated on their official papers. This system,
however, did
not produce an adequate dividend to the shareholders. It was competent then
for MA.
de Lesseps to apply, as in fact he did, for permission to increase the toll.
But subse-
quently he preferred to take another course, and invented a new tonnage upon
which
he insisted on levying his toll. This system was disputed; he consequently
appealed
to the Porte whether he was right, or not. He demanded from the Porte their
inter-
pretation of the terms of his concession, and engaged to abidle by their
decision. The
Porte a ccepted this office. They stated that the toll lexilabie wvas tha
ot on the availablhe
space for cargo, in other words, ":net tonnage ;" and desiring
to ascertain practically,