The herald., 1893-02-10
FRENCH JUSTICE METED OUT.
The Panama Canal Directors
Sentenced.
Imprisonment and q Fine Inflicted
in Each Case.
The Two De Lesseps Sent Up for Five
Years-Fontane, Cottu and
Eiffel Let or with
Two Years.
By the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
PARIS, Feb. 9.--The expectation that
the sentence of the prisoners in the
Panama trial would be delivered this
afternoon brought an eager crowd to the
court of appeals building, and five min
utes after the doors were thrown open
the room was packed to suffocation.
Presiding Judge Perivier read the de-
cision after having dismissed the pris-
oners' plea that they should benefit by
the statute of limitations.
The charge of fraudulent proceedings
against Ferdinend de Lesseps, Charles
de Lesseps, Henry Cottu and Marius
Fontaine was held to be proved. On
this point the judgment referred to the
company's methods in issuing loans,
mendacious official bulletins and the
persistent putting done by the
press at the instance of the directors.
Ferdinand de Lesseps, aided and abetted
by his son Charles, M. Cottu and M.
Fontane, persistently concealed the
operations OF the canal company in
order that the quotations of shares
might not be affected unfavorably. The
directors dealt with underwriting syndi-
Gates, which, as far as their utility was
concerned, were fictitious and known to
be fictitious. The expenses necessarily
attendant upon the issue of loans were
grossly exaggerated by the directors,
which also constituted fraudulent act.
The plea of the defense that despite
their fraudulent acts, the directors were
not amenable because the loan especial
ly in question had not succeeded, the de-
cision pronounced worthless in view of
the evidence that the directors had not
scrupled to expose the capital of the
company to the risks involved in fresh
issue, and even reiterate their promises
to complete the canal with the proceeds
of the loan. Their fraudulent intent
was the same, whether or not the pur-
pose was carried out. The intent
was proved by the fact that the sums
paid Baron de Reinach, Hugo Obern-
doerffer and others could not be re-
garded as having been subscribed for
the purpose to which they were put.
In dealing with Guatave Eifel's
breach of trust the decision said Eiffel
received 125. 100000 francs for the con-
struction of 10 locks. and 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. He
had pretended. furthermore, to fulfill
the obligation he had undertaken, while
in reality he was simply misappropriat-
ing funds.
In conclusion, Judge Perivier read
these sentences:
Ferdinand de Lesseps, five years. i'm
priscnment and 5000 francs fine.
Charles de Lesseps, five years. impris.
onment and 5000 francs fine.
M. Fontane, two years imprisonment
and 5000 francs fine.
Henry Cottu, two years. imprisonment
and 5000 francs fine.
Gustav Eiffel, three years. impriaon-
ment and $1,000 francs fine.
Immediately after the reading of the
sentences, Eiffel left the court room with
his counsel, whom he instructed to app
peal to the high court of cessation.
Charles de Lesseps and Marius Fon-
tame remained under arrest. Both
looked haggard and diaheartened as they
departed, with Henry Cottu, for the Of
fee of the public prosecutor.
The sentencing of the prisoners caused
the utmost CONSERVATION. Charles de
Lesseps was calm during the recital ot
the decision but burst into teara when
he heard sentence passed upon mis-
father. M. Fontane WAS prostrated.
Charles de Lesssps telegrsphed inform
ing Madame de LesEeps OF the result OF
the trial. i.r<
The general belief is that the sentence
will never be executed against Count
de Lesseps. The fines imposed were tie
utmost legal penalty, but they will not
prevent action OF law TO recover the
money squandered, The only possible
appeal from the decision given today Ia
| one of the court OF cessation for re-
vision of the sentence.
The excitement caused by the an
nouncement OF the sentences in the par
liamentary lobbies, on the streets and in
the cafes surpassed anything Of the kind
since the opening OF the Panama in
vestigation. The worst feature of the
situation is that the sentences failed to
dispel the suspicious and doubts of the
people as to the honesty of the gov
ernment'H intentions. The contrast
between the treatment accorded Rou-
vier and that to which the directors
were subjected is subject of much bit
ter criticism. While the heavy sem
tences have vindicated the administra-
ton of Justice, they have failed TO re.
store confidence in the political world.
This evening the houses of the con-
victed directors were thronged with
sympsthizing visitors and journalists.
The chamber of indictments has pub.
lished Its reasons for throwing out the
true bill found by M. FranQueville
against M. Rouvier. While admitting
the M. Rouuier received Panama
check for $4,000 francs, in 1888. from
M. Vlasto, the chamber held that no
connection had been established be-
| tween his acceptance OF the money and
M. Rouvier's vote on the lottery loan
bill.
A duel was fought today between M,
Norbert de Benoit, deputy from Avery
ron, and M. Marie Emile, deputy from
| st. Denis, in consequence of remarks
made by Goussol in the chamber oi
! deputies yesterday. Benoit proved him.
self the better swordsman and succeeded
In wounding his opponent.
A CRY OF FIRE