The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-03-11

.AAA wished the ordeal were
ANRR ~ over. Baihut was look
L-TN ~ ing especially distressed
~ 49, and anxious for the end.
FiOTy, the Govern
ment accountant, who had been appointed
TO examine the accounts of the Panama
Canal Company, was called upon to testify.
He repeated in main the figures and state
ments already given in the published re-
port. He established that the Panama
Canal Company expended los. .00O, 0O0 francs
In payment for newspaper advertising and
favorable notices in the newspapers and
other services connected with the general
putting of the enterprise. and that 55S, ,000-
600 francs. being less than half tie total
amount subscribed, had been expended in
actual operations on the canal. The present
assets amounted to 200, 600, 600 francs.
Ex-Deputy Chantagrel testified that
Souligon. a civil engineer. came to him
with an offer of $4,000 francs for his vote
on the lottery loan bill. When he declined
the bribe Souligon added that Charles de
Lesseps had authorized him to offer any
sum up to 100000 francs for Chantagrel's
vote. Chantagrel refused to accept the
100000 francs.
SGephenet. clerk for Propher, De
ANShHpSA4 baA NhVls ttoAllcH GulCtIulLEE Ills
experience with the list of conspicuous
men compromised by the Panama scandal
He received the list from De Reinach, and
after Reinach's death delivered it to
Clemenceau.
Deschamps, another witness, made a SEN
sation while testfying by remarking incl
dentaliy that he has been in constant COM
munication with Andrieux.
Charles FIOOnpt pran1 ar
President of the Chamber of Deputies. was
the next witness. He was nervous and
pale. Before examining him Judge Des-
iardine had Charles de Lesseps repeat his
testimony as TO the contribution of 10000
francs made at Floquet's request by the
Panama Canal Company to the fund for the
campaign against Boulanger in the Depart
ment du No5d.
To this Floquet replied: 81 repeat the
denial already made by me before the ex-
amning magistrate. De Lesseps in his
testimony has forgotten that l did not as
sumo Office until April 8. 1888, and that the
election took place on April -, voting on
the lottery loan bill on the 27th."
Nevertheless, we have proof that De
Reiusch sent out money under your Minis
try in 1885," interpolated Charles de Les
seps.
u do not understand what you mean, ;" re-
piled Foquet.
Loud protests came from the body of the
court at this and several persons shouted,
Tell the truth"
The presiding Judges call for order only
evoked more shouts and in the uproar he
threatened to have the court cleared. Both
De Lesseps and Floquet tried to make state
ments, but neither could be heard, and as
the din increased, Judge Desjardines or
dered the courtroom cleared, and amid per-
feet babel the audience was driven out by
the ushers.
When order was restored De Lesseps
reiterated, clearly and positively. his testi
mony and FloaueT admitted that he had
talked with De Lesseps concerning Rein
ach's suit.
Il know neither Reinach nor Cornelius
Herr. however" he Gdd ed, "and l am
amazed that they should make an incident
out Of this trife. l would be ready again
to DO what / then did. When l found the
Panama Canal Company setting aside large
sums for advertising, 1 naturally asked why
such aims should not go fill theexchequer Of
the republic"
Did you know the lobbyist, Arton ?"
Il saw him once OF twice." replied Flo
quet, but l had no regular relations with
him."
Clemeneeau, the next witness, denied
that Cornelius Herr secured, as testified by
De Lesseps. some thousands of francs for
the favor of La Justice toward the canal
company.
De Freycnet said II sent for Charles dc
Lesseps, and in the interest Of the public,
he having the same interest at heart [ adj
vised him to avoid a lawsuit with De
Reinach."
Asked to confirm or deny this statement,
De Lesseps said: 81 don't, and have not
disputed that De Freycinet spoke In the
interest of the public. 1t was in the same
interest that gave Reinach his millions"
To prove the statement that he had sup
ported the Panama canal enterprise from
the beginning. Clemenceau declared that
when Ferdinand and Charles de Lesseps
visited him in 1885 they came, lot in the
name Of Herr, as Charles do Les
seps now contended, but in the name
of NJ. Carnot, who advised them to
persuade the Deputies to back the under
taking. In this interview NJ. ClemenceGu
promised unreservedly TO support the COM
pany. NJ. Clemenceau quoted in corrobora-
ton of this statement several letters writ
ten subsequently, by Charles de Lesseps TO
NJ. Carnotand Others concerning NJ. Glenn
enceau's promise to help the company.
What kind of business man would De
Lesseps then have BEEN" exclaimed Glenn
enceau, ito 20 months afterward. as he
says he did, and pay to Herr large sum to
secure my favor9 When NJ. de Lesseps was
dlscounting bills for NJ. Herr the latter did
not own single share IN La JUSTICE
NJ. Ciemenceau next made sensation by
turning upon Barbour and accusing him of
having impaired to Figaro part of the
testimony given before Examining MagIs
trate Franquevlle. The lawyers looked
petrifed as Clemenceau almost shouted this
charge against him. He was too much
astounded 10 say word until Judge Des-
Jardines demanded an answer to Clemen-
ceau at once, and then he said lamely. 'I
will answer in time. l do not care to come
to blows with the Witness"
Clemenceau, while on the stand, turned
savagely upon Charles de Lesseps and chal
lenged him to contradict the statements he
was making. De Lesseps remained silent
however, except when Clemenceau was at.
tacking BaTboux. Then he nodded his
assent.
NJ. de Freycinet also several times dared
NJ. de Lesseps to contradict him, although
in the main he admitted the truth of NJ. de
Lesseps' accusations.
Henri BrssOn has resigned the presidency
oil the parliamentary commission of in
quTy.