Morning journal and courier., 1893-02-10
CHARGES PROVED.

Five Defendants in the Panama Pros cautions Found Guilty of Fraudu- lent Intentions, Acts and Conniv- ance, Breach of Trust, Misappropri- ation of Funds-The Several Sen- tences-Reasons for M. Rouvier,s AeaufttaI.
 PARIS. Feb. 9.-Expectations that the Panama trials would be announced brought
 eager crowds to the court of appeals build
 ing. The court room was packed to suffo-
 cation. Presiding Judge Perivier read the
 decision. Although the bases of the judg-
 ment were given in exceptionally minute
 detail the audience listened from first to
 last with intense interest. The charge of
 fraudulent proceedings against Ferdinand
 de Lesseps, Charles de Lesseps, Henry
 Cottu and Marius Fontsine was held to
 be proved. On this point the judgment
 referred to the company's methods in
 issuing loans. the mendscious official
 bulletins and the persistent putting done
 by the press at the instance of the
 directors. These practices the judgment
 stated when not directly originated or en-
 dorsed by the directors had been oonnived
 at by them. Ferdinand de Lesseps, aided
 and abetted by his son Charles, M. Cottu
 and M. Fontane had consistently concealed
 the operations of the canal company in
 order that the quotation of shares might not be affected unfsvorsbly. The directors had dealt with underwriting syndiostes
 which, as far as their utility was con- oernsd, were fictitious and were known to
 be fictitious. In underwriting loans these syndicAtes had taken upon themselves no risks, and yet they had received enormous sums from the company. The expenses necessarily attendant upon the issue of liabilities had been grossly exsggera- ted by the directors, and this exaggeration also constituted a fraudu- lent act The plea of the defence that de- spite these fraudulent acts the directors were not amensble because the loan es- pecially in question had not succeeded, the decision pronounced that worthless in view of the evidence that the directors had not scrupled to expose the capital of the oom- psny to the risks involved in the fresh is- sue, and even reiterated their promises to complete the canal with the proceeds of the loan. By article 40S of the code con corning breach of trust, 1t was not neoes- sary that the money should have been mis- appropriated or squandered or should have | 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 the sums paid to Baron de | Hugh Oberndoerfer and others | could not be regarded ss having been sub | scribed for the purpose to which they were | put.
 In dealing with Gustsve ElffePs breach | of trust, the decision said that NJ. Eiffel | had received 120, ,000, ,000 francs for the | of ten locks, and had prom ised to complete them by 1890 The evil | depce showed that he had not even pur- chased the specified materials necessary in | the construction of these locks; in fact, he had bought in France, all told, hut l ,263,- poo francs worth of materials. He had | furthermore, to fulfill the ob. igations be had undertaken, while in re- slity he was simply misappropristing the funds. In conclusion Judge Perivier read these sentences:
 Ferdinand de Lesseps, five yesrs' impris- onment and 5000 francs fine.
 Charles de Lesseps, five years imprison- nent and 1000 francs fine.
 Marius Fontaue, two yeers Imprisonment md 3, ,000 francs fine.
 Henry Cottu, two years imprisonment md 5000 francs fine.
 Gustave E'ffel, two years imprisonment md 20, 900 francs fine.
 Immediately after the reading of the M. Eiffel left the court room with his counsel, whom he has instructed o appeal to the High Court of Cessation. Charles de Lesseps and Msrius Fontane under arrest. Both looked hsg- gard and disheartened as they departed with Henry Cottu for the office of the pub io prosecutor.
 The chamber of indictments hes pub ished its reasons for throwing out the rue bill found by M. Franaueville against II. Rouvier. While admitting that N. 2ouvier received the Panama check for 70, ,000f. in 1888 from M. VIasto, the chamber held that no connection had been | established between the acceptance of the money and M. Rouvier's vote on the lot cry loan bill.
 At cabinet meeting to-day the minis ers discussed the proceedings of yesterday n the chamber of deputies The cabinet !dopte1 the view that the incidents were he result of temporary confusion, and the members agreed to stand or fall together, 1 md to explain their attitude fully to the louae at the first opportunity.