The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-03-23
PERUVIAN SCANDAL.
Of MR. sAIpAERp.
Senator nlaItS Name Accidentally slips Out
In The Testimony Urging General Crooks
PrOnOtlOn-Ths Interior Secretary.
IAIp-Gsntrsl News Notes.

WASHINGTON, March 22.-The eXamtna
ton Of shipherd was resumed this morn
ing. shipherl produced a copy Of his let
ter to the President, dated April 2s, 1881,
alluded to in his testimony yesterday. In
this letter Shiphered states that the inter
ests Of his clients in Peru are so great as to
cntitle them to consider in discussion any
plans affecting the future OF the PROSTATE
Republic. He further states that the pur.
poses Of this note Ia that decision on the
appointment Of Ministers to Chilli and
Peru shall be reserved until the facts rel
ative to the Peruvian company shall have
been laid before the President
sMr. ShiFhert stated that be hpd not ye.
found Il letter of May 2ist, 6Iit 1a9 Writ
ten 10 his son to make copy and send to
him, and he expected to
LAY IT BEFORE TIE COMMITTEE IN A PEW
DAYS.
Mr.. Kasson asked il witness knew any
instance in which Gen. Hurlbut's official
action had been purchased.
Mr., Shipherd replied that in the state.
tnents, he made yesterday, he spoke from
his knowledge Of events that occurred
many years ago, and which came under
his notice ut the time, and from which he
had formed his opinion Of Mr.. Hurlbut.
In connection with this opinion and In
further reply to IN inquiry, he called at
tention TO the decision Of the United States
Supreme Court in the case Of Mr.. Clark
against United Slates in which il was
shown that Gen. Hurlbut.while in the ser.
vice Of the United Saates ut New Orleans,
ACCEPTED A DRlRE.
Representative Kasson then asked il in
all his (witnes5's) correspondence with
General Hurlbut did he ever intimate he
desired to have IN interest in the Peruvian
claim.
Answer-"No sir, he never did"
Witness stated in further reply that no
officer Of the United States in The diplo.
matic service or otherwise ever expressed
any desire or listened to any proposals for
interest in the claim OF the Peruvian com.
pany.
Witness was then asked by Mr.. Kasson,
who now heads the laudteAn claim, and re.
piled 1t is now held by Americans, but |
could not without
VIOLATING PRIVATE CONFIDENCE
disclose the names Of the parties. The
legal name OF Shepherds company, the
witness stated, is the Peruvian Company,
Incorporated under the laws Of Georgia, in
1870, and every share Of the stock is held
in this country.
Witness declined to state how much had
been paid in for stock, or from what par.
ties the claim had been purchased, or
whether the original parties were paid for
their claim in stock in the new company,
or whether the company had ever taken
possession Of any property in Peru,
or whether they have resident
agent in Peru Witness stated that
the company has notified Pennsylvania Of
their claim, but have never received any
reply in acknowledgment OF the claim Of
the Peruvian company.
NEVER HAD ANY OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
with the Peruvian government whatever.
Advjces Of the company have been re-
ceived from private sources. Mr.. Kasson
explained the object OF his inquiries to be
the discovery whether the allegations on
which the investigation is based, that the
Peruvian company was truly speculative
enterprise dependent for It's success en-
tirely upon the intervention OF this govern
mcnt, is true one, or whether the claim
Of the company is solid one.and its bus.
iness such as American citizens have
perfect right to engage in.
Shipherd then went into long expIana-
ton OF his connection with the Peruvian
Company, which began in March, 1881,
when he became counsel for his clients,
who purchased this claim. Witness recog.
nized the magnitude of the interests in
involved and opened negotiations with
Governor Boutwell,, with view to
SECURING HIS AID AS COUNSEL
upon all matters affecting International