The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-01-17
THE iSTHMlAN CANAL
THIS MATTER AGAIN UP BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE.
THE TWO PANAMA COMPANIES
The R~clatfonshfp Between Them
the Chief Subject OF Inquiry by the
Commfttee--M. Lampre Again Testi-
nes Before the Commfftee-Close1y
Questioned by org The
Witness Explains Their Sonuec-
tfon and Declares the Later EN-
poyyere to Sell.

Washington, January l3.-The n
committee on i~nter-oceanic canals held
a session today and NJ. Larnpre. OF the
Panama Canal Company. was again
before il. Senator Morgan questioned
him very closely and at length, going
owe the examination of Saturday. but
not bringing out any new facts Of
especial Importance. The committee
will meet again tomorrow.
Senator Morgan questioned NJ. Lam
pre- especially concerning the interest
OF the stockholders OF the old Panama
Canal Company in the pending transac-
ton.
NJ. Lampre stated tina under the
agreement of the new company with tho
old company, the stockholders of tn.
latter concern would receive 60 per cent.
of the proceeds of the sale. He aid
that under the original subscription
agreement of the old company the
stockholders la been entitled TO in
terest amounting to 5 per cent. per an
mum on their subscription even while
the canal vas under course OF construc-
ton, but that the interest had been sus-
pended when the old company went into
liquidation. He also said hat an agree
mentment had been reached with the
liquidator as the representative of the
old company, that in case OF the sale
of the property he should appoint two
arbitrators while the new company APP
pointed two. these four to select the
fifth. n that all five should unite in
making an equitable distribution OF the
proceeds of the sale. He contended thar
under the French law the new company
had a perfect right to make the trans
fer, Notwithstanding the interest OF the
old company. Il WISH" he said. Ito
make this perfectly clear and van the
committee to understand that the new
company is entitled to make a clear
and perfect transfer to the United
States. 1t would be legitimate to make
the transfer without the Interference OF
the old company, but TO make the way
perfectly clear and to prevent any
possible ENHANCEMENT we made an
agreement with the ~liquidator of the
old canal company to the effect that we
should have absolute authority to deal
directly with the government of the
United States"
did you make a similar ari angement
with the ~liquidatOr OF the b~ondholders?
a:ked Senator Morgan.
In response to this inquiry. NJ. Lam
pre- aid He did not ppear in the
agreement, but he gave the i~iquidator
vi the old company authority to enter
into the agreement"
Senator Morgan: Gould the new
company sell the property and put the
proceeds in it's pocket and not share
them with the old company"
NJ. Lampre: Yes. It could do so un-
Ger the authority of the stockholders
meeting"
Senator Morgan: Then the transac-
ton between the two canal companies
must have been a sale to the new com
pany without reference to the bonds
and the ock held by the old com
Iany"
NJ. Lampre: Yes, 1t was a sale. hui
one of the conditions of the transaction
was that we should give 60 per cent. o!
the proceeds to the old company"
III. Lampre said tina; of ,he 70.00C
shares of stock of the~Fanama Railroad
Company, the new Panama Canal Com
pan owns 6S. 534 and that the railroad
company had last yea1 paid dividends
TO the canal company amounting to
400, 900 frances. He said. however. nc
knew nothing about the de ails of the
management of the railroad company