During the week, the Appeal Court engaged in hearing the
Panama case, has been principally occupied with the speech of the Advocate-General, M. Rau, who has been summing-up the evidence for the prosecution, and who declared that he should be bound "to demand from the Court a sentence which would brand the accused.". The Company, he declared on Tuesday, early began its misrepresentations by grossly under-estimating the money required to dig the Canal. They stated that the contractors had agreed to do the work for 512- millions," whereas they had simply contracted to work by the piece, and speedily withdrew with a large indemnity." "At the congress of 1879, moreover, the cost had been estimated at 1,200 millions, and the only explanation given by the de- fendants of this discrepancy was that in the first fit of enthusiasm they had forgotten to allow for machinery, management, and interest on coupons. Could such an excuse, in the case of experienced men, be taken seriously P The ultimate expenditure appears to have been 1,300 millions ; and for this sum the Company could show 700 millions of expenditure in land and works. There was thus a leakage of some 600 million francs, or some 224,000,000. M. Eiffel alone appears to have obtained some .33 millions, leas 5 per cent. paid to MM. Artigue, Hebrarcl, and Reinach. On Wednesday, M. Stephane, secretary to Baron Reinach, stated "that the latter dictated to him a list of persons implicated in the Panama affair, and, putting it in an envelope, told him to address it and take it to M. 016- menceau. He believed that the note handed to the Committee by M. Andrieux was a copy of the paper in question, for he remembered the names of Barbe and Bouvier; but he could not remember any other names. He left the note at M. Cle- menceau's house." M. Clemenceau was, therefore, called in, and absolutely denied ever having received the list. The in- cident caused great excitement, but at present there is no evidence beyond the statement and the denial.
Previous page
