New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-10-26
rights and remedies OF those interested. and not
sufficiently ike a bankruptcy law.
rrror-r n nrnr Dc GID rrrc,.r r-n rNrprc

rights and remedies OF those interested. and not
sufficiently like a bankruptcy law.
/ WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEBTS.
AS 10 the proposition that the United States
would be subject 70 the debts and claims OF the
| stockholders and bondholders and other cred
itors of both Of the companies. the opinion says:
As a general proposition, it is not perceived
how there could be any law or equity for sub
jecting a purchaser Of an article sold assets
OF failing partnership tsuch as the old COM
pany) 10 the debts of the partnership. II such
were the law there would be no purchasers of
such assets and the creditors would receive no
payment of their debts out OF the proceeds nor
stockholders any dividend Of a residue
| Nevertheless. the opinion exhaustvely consid-
ers all possible mortgages. and other liens af-
fecting the property itself real or personal. un-
der the French or Colombian law 1t says there
have been mortgages and pledges of personal
property and shows in detail what became Of
them.
CAN TAKE THE PANAMA RAILROAD
As to the proposition that the United States
cannot take title TO the shares Of stock Of the
Panama Railroad Company. a New-York cor
poration which the Panama company proposes
10 sell with the canal property, the opinion holds
that the government can take and hold any klnd
Of property il may have need of. In the same
manner as an individual can; that it would hold
the shares as an individual would hold them
| As for the suggestion that the United States. at
| all events could not destroy the railroad. II Is
| rointed out that it was evidently not the inten-
ton OF the French If they built the canal 10 dis-
! pense with the railroad.
| As 10 the objection that Congress has author-
| "a a purchase from the new company only.
! and not from the uquidator the opinion says;
| ,,ertainly in view of the condition OF the title
! .e bereinbefore explained, the purchase VIII
/ a. som the new company, and the consent OF
the liauidator will be at most waiver ol ilsiI'S
/ as IN the property transferred 10 the new coih-
/ nsny But IL this were otherwise. II WouIu ~ pe
rnrsasonable 10 treat the act or congress dS
forbiddng purchase from the new cI5 en-
a. Uhich II would be necessary FOR the Ola COM
nan, or the liquidator to join as Vendor. rms
ro,,iS he 10 defeat, not 10 ascertain tne VIII ol
/ CONGRESS What it wants is good ttle from
! re owner of certain speched property 'ne
erer being supposed to be, and being ad-
o.edlv in part the new company, and it is en-
,IreIS iustifable to buy from the owner, al
/ .ho,1Igb the principal ownership should be round
nt to be in the new company.
M whether we believe il is in the new company
- 10Th seems to me altogether immaterlal'
oirce both join in the proposed sale.
The opinion closes as follows:
For the that The United states would re-
op,Ie n good, valid and unencumbered title
..rsxed 10 the opinion are $50 printed pages
-, o,bibits in support Of its statements; also
r. responses by the French and American
zee, of the new Panama Canal Company to
49, obtections formulated by the Attorney Cen
sraI and which had been considered by him
independently