St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-02-10

of appeals building before II o'clock
this morning. The approaches to the
court were filled to the last niche by
noon, and five minutes after the doors
were thrown open the room was packed
to SutfOcation.
Presiding Judge Perivier read the de-
cison after having dismissed the pris-
onerS' plea that they should benefit bv
the statute of limitations. Althoug h
the
Basis Of the Judgments
were given in exceptionally minute de-
tail, the audience listened from first to
last with oppressive intensity of inter
est. The charge of fraudulent proceed
ings against Ferdinand de Lesseps,
Henry Cottu and Marcus Fontaine was
held to be proved. On this point the
Judgment referred to the company's
methods in issuing loans. and tile per
sistent putting done by the press at the
instance of the directors. These prac-
tees. the Judgment stated, when not
directly originated or indOrScd by the
directors. mad been cOnnived at by
them. Ferdinand de Lesseps. aided
and abetted by his son Charles, NJ
OOS0u N'iA ~ LOlIIulIO, iIttu
ly concealed the operations of the canal
company IN order that the gu citation of
shares might not be affected unfayor-
ably.
The directors had dealt with the
underwriting syndicates, which. as far
as their utility was concerned, were
fictitious and were known to be fictiti-
Gus. In underwriting loans these syn
dlcateS had taken upon themselves no
risks and yet they had received enor-
nous sums from the company. The
expenses necessarily attendant upon
the issue of loans had been grossly ex-
aggerated by the directors, and this ex-
ag5eration also constituted
A Fraudulent Act.
The plea of the defense, that, despite
these fraudulent acts, the directors
were not amenable because the loan
especially in question had not succeed
ed, the decision pronounced worthless
i'll view of the evidence that the direc-
tors had not Scrupled to expose the
capital OF the company to the risks i'll
vOlved in the fresh issue, and even re-
lterated their promises to complete the
canal with the proceeds Of the loan. By
article 40S of the code. concerning breach
of trust, it was not necessary that the
money should have been misappro-
priated or SQuandered, or should have
benefited the directors in order that they
be found guilty. Their fraudulent intent
was the same whether or not their
purpose was carried out. This intent
was proved by the fact that sums paid
10 Baron de Reinach, Hugo Obern-
doerffer and others could not be re-
gardod as having been subscribed for
the purposes to which they were put.
In dealing with GuStaVe EifTel'S
breach Of trust, the decision held that
NJ. Eiffel had received 5000, 900 francs
for the construction of ten locks, and
had promised TO complete them by 1890.
The Evidence
had shown that he had not even pur-
chased the specified materials necessary
in the construction Of. the locks; in
fact, ne had bought in France. all told,
but !, 223, 900 francs worth of materials.
He had failed, Furthermore. to fulfill
the obligations lie had undertaken,
while in reality he was Sinpiy misap-
propriating' the funds. In conclusion
Judge Perivaer read the sentences.
Immediately after the reading of the
sentences, NJ. Eiffel left the court room
with his counsel, whom he had in
structed to appeal to the high court of
cessation. Charles de Lesseps and
Marcus Fontaine remained under ar
rest. Both. looked haggard and dis
hearted as they departed with Henry
Cottu for the Office of the public prose-
cutor.
The chamber of indictments has had
published its reasons for throwing out
the true bill found by NJ. Franqueville
against NJ. Rouvier. While admitting
that Nj. ROuvier received the Panama
check for 80, 900 francs in 1888 from NJ.
Vlasto, the chamber held that no con-
nection had been established between
the acceptance of the money and M.
Rouvier's vote on the lottery loan bill.
Felt for his Fathar.
Charles de Lesseps was calm during
the recital of the decision, but burst
into tears when he heard the sentence
passed upon his father NJ. Fontane
was Frustrated. Charles de Lesseps
sent telegram to La CheSnaye, in
forming Nine. de LeSSeps of the result
of the trial. Nine. de Lesseps prob
ably will not communicate the
news to her husband unless COM
PEELED by circumstances to do So
The general belief is that a sentence
will never be executed against him.
The fines imposed were the utmost pen
atty, but they will not prevent action at
law to recover the money squandered.
The only possible appeal from the de-
cision given today is one of the court Of
cessation for the revision of the sent
enee. If any legal law can be found in
that trial such an appeal will undoubt-
edly be taken in each case.
The excitement caused by the an
nouncement OF the sentences in the
parliamentary IobbieS on the streets