The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-26
Panama Company Competent to Give
Valid and Unincumbered Title
to It's Property.
LONG REVIEW OF THE CASE
OBJECTIONS TO PURCHASE DISSECT-
ED AND BRUSHED AWAY,
And the Company shown to Have Full
Power to Dispose of the Canal
to the United States.

eral Knox has decided that IL the United
States should accept the offer of the New
Panama Canal Company, submitted last
spring, for the sale of the canal for $40,-
100000, it would receive through the parties
in interest a valid and unincumbered title
to the property. This decision was arrived
at after a thorough and exhaustive in
vestigation of the situation in Paris, first
by Special Attorney Charles w. Russell,
and later by the attorney general himself.
The attorney general formally submitted
the opinion to President Roosevelt to-day.
1t makes about 800 pages.
The attorney generals opinion opens with
a history Of the concessions made by
Colombia in 1878, $780, ETC., the formation
of the De Lesseps Panama Canal Company
of France, the failure of this company in
1885, the transfer in 1894 of all its rights
to the Present Panama Canal Company of
France by the liQuidator appointed by the
French court to wind up the affairs of the
old company, and of the laws passed by
France concerning the liquidation Of the
old company The opinion then takes up
the principal objections which have been
made in this country to the title proposed
to be given to the United States. These
objections, it says, resolve themselves into
reasons I'm support of the following propo-
sitions:
First-That the new Panama Canal Com
pany has not the power to sell the canal
and railway property.
Second-That the liquidator of the old
Panama Canal Company has not the power
to consent to such sale.
Third-That the French courts have no
power to authorize the liquidator and the
new company, or either of them. TO enter
into the sale.
Fourth-That, at all events. the United
States would take the property as a trust
fund subject to the total obligations to the
stockholders, the bondholders and the other
creditors of both companies.
NOT FORBIDDEN TO SELL.
The history and nature of French compa-
mics of the kind in question are explained
at length They are said to be altogether
different from our corporations, but to be
easily understood If looked upon as private
partnerships, which is their essential char
acter. The opinion says they are in
some respects regulated by law,
but that these regulations do not
change the essential character of the
concerns as partnerships. do not establish
or any obligations from them to the gov
eminent, and do not forbid the exercise of
the liberty to dispose of their property as
| freely as an individual disposes of his If
| no special law forbids and If he is solvent
| and not under some particular contractual
| or other obligations to retain the prop
| erty The new Panama company is quite
solvent and there is no law forbidding it
| to sell.
4 - III
| he turned over the assets to the new COM
pany stipulated for go per cent. of the prof
| it's of the canal when finished, and 1t is
| held that he has full power to consent to
the sale of the so per cent which is a part
The opinion next discusses the power OF
| the French court to declare a law Of that
kind void as unconstitutional and holds
that no French court or other authority
has power to declare any French statute
| void.
AS to the proposition that the United
States would be subject to the debts and
| claims of the stockholders and bondholders
h the cpnon 9f ef the
proposition 1t is not perceived how there
could be any law or equity for subjecting
| a purchaser of an article sold as assets
of failing partnership (such as the old
company to the debts of the partnership"
Nevertheless, the opinion exhaustively con-
sders all possible mortgages and other
liens affecting the property itself, real or
personal, under French or Colombian law.
| 1t says there have been mortgages and
pledges of personal property, 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 Pa
mama Railroad Company, New York cor
poration which the Panama company pro-
| poses 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 indi-
vidual can; that it would hold the shares
as an individual would hold them AS for
events, could not destroy the railroad, it is
pointed out that it was evidently not the
intention of the French: IL they built the
canal. to dispense with the railroad
THE ACT OF CONGRESS.
AS to the objections that Congress has
authorized purchase from the new conn.,
pany only and not from the liquidator. the
opinion says: Certainly, in view of the
condition of the title as hereinbefore ex-
planned, the purchase will be from the new
company and the consent of the liquidator
will be at most waiver of rights as &c
property transferred to the new company
But, if this were otherwise. it would be
unreasonable to treat the act of Congress
as forbidding a purchase from the new
company, in which it would be necessary
| join as vendor. This would be to defeat
|, not to ascertain, the will of Congress
What it wants is a good title from the
owners Of certain speeihsed property. The
mittedly I'm part, the new company: anc
it is entirely justifable to buy from the
owner, although the principal ownership
|, should be found not to be in the new com
pany. Whether we believe ii is in the new
company or the old company, so long as 4
Is not out OF both, seems to me altogethe
immaterial, since both join in the proposed
sale"
The opinion closes as follows: For tn,
reasons have given 1 am of the opinion
, that the United States would receive
good, valid and unincumbered title"
To the opinion are $50 printed pages o
e exhibits in support of its statements. Ais
: the responses by the French and American
counsel OF the new Panama Canal Com
: pany to the objections formulated by tn
4 attorney general, and which had been con
: sidered by him Independently.
An Amerfcanist Recalled.
NEW YORK. Oct. 1.-At to-day's ses