The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-02-10
THE PANAMA VERDICT.
Ferdinand de Lesseps Sentenced to Five
Years Imprisonment,

Years Imprisonment.
PARIS, Feb. 9.-The Panama sentences
have been delivered NJ. Ferdinand de
Lesseps is sentenced to Imprisonment for
five years and to pay fiue of 5000 francs;
NJ. Charles de Lesseps is sentenced to i'm
prisOnment for five years and TO pay fine
of 5000 francs; NJ. Marius Fontaine and
NJ. Cottu are each sentenced to imprison-
ment for two years and to pay fine of
5000 francs each; NJ. Eiffel is sentenced to
Imprisonment for two years and to pay a
fine of 10000 francs. These sentences
caused a profound sensation, especially
that of NJ. Ferdinand de Lesseps The
Judgment finds the defendants guilty Of
swindling and breach of trust.
The expectation that the sentences of
the prisoners in the Panama trial would
be delivered this afternoon brought an
eager crowd to the court of appeals. Five
minutes after the doors were thrown open
the room was packed to suffocation. The
presiding judge, NJ. Pervier, read the de-
cision, after having dismissed the prison.
ers' Plea that they should benefit by the
statute of limitations. Although the basis
of the judgments was given in exception
ally minute detail, the audience listened
from first to last with an oppressive in
tensity of interest.
The charge of fraudulent proceedings
against Ferdinand de Lesseps Charles
de Lesseps, X. c. Cottu, and Marus Fon-
taine was held to be proved. On this point
the Judgment referred to the company's
methods in issuing loans, neudacious
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 in
dorsed by the directors. had been connived
at by them. Ferdinand de Lesseps, aided
and abetted by his son, Charles, NJ. Cottu
and NJ. Fontaine had persistently concealed
the operations Of the canal company, in
order that the quotations of the shares
might not be affected unfavorably. The
directors had dealt with underwriting
syndicates, which, so far as their reliability
was concerned, 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 neces-
sHrily attendant upon the issue OF the
loans had been grossly exaggerated by the
directors, and this exaggeration also con-
stituted fraudulent act.
The plea of the defense that, despite
these fraudulent acts, the directors were
not amenabie because a loan especially in
question had not succeeded, the decision
pronounced worthless, in view of the evi-
dence that the directors had not scrupled
to expose the capital of the company to
the risks involved in fresh issue, aud
even reiterated their promises to omplete
the canal with the proceeds of the loan.
BY the article concerning breach of trust,
1t Is not necessary that the money should
nave been msappropriated or squandered,
or should have benefited the directors in
order that they might be found guilty.
their fraudulent intent was the same
whether or not their purpose was carried
out. This bent WAS proved by the fact that
the sums paid to Baron de Reinach, Hugo
Oberndoerfer aud others could not be re-
garded as having been subscribed for the
purposes to which they were put.
In dealing with Gustave Eiffefs breach
of trust, the decision said that Fiffel had
received 120, coo 90 francs for the construc-
ton of ten locks. and had promised to
complete them by 1890 Tht evidences had
shown that he had not even purchased the
specified materials necessary in the cou-
strucrion Of those lock-; he had bought
but /, Z23 600 francs worth of material He
had pretended furthermore to fulfill the
obligations he had undertaken. while in
reality, lie was simply misappropriating
the funds.
The sentencing OF the prisoners caused /
the utmost CONSERVATION. Charles de /
Lesseps was calm during Lhe recital Of the /.
decision, but burst into tears when he /
heard the sentence passed uDOn his father
". FOntaIne was prostrated. Charles de .
Lesseps sent telegram luformiuZ .
Madam de LsssepS ot the result She will (
probably not communicate the news 10 .
her husband unless compelled to do so. :
The general belief Is that the sentence +
Will never be executed against him.
The complete absence OF sympathy for .
Charles de Les~eps il especially note
worthy. The popular verdict seems u BE- .
that be has paiG the peBaIiv Tor Withhold {
ing the names of The roya.ist deputies who T
are implicated IA tbe Panama bribery.
Tie worst phase ot the situation i, that .
the Sentences GIvs failed TO clspei tie .
fears a1d doubts Of the people aS 10 she
honesty OF the governments intentions.
The contrast between the treatment &C
corded 10 II. Rouvisr and that 10 which
the directors Las been subjected, i t6e
cause Of much bitter c4it3-ism-
I'm Immediately after she reading G. the
sentences N EifeI lef. the court room
with bis counsel. whom he lad a-.ructp1
10 appeal TO a higher court. Charles de
I.-sseps and u. FoutsiBe remained under
arrest. Both looked hagzard aud dis
hesrjeDed a. they deps.ieG with Henry
Cottu loE The Office oi t4s p1o..c Pro5c-
catoy.
TIE chamber of indictments bss had
Published ~ reasons for throwing out tie
true bill found Is ~ FTsuqueFlie against
- RouyieT. ]E hiis admitting taat n +
Rouvler recs.yra n P4aaDs cheek Tor
81. go francs from IL Waste the cbtEn'ssT
lr.4 thai no connection rad beea rS.stb-
i5sbed hesw zen tne accep epiance Cf tie
mogey anf Il. Rouyisr's vote ca the lot
terry ioan r.la.
Tie ministers today discussed The pro
seedlings q yesterday 80 toe cham2er q
3rpat.e>- IAe cabinet sslogted tae ge.F
Eat LAe incidents were the result OF tenn
o5Esvy contussoa. aud { le mem oess aSr-ss-
10 stsG4 81 fiji tl-.etarr. sua - expta4a
.helg HttitEde tully 10 tie A1Gse - tEe
1gSt opportunity 1heer i 4 consensus -
public opinion % The e1ect that tie -ov.
srnTneUt EEs met a n1oEs. revere - sac
decision % tie casu9sg - deputies 70