The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-12
ALFEs NOTHING LAMPRE IS QUESTIONED
Old Company's Indebtedness
 was 500, ,O0O, 900 Francs.
The New Concern Has Paid to Colom- bia ls,ooo, ,ooo for Concessions. French Government Has
 Not Been Consulted.

Washington, Jan. 11.-EdoIdard Lam- ore, representing the Panama Canal Company. appeared before the Senate Committee on Inter-oceanic Canals to- day in obedience to the summons of that committee. to testify concerning the af- fairs of his company. and its proffer to sell It's property and franchise to the United States. Jules Boeufve of the French Embassy. also was present at the hearing. The meeting was held behind closed doors.
 M. Lampre said that his mission to the United States had been to ascertain to whom the proposition for the sale of the Panamaa property should be made. Hav- ing informed himself upon this point. he had conferred with Admiral Walker, chairman of the Isthmian Canal Commits sion, as to the form of the offer. He had then cabled to his principals. the result being that the offer to sell for $a0.W0.Oo0 had been made directly from Paris. He said that the proposal included both the franchises and the property of the Pan- anna Company but not the money in It's treasury.
 M. Lampre was questioned and partic- ularly concerning the title of the present Panama Canal Company. He replied that the present owners had made their pur- chase through the liquidator of the old company and that the transfer was reg uIar. In response to other questions, he had said in case transaction should be consummated, the money would be dis tributed among the members of the orig inai company and those of the present
 rfNt xif.f1 Ia aa3d that the proffer of his company had been in good faith.
 In response to inquiries, M. Lampre aontended that. the company had q per f. sf right to seH tho property 3nd that tos do so would not infringe upon the rights of any one Senator Morgan ask ed what the corporation had been organ ized for, and the witness replied that the purpose was to build canal. The Sena- tor then asked whether an attempt to sell the canal was not proceeding in bad faith. M. Lampre maintained that 1t was not. He also said that the American Panama Canal Company had been or ganized in New Jersey for the purpose of disposing of the property in this coun- try if possible.
 "As 6 matter of fact" said Mir. Nor gan, you appear to have had the canal on the bargain counter ever since the company was organized"
 The witness protested to the contrary. The company had abandoned all idea of sea level canal. The French law. he said, could not prevent the transfer of the canal to the United States. as the canal company was independent.
 The fact was developed at the hearing that the bonded indebtedness of the old company was sOO.OOO,oOO francs, and also that since the new company had come into control it had paid 100000 francs to the Colombian Government for con- sessions. It was also shown that theA lease from that Government was for ninety-nfne years, and that at the end of that time the property would revert to Colombia.
 M. Boeufve was asked whether the proposition to sell the canal for $40, 0,000. 600 had been made with the authority of the French Government. He said the Gov ernment had no connection with the transaction.