The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-03-17
NJ. .BARBOUX'S ABLEPLEA
HIS DEFENSE OF DE LEsSEPS IN
THE GREAT PANAMA. TRIAL.
He Casts Aspersions Upon the Government
and Eloquentiy Demands the Ac-
quittaI of His Client.

PARIS. March i6.-M. Barboux. counsei
for Charles de Lesseps, summed up Tor
his client in the Panama trial to-day
He spoke at great length, always earnest
ly and often eloquently. At the beginning
Of the trial, he said, his case was so
strong that he was willing TO try 1t before
a Jury of Panama stockholders. and to-
day he again expressed the conviction that
he could secure Charles de Lesseps' ac-
quittal. The courtroom was well nlled
when he began TO speak and became
crowded before he closed. In opening MS
address, VI. Barbour said that the present
trial had been begun against the wishes
of the Panama stockholders, who. much
as they had been misrepresented. IN
reality had been opposed to the arraign-
ment in court of either Ferdinand or
Charles de Lesseps. The stockholders had
disapproved of the plan to place the bur-
den OF the Panama scandal upon men
bearing as great name as there was
in France They respected and trusted
Charles de Lesseps, and felt that the
prosecution of him was not only unjust
but a blow at the revival Of the canal
enterprise NJ. Barbour traced the history
of the Canal Company after 1883. All the
chambers OF commerce in France, he said,
had favored the completion or the canal,
after the work had been advanced to the
point at which II was tagging before the
last attempts TO raise a loan. The whole
commercial world that centered in Paris
wished that the undertaking be COM
pleted To complete It there was need
OF the Lottery Loan bill. and TO pass the
bill there was need OF submitting 10 the
demands OF NJ. Baihut and others like
him who stood ready to Kill the measure
If they were not conciated. The vacillat-
ing policies OF the successive ministries
were the first cause OF the scandal and
the present trial. NJ Baihut had realized
his official Iower over the fate OF the
Lottery Loan bill, and had known that
Charles de Lesseps' failure to comply with
his demands could be made TO accomplish
the ruin OF the Canal Company. After
he had shown his capacity for evil VI.
Baihut had informed Charles de Lesseps
that did he not receive an enormous sum
OF hush money he would defeat the bill
This event NJ. De Lesseps had known
would mean the ruin Of the Panama
shareholders, and 10 save from loss the
persons who had entrusted their all TO
the keeping Of the company, he had sub
mitted TO the eXtortion. The charges that
NJ. De Lesseps had wished to corrupt
everybody, had searched Paris for men.
upon whom he could lavish the money OF
the stockholders. had not been proved.
Why had Charles de Lesseps been Sc
lected TO bear the brunt OF the charges
OF bribery, when others known 10 pe
guilty had been untouchedF why had
not Bianchet, who was understood 10
! have sent a bribe to NJ. Boire. been
brought into court? Charges fully as
serious as those against De Lesseps mad
! been made against a dozen other men
but they either had been ignored or the
accused had been permitted 10 escape
NJ. Barbour analyZed the testimony or
ex- Deputy Chantagrel. who gave evidence
that VI. SoliGon. in the name OF Charies
| De Lesseps tried to buy his vote Tor
| 300 900 francs for the Lottery Loan bill.
| NJ Chantagrel's testimony. he said, had
been contradictory and inconsistent with
the dates mentioned by him, and ap-
| parently proceeded from defective
memory. The prosecution was bound TO
produce In court testimony connecting
the so-called br,be givers and bribe
takers This It had utterly failed 10 do.
The only three persons who could have
| supplied the missing evidence, although
not 10 the satisfaction OF the prosecution,
were Baron De Rein2ch. who was dead
| Cornelius Herr. who was absent on ac-
count Of illness, aal Arton. the lobbyist.
| the pretended search for whom had eX-
cited the laughter of all Europe.
VI. Clemenceau might have given some
conclusive testimony in this trial, but he
was restrained from doing so. rhe min
listers might have given fhe most vital in
formation. but they saw tt 10 withhold
II. Why had they not produced copies OF
the menacng telegram sent by Cornelius
Herr?
The advocate-general: "They are at
your disposal"
Judge Desjlrdins: Let them be pro-
duced in court tomorrow"
Continuing, NJ. Barbour asked why had
Cornelius Herr been permitted 10 fee the
country? Why had he not been seated
among the prisoners or at least named
among the accused? Merely because for
ten years he had been the broker Of the
Radical party. In this matter politics
had devoured both the men and their
millions When the Radicals held the
power OF government they had taken the
money they needed to defend their ideas
and ei rich their supporters. Whether
this were called mendacity, s-gving
or brigandage mattered little. But who
| could believe that the initiative in all
these transactions came from the men
who had 20 do with the paying instead
OF those who did the receiving The pay
ments made TO Baron De Reinach, NJ.
Barbour described as perfectly legitimate.
They were given. he said. according 70
| an agreement with the bankers constitut-
ing the guarantee syndicate Who would
be foolish enough to believe that such
large sums were intended for the insig-
niicant deputies and senators whom the
Jury had seen In the courtroom?
After the laughter following thss siur
had subslded. Judge Desjardins pleaded
fatigue as an excuse for adjournment Of
| the court.