Los Angeles herald., 1909-10-12
PANAMA LIBEL
CHARGE SIFTED
EVIDENCE OF LAWYER READ TO
FEDERAL COURT
Cromwell Admittedly Received $780,
600 for Fees and J. P. Morgan
$4,000 for Collection of
Forty Million
rBy Associated Press.l

INDIANAPOLIS, Oct. 11.-With the
purpose of showing that William Mel
son Cromwell attorney for the old
French Panama Canal company, made
to the Morgan investigating commit
tee of the United States senate an
explicit 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.
stuart Mcnamara, attorney for the
department of justice, presented this
testimony in the hearing of Delavan
Smith and Charles r. Williams, pro-
prietors of the Indianapolis News.
charged with criminal libel, in having
alleged in their newspaper that there
was corruption in the purchase Of .he
canal zone by, this country.
Mr.. Mcnamara pointed out to the
court that Mr.. Cromwell assured the
committee he had no interest in the
matter save as attorney; that he had
then received 100000 for his services.
and that he was in no haste to sub
nit his bill for further attorney fees.
Mr.. Cromwell added that ]. p. Nor
gan told him that his banking house
had received only 1885, 900 for its ser
vices in the collection of the $4,000
900 paid by the United States to the
French company through the Bank of
France at Paris.
Cromwell Frank
Mr.. Mcnamara sought to impress 1t
upon the court that Cromwell had
been frank in his description of his
activity and that he had denied in de-
tail that he had received a cent from
the government of Panama; that he
owned securities in the Panama Canal
L, i ~
expected to receive, any commission
as fiscal agent, or any compensation
other than an attorney should have for
his services.
Mr.. Mcnamara proceeded to read
from the committees report as to
CromwelTs 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 the
project failed and that he must decline,
under an attorneys privilege, to dis
cuss publicly this business Of unnamed
clients of his law offices.
Cromwell maintained that this mat
ter had no connection whatever with
the final transfer of the property.
All the testimony alluded to by Nc
Namara was taken by the senate COM
mittee in February 1906
Commissions Report
The report of the Isthmian canal COM
mission was taken up by Mcnamara
to show, he said, that the commission
all along had preferred the Panama to
the Nicaragua route, and that the Of
fetal valuation of the Panama prop
erty was set at S40,000,000.
He produced this record, he said,
to refute the charge that the commits
sion ever had approved the selection
of the Nicaragua route, except that it
considered the original price for the
Panama zone demanded by the French
owners-$109, 900, 0,000-exorbitant.
The Panama route was recommended,
he said, when the price dropped toI
$40 900, 900.
Mcnamara then turned witness, and
examined by Charles W. Miller, Unit
ed States district attorney, testified
that he had obtained copies of the
Indianapolis News at the newspaper
office in Washington, and that these
papers contained articles, one headed
"Who Cot the Money!" alleging that
there was a graft" OF millions in the
transfer Of the Panama canal to this
country.