The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-26


private partnerships. which is their es-
sontlal character.
The opinion says that they arc, In some
respects, regulated by law, but this does
not establish any tie between them and the
government. nor any obligations OF them 20
the government, and do not forbid the cx.
ercise OF the liberty 10 dispose OF their
property as freely MS an individual dis
poses OF his, II no special law forhids and
II Il be solvent and not under some par
rlcular contract or other like obligation 20
retain the property. The new Panama
company Is qul,e solvent and there Is no
law forbidding It to sell.
FULL CONSENT SECURED.
The lquidator OF the old company, when
he turned over the assets to the new COM
pany. stipulated for 90 per cent OF the
profits OF the canal when finished, and It Ia
held that he has full power 20 consent to
the sale Of 90 per cent, which is part or
those assets
The opinion next discusses the power OF
the French court to declare law Of that
Kind void, MS unconstitutional, and hoids
that no French court or other authority
has power TO declare any French statute
void,
As to the proposltlon that the United
States would be subject 20 the debts and
claims Of the stockholders ana hondholdera
and other creditors OF both VI he com
panies, the opinion saws;
"As general propos,tion II is not per
celved how there could be sny law or
equity FER sublectlns a purchaser OF an
article sold as assets OF a falling partner
ship Csuch as the old company TO the debts
OF the partnershln"
Nevertheless. the opinion exhaustlyely
considers an possible MORTGAGES and other
liens affecting the pronerts itself. real or
personal. under French or Colombian law.
II says there have been mortgages and
pledges Of personal property. aud shows
In detail what became or them AS to tho
proposition that the United States can
not take title 20 The shares OF stock OF
the P0nAma Rallroad company. New
| York corporation. which the Panama com.
pany proposes to sell with the canal tyop-
erty, the opinion holds that the govern.
ment can take and hold any kind OF prop
erty It may have need or In the same
manner as an individual: that It would hold
shares as an individual would hold them.
! AS for the suggestion that the United
4 States Mt all events could not destroy the
/ railroad, 1t is pointed out that II was evil
/ dontly not the Intention OF tie French, II
they built the canal. to Lisoense With the
! railroad.
AN OBJECTION OVERCOME.
As to tho objection that eongro,s author
tied to purchase from tho company ouly
and not from the llduidator. the opipion
saws;
Certainly. In view Of the conditions OF
| the title, as hereinbefcro explained the
purchase viii be from the new company
and the consent OF the huldntor viii bo
! u most a waiver Of ricbSs as to propetty
transferred to the new company. Bot. II
tbs were otherwise. II would be unreasou.
able to treat the net Of concress 90 for.
bidding purchase from the new CON.
pany. IN which II would DO necessary for
the old company or tre lnuidator 70 1, IN
as vendor This would be TO defeat. not
TO ascertain. the will Of congress what
1t wants ia good title from the owners
Of certain specined proosrtv. the owner be.
Ing supposed to be aud being admittedly
in part owner.
whether we believe ~ is in the new
company or the old company. so long MS 1t
/ 40 Nv 'us Va "''N' nS"tia ." w "it"Se'D"i
immaterial, since both ioia in the proposed
sale"
The opinion closes as follows;
"For the reasons have given am OF
| the opinion that the United States would
receive a good, valid and unineumbered
title"
To the opinion are rwcatV.nve printed
pages of exhibits. in SUPPORT OF it's stnte
ments also the responses by the Fienoh
and American counsel OF tho new Panama
Canal company TO the objections forrnulat.
ed by the attorney general and which
have been considcrel by him lndepenT
| entity.