The San Francisco call., 1909-10-12
'CROMW[Ll'S FEE
BIG But SQUARE
Received Nothing From Panama
for Services in Sale of
Canal Zone
AS an Attorney He Was Paid
100000 by Clients for
Negotiations

INDIANAPOLIS, Ocl. 11.-Wltn the
purpose of showing that William Nell
son Cromwell, attorney for the old
French Panama canal company. made
to the Morgan investigating commit
tee of the United States senate an ex-
pIicit statement of his relations in the
transfer of the canal zone to the
United States, certain parts of his tes-
timony were read in the United States
court of this district today by Stuart
Mcnamara. attorney for the Depart
ment of Justice, in the hearing of Della
van Smith and Charles r. Williams,
proprietors of the indianapolis News,
charged with criminal libel in having
alleged in their newspaper that there
was corruption in the purchase of the
canal zone by this country
Mcnamara pointed out to the court
that Cromwell assured the committee
that he had no interest in the matter
save as attorney, that he had then re-
ceived 100000 for his services and that
he was in no haste to submit his bill
for further attorney fees.
MORGAN,S SMALL FEES
Cromwell added that j. Pierpont Nor
gan told him his banking house had re-
ceived only $4,000 for it's services in
the United States to the French COM
panies through the Bank of France at
Paris.
Mcnamara proceeded to read from
the committee report as to Crom-
wells refusal to make public the
dates of an effort to "Americanize the
Panama canal by forming a company
to buy it from the French owners"
His reason for this refusal was that
IL. that he must de-
cline. under an attorneys privilege, to
discuss publicly this business of un-
named clients of his law offices. Crom-
well maintained that this matter had
no connection whatever with the final
transfer of the property.
AIl~the testimony alluded to by Nc
Namara was taken by the senate COM
mittee in February, 1906.
OFFICIAL VALUATION
The report of the Isthmian canal
commission was taken UP by McNa-
mara to show, he said, that the COM
mission all along had preferred the
Panama to the Nicaragua route and
that the official valuation of the Pan
ana property was set at $40,000,000.
He produced this record, he said, to
refute the charge that the commission
ever had approved the selection of
the Nicaragua route except that it con-
sidered the original price for the Pan
anna zone demanded by the French
owners-s1O9, ,000, 0,000-exorbitant
The Panama route was recommend
ed he said, when the price dropped to
SAC, 900, 900.
Mcnamara turned witness and, ex-
amined by Charles w. Miller, United
States district attorney, testified that
he obtained copies of the Indianapolis
News at the newspaper Office in Wash
ington and that these papers con-.
tanned articles, one headed Who Got
the Money? alleging that there was
a graft of millions in the transfer
of the Panama canal to this country.
What is. the guilty intent to be
shown on the part of these defend
ants?2 the court asked Stuart Nc
Namara. The judge declared he doubt
ed if it could be shown that the de-
PENDANTS had malicious forethought to
libel Theodore Roosevelt, Charles P.
Taft. William Nelson Cromwell, Presi-
dent Taft, J. P. Morgan, Douglas Rob
inson and others.
POLITICAL PROJECT
The whole Panama canal project is
a great political project" said the
court and there has been and is much
honest expression of opinion as to the
advisability of having chosen the Pan
anna route in preference to the Mica
ragua route and now since the cost of
building the canal is so much larger
than at first estimated as to whether
or not the United States should own
any Atlantic-Pacific canal
THE press has public duty to per-
form and in political discussions it
seems to me that the conception of
libel should be greatly different from
the conception that should apply to
case of libel on a persons private char
acter."
Judge Anderson said If a set of
Americans went to France and bought
up the securities from the French Pan
anna canal company for $4,000, 900, as
alleged, and then sold them to the
United States for $40, 100000 II should
be regarded as "a nasty piece of busi-
ness" but in no sense a crime.
Mcnamara interposed that in his
opinion a crime was charged for the
reason that it was alleged that the
syndicate used It's influence upon the
the deal through" and that If the
charge were true Theodore Roosevelt
Elihu Root and W. II. Taft were in
criminal completely with the "syndi-
cate" to swindle the people of this
country.
court, that liberty is best preserved
by passing over some aspects of an
alleged libel of the nature now under
consideration, which should not be
passed over in libel case of personal
or private character"
Mcnamara, In his argument earlier.
maintained that the indianapolis News
was sold in Washington and that there
fore the crime charged was committed
in Washington as well as elsewhere
He said the records at Washington alb
solutely refuted charges of corruption
in the Panama purchase.