The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-03-10
RAlnllr cnNeEsses s

| PARIS. March 9-Interess in the Pan
anna trial was revived to-day during the
testimony pf NJ. Bsihut. He had been ac-
cused of receiving repeated payments from
the Panama company to influence mem
bers of the chamber Of deputies in favor ot
| the Panama bill. He showed a dispos..
tion at first to throw the blame upon NJ,
Blondin, who acted as go-between in the
negotiations.
| NJ. Baihut said: 81 acted at the ins:iga-
| tlon of NJ Blondin, to whom l gave 100, 0OC
francs. had wished to restore the money
but feared thereby to accuse myself"
| At this point he broke down, and contin-
| ned in a broken voice: Il acknowledge
| having been led astray. am guilty. NV
| words express the grief and repentance
feel. do not yet understand how l could
nave fallen SO low. ask pardon OF my
| country. whose good name have perhaps
sullied"
As soon as NJ. Baihut regained his self
control, he said: Il submit in advance to
any sentence che court may pass upon me. "
NJ. Blondin denied that be had instigat-
ed NJ. Baihut to demand money for his
services.
for the Panama creditors and stated again
that NJ. Blondin had obtained commits
mission on the transactions between him
and NJ. de Lesseps.
In the midst of NJ. Baihut's statement
NJ. Fontaine spraug to his feet and shout
ed. That statement is il tissue of false
hoods. The witness has not spoken word
of truth"
Turning upon his accuser. NJ. Baihut
said slowly: 81 affirm that what l said is
the exact truth, and nothing but the
truth"
In examining NJ. San Leroy the judge
recalled that while member of the par
iiamentary committee on the lottery bill
the prisoner had opposed the canal
deputies. and asked, "Why, after voting
for report hostile to the bill, did you re-
verse your vote?"
There were three of US who favored
abandoning the blll," replied M. San
Leroy evasively. II was not aware when
| changed my opinion that the canal COM
pany would approach the deputies. never
spoke with the lobbyist Arton."
"Where did you get the 100000 francs
which you paid to the Credit Lyonnaise in
April, 1882"
''It was a reinvestment of a part of my
wife's dowry of 200. 900 francs"
Can you produce the deeds of the mar
riage settlement to prove thatv
Certainly"
why did you not explain this sooner"
81 wished to avoid having the indict-
ment against me thrown out. prefer to
be tried and acquitted"
Senator Beral was asked to explain why
he received 10000 francs from Baron de
Reinach. He said that 1t was for advice
concerning the Tunis railways. NJ. Beral
supported this statement with docu-
ment.
Deputy de La Faucennerie said that the
25, 600 francs given him by Baron de Rein
ach were part Of his profits as member
of one Of the guarantee syndicates. He
could produce no letter from Baron de
Reinach. however, to show this.
Ex-Deputy Gibron admitted having
cashed check drawn by Baron de Reinach
for 100000 francs, but denied that the
check was in any way connected with the
Panama lottery loan bill. He had never
seen Arton nor any other lobbyist, nor
ever met Charles de Lesseps before coming
to court Yesterday.
Deputy Antonine Proust said that the
200. 900 francs received by him from Baron
de Reinach constituted his share Of the
profits from the guarantee syndicate.