The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-01-12
SENATOR MORGAN
WAS SARCASTIC
Questioned Panama Company's Re-
preventative Closely.
THE BARGAIN COUNTER CANAL
asked N. Lamprc if the compauy's Prep.
eriy taa Not Been Ter Sale
Ever Since its 0rssHi-
zaliUn.
THE BARGAIN COUNTER CANAL
(By Assoelated PROSE-

NASi11NG4 On, ". g., Jan. I'm.
Edoua. q LaInpre, representing The Pand-
ma Canal company, Appeared before the
Sci aue Culnnii.tee on Iuter-Oceanlc Ca
nGis. to-day, IN obedience to summons
Of that cvnmi tee to testify concerning
the affairs of ais company and its ploner
TO sell / S pa ope.ty AID franchises to tho
Jniteu oL.tyo. NJ. Julcs toocufye, Of the
French Embassy, was also present at
the hearing.
TIL meeting was held behind closed
doors.
M Lampre was questioned at great
length by the members of tho committee.
He said that his mission to the United
States had been TO ascertain TO whom the
p. OPPOSITION for the sale of the Panama
property should be made. Having in
formed himself upon this point, he had
conferred with Admiral Walker, chair
man Of the Is hmian Canal Commission,
as to the form of the offer. He then had
cabled TO his principals, the result being
that the offer TO sell for $40,000,G00 had
been made directly from Paris and not
10y him. He said, however, that it was
his understanding that the proposal in
Guided both the franchises and the
pToperi.3 of the Panama Company. but
not the money in its treasury, OF which
there is about 0oa francs.
THE TITLE.
NJ Lanpre was questioned especially
concerning the title OF the present Pana-
ma Company, several members of the
committee expressing doubt as to whether
those now claiming ownership had Sc
cured unquestiorable title. He replied
that they had made their purchase
through the liquidator of the OLD COM
pany, and that the transfer was regular.
In response to other questions. he said
that in case the transaction should be
contaminated the money would be dis
Of hn
original company and those of the pres
cnt organization by arbitration. He
said that the proffer of his company had
been made in good faith. and that the
COMPANY was able to deliver the goods"
In reennnse TO inquiries NJ Iarnr"
contended that the new company had n
perfect right to sell the property and
that 10 do so would not infringe upon tn"
rights OF any one.
Senator Morgan asked what the cor
noration had been organized for, and the
witness replied that the purpose was 10
build n canal
The Senator then asked whether an
attempt 10 sell the canal was not q pro-
eeding in bad faith.
BARGAIN COUNTER.
NJ. Iya1rlpre maintained tina tit was not
lie also said that the American Panama
Canal Co. had been organized in New ler-
sey Tor the purpos. Of oisposing OIL the
property in this country IL possible.
CAS- a matter of fact" said Mr.. Nor
gan. you appear to have had the canal
on the bargain counter ever since the
company was organized? %
The witness protested to the contrary.
The fact was developed at the hearing
that the bonded Indebtedness Of the old
company was S0o,Neo,nao francs. and also
that since the new company had come
into control it had paid 120G1ooo francs
20 the Colombian Government for con-
cessions 1t was also shown that the
lease from that Government was for
ninety-nine years. and at the end of thai
Nrne the property would revert to Co
ombia.
NJ. Bouefve was asked if the PROPOSE
lion to sell the canal for s40.oA,ooo had
been made with the authority of the
French Government. He replied in the
negative. saying that that Government
had no connection with III. Transaction.