10 T H E C U B A R E \' I E W" 



THE PORTS COMPANY ANNULMENT 



ENGLISH 1N\EST0RS \"ERY MUCH DISTURBED OVER THE MATTER 



OPINIONS OF THE LONDON PRESS 



The Daily Express comments as follows : 



"The Cuban government, it will be remembered, recently took the remarkable step _ot 

 appointing an otEcial appraiser to value the company's concession prior to its expropria- 

 tion. The authorities allege that the sum expended by the company on the development 

 of its property is less than originally stipulated, and that in these circumstances the 

 agreement must be canceled. This action has naturally created the suspicion that the 

 government is trvnng by any means in its power to secure control of the port." 



It says further: "Everybody would be prepared to suspend judgment during the presen- 

 tation of its case,, and to listen to it when presented, but it will be a hopeless day for 

 Cuba in the world's markets if she should start upon a policy of confiscation without the 

 very fullest justification. And it must not be forgotten that there have been other in- 

 stances recently of an impleasant nature. The bill recently introduced into the Senate, 

 and not proceeded with at the time owing to the dissolution, simply provided for annulling 

 the concession and repaying to the Ports Company the cash value of work actually 

 performed ! The assertion seems to be that the monopoly was obtained by corruption, 

 and a complete investigation was demanded. If this is the assertion, what of the position 

 of innocent bondholders and shareholders, induced the more readily to support the con- 

 cern by the attitude of the government in the matter of receipts? There is an ugly and 

 dirt\' appearance about the business which requires much explanation, and we still hope 

 that the Cuban government is not going to blacken its hands irretrievably in this un- 

 pleasant business."' 



The Pall Mall Gasette calls the annulment "a confiscation policy" and says : "We need 

 hardly say that the government will eventualh' have to make out a strong case if it is 

 to do anything in the way of confiscating concessions already granted." 



"The concession was originally granted by a Ministrv- belonging to the opponents of 

 the existing government, and, therefore, is regarded as coming from a tainted source. 

 But the legaUtj- and regularity" of the concession have at least twice before been contested 

 and proved in the Cuban courts. In these circumstances, it would seem improbable that 

 the company can be deprived of their rights as a bona-fide matter of law,'' says the 

 Financier and Bullionist. 



The Pall Mall Gazette in a later issue declared : "It seems an amazing thing that, after 

 revenues have been collected and dues appropriated under the concession by the govern- 

 ment, the latter should now turn round and repudiate the bargains of its predecessors in 

 office. But it is also necessary to know why Cuban Ports interests on this side have 

 pooh-poohed the rumors about government action, especially in connection with the 

 recently-introduced bill, seeing that there was evidently strong foundation for the rumors 

 of hostility. We hope that this is not indicative of earlier business methods in connection 

 with the concession. * * * The Cuban government is not one to be entrusted directly 

 or indirectly with British capital." 



"The raising of contentious issues at this early period suggests that the authorities in 

 Cuba are anxious to regain possession of the port, but they can scarcely do this without 

 giving the company substantial compensation." is the opinion of the Financial Times. 

 This journal also beUeves "that, in the event of the Cuban government proceeding to 

 extremes, assistance will be derived from the L^nited States authorities in securing fair 

 play for the company." 



The London Standard expects "an official statement to be issued by the Ports Company 

 shortly, but in the meantime it is stated that all steps are being taken to protect the 

 interests of the stock and bond holders." 



The Stock Exchange Gazette takes the same view. It says : "The company is 'under 

 the jurisdiction of the United States. An appeal will, if necessary, be made in due 

 course by the board to the authorities at Washington, and if the property is to be ex- 

 propriated, it will be necessan.- to call upon President Wilson to see that fair compensa- 

 tion is given to the company. Even so. however, the position will be unsatisfactory, 

 for the concession was granted for a period of thirt\- years, of which less than two have 

 so far elapsed. A large amount of capital expenditure has been undertaken which has 

 not yet become remunerative, and is scarcely likely to be taken at its par value for 

 purposes of an official appraisement. The probabilitj- is, therefore, that the company will 

 lose hea-vily by the transfer of it-« assets ;.t this juncture ; in fact, the whole of the "share 



