The Washington times., 1902-10-26
Continued from First Page.)

pose of the assets of the concern and
| consequently to consent to the sale
of the 60 per cent which is a part of
those assets. 1t is held that the old
company is not in bankruptcy, or in
what is similar to bankruptcy under
French law, but is governed by the gen.
eral law or civil code, which the special
law of 1898 already referred to partially.
modifies. That law requires the ap-
proval of the civil tribunal of the Seine
for all sales or alterations Of the, as
! sets, but does not prevent such aliena
tions. That tribunal has approved the
consent of the liquidator to the sale.
and on appeal by bondholder of the
old company the court of appeals of
Paris confirmed the decision which held
that under the special law of 1893 legal
representative of the bondholders had
been appointed by the court to represent
them all, and that that representative,
who had formally announced his consent
to the sale, was the only one authorized
by the special law to oppose the judg-
holders.
Powers of French Courts.
THE opinion next discusses the power
of the French court to declare law OF
that kind void as unconstitutional. and
holds that no French court or other
authority has power to declare any
French statute void. The opinion says.
however, that the French special act
ought not to be declared void. and If it
is to be criticised at all. 1t is for being
too tender of the private rights and
remedies of those interested and not
sufficiently like bankruptcy law
'As to the proposition that the United
States would be subject to the debts
and claims of the stockholders and
bondholders and other creditors of both
of the companies, the opinion says:
AS a general proposition, 1t Is not
perceived how there could be any law or
equity for subjecting purchaser of al
article sold as assets of failing part
nership tsuch as the old company to
the debts of the partnership. If such
chasers of such assets. and the creditors
would receive NO payment of their debts
out of the proceeds nor stockholders any
dividend OF residue
Nevertheless. the opinion exhaus
lively considers all possible mortgages
and other liens affecting the property
itself, real or personal. under French or
law. 1t says there have been
and pledges Of personal prop
crty, and shows in detail what became |
of them.
"As TO the proposition that the United |
States cannot take title to the shares |
of stock of the Panama Railroad Com
pany. New York corporation, which |
he Panama Company proposes to sell |
with the canal property. the opinion
holds that the Government can take and
hold any kind of property 1t may have
need of, in the same manner as an indi-
pidual can; that it would hold the shares
rs an individual would hold them As
or the suggestion that the United States
1t all events could not destroy the rail-
not the intention of the French
( they built the canal. to dispense with
he railroad
'As to the objection that Congress has
purchase from the New
Company only and not from the liquida-
or, the opinion says:
Certainly in view of the condition of
he title as hereinbefore explained, the
urchase Will be from the New Company, !
md the consent of the liquidator will be
t most waivor Of rights as to property {
to the New Company. But. If ,
his were otherwise, It would be unrea-
enable to treat the act of Congress as
purchase from the New Com {