Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-04-07

An Inquiry as to the Peruvian Com
pany.
Particulars of the Attempt to Bride
HurIbut.
WASHINGTON. April 6.

|
morning.
Chairman Williams being i'll Representa-
tive Orth presided and Representative Rice
conducted the examination.
The witness stated in reply to q question
that the Peruvian Company owns the claim
of Alexander Cochet and not that of Land
reau tina. they claim through the natural son
of Alexander Cochet. who owned or claimed
to own one-third of all the guano deposits OF
Peru.
The witness compiled prospectus of the
| Peruvian Company, preparing 1t from pa
pers and pamphlets which were furnished to
him.
| The first document furnished to him was a
written translation of an old Spanish PAM
phlet which was deposited at Lima, Peru.
| Question-Never during negotiations of the
company, has the original of that manuscript
been shown in this country, has it!
Answer-No, sir.
The witness then added that the company
has in New York the original manuscript in
the handwriting of Cochet which completely
duplicates the pamphlet alluded to-
| Q-This Cochet made claims upon Peru
during his residence and to these claims your
company ctaim to have succeeded, what were
! his claims?
| A-Cochet made investigations in relation
to the commercial value of guano which led
to a trade with Europe in guano. He gave
| several wears to scientific investigations and
| to the development of the trade. The question
| has arisen as to who first made the discovery.
The Peruvian Congress decided five thousand
| tons of guano should be awarded to the orig
inal discoverer of guano an3gave it to Cochet
on the condition that he should give the gov
eminent the value of certain discoveries he
had made. but he refused the conditions and
consequently never asserted his right to the
five thousand tons. The only thing settled by
the award was that Cochet first discovered
the commercial value of guano. The claim
set up by the company to One-third of the
guano deposits is purely by virtue of his
right as such discovery.
The witness stated that he had been unable
to learn that any settlement was ever made
with Cochet by the0 Peruvian government
He was then questioned in regard to the
validity of the claim of GoletsiO, Cochet's
natural son, and stated that at first they had
supposed Cochet had died intestate, but sub
sequentIy they, the Peruvian Company, found
a will in Paris in the hands of a notary, with
whom it had been deposited.
Q-Who found it?
A-Mr. Hebver, the same gentleman who
found the pamphlet in Peru.
The witness declined to state what as paid
to Goletsio for his claim.
The witness was asked to explain the dis
crepancv in the prospectus wherein he refers
to the Peruvian Company as already organ
lied in October, when as a fact, it was not
organized, and stated that when that portion
was written it was the intention to organize
at once under the laws of the State of New
York, and. he, too, thought such an 0rgani-
would be effected before the publication of
the prospectus. That in the meantime the
Georgia charter was discovered and the COM
pany availed themselves of it.
| Witness asked If he had any more
postscripts to present and replied, No, sir.
The witness stated the correspondence with
ilurlbut was begun by letter written BY him
(Shipherd) May 2Sth. The witness was
questioned in regard to his interview with
Hurlbut, MAY 30th, as detailed by him (Ship-
herd) at a former hearing, and said: l think
can give you Hurlbut's exact language.
| In speaking of our claim, he slapped his
hands upon his knees with some emphasis
and said Mr.. Shipherd, l need not come all
the way down here from Washington to tell
you how infinitely our government would
prefer to settle all this matter through the
opportunity your company offers.
The witness was closely pressed with ques.
tions, with view TO extracting something
definite relative to the encouragement, if any
he had received from the executive.
He stated that Hurlbut spoke of the Presi-
dent and secretary of state only in embas-
sadorial way, using the expression ''the gov
ernment," which led him (Shipherd) to be-
lieve that he (Hurlbut) spoke but by author
ity.
The only evidence the witness ever had
that the President ever saw any papers or
knew anything about the business of the Pc
ruvian company was by letter he (Shipherd)
received from J. Stanley Brown, the Presi-.
dents secretary, stating: Your letter re
ceived and referred to the state department
Shipherd was asked in regard to his letter
to Hurlbut, offering him S250.0OO interest
| in the claim OF his company, why he did not
| submit the proposition to him orally at their
interview in New York. and replied:
Because l feared l could not control the
direction of his mind, or the view he might
be led to take / wanted it put in writing. l
meant to be responsible for exactly what
said. and wanted to say exactly what meant
l did intend to convey to him the idea that if
upon a knowledge of our plans and purposes.
it should seem to him perfectly proper to do
so, that he, or his friends, should receive an
interest of S250.000 ] ment to influence him
to the extent of preventing him from oppos-
ing US.
The witness admitted that he would not
have approached Hurlbut, had he believed
him to be a man of probity, and above TAX
ing bribe, and yet insisted that he (Shiphert)
was not guilty of any wrong intentions in
making the offer. In response to further
questions, the witness stated that Hurlbut
never acknowledged the receipt of the letter
in which this offer was made to him. and new.
er again called to see him (Shipherd).
llurlbut was on his way to his home in Hi
nois. when he had an interview in New York,
and told the witness he would call upon him
again upon his return, but he did rot do So
Odd it not seem to you that these
great interests which Hurlbut so emphatcally
stated to you were considered by the govern
ment ''as strong as law and equity could
make them" were Of sufficient moment to
warrant him in calling upon you again when
he returned to New York?
Alt certainly did seem so to me. I
suppose he (Hurlbut) did not call upon me
because he was in the pay of the Credit In
dustrial and was paid not to call. That was
my superstition. We never got him to do
anything for us, for the reasons have given.
So far as his being corruptly Influenced in
our favor it would be just as well to drop the
subject right here. He never was interested
in our favor to my knowledge.
Rice-Then we will pass to Blaine. Your