New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-23
THE PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.

ten by himself to the President under date OF April Zo
| 1881, as follows:
IN the aggregate some hundreds OF millions of dollars
so much larger than any total of Chlan war claims yet
mentioned entitle my clients to respecful consu
Grafton in the discussion OF any plans affecting the
future Of the The oG a RRa'o m the In President ew Se
facts in detail; meanwhile ! hear that new appp,n1E p1
to be- made and hence this ancpatory note, the sole
purpose of which is TO request that such new % M
servt until the facts refer to shall have beer laid be-
NV clients have no desire TO submit nominations, or In
any way 70 influence nominations such they only de-
sire that the President have an opportunity 10 Sc
ect men--f are TO 90 out-who In hs Judgment
and i'm that OF his constitutional advisers shall be well
fitted for the special and RESPONSIBLE dIp9matc rGpae
An that such reservation VIII be made woud
| obge lis.
The chairman then inquired whether the missing letter.
dated May 81, 1881. had been found
Mr. shpherd replied that it had not. but that ne had
written 10 his prepare additional copy which
he thought he could verify without going to New-fork
The chairman stated that the members of the com
mittee might examine the witness upon the testimony
| given by him yesterday.
Mr. KassOn, referring to the relation OF shpherds IN
| terview with Mr. Hurlbut, said Waving the point
whether your opinion competent evidence, have you
any personal knowledge Of any instance In which Mr.
Hurbut's official action has been purchased .
The wtness-The statement which made yesterday
was not offered in evidencewas not offered az an opn-
tive which led the writing OF that letter 10 General
Uprbut In order that the committee might for itself
iudge whether that motive tended in any way to explain
the real intent and meaning of that letter The impress
sion on my mind given me by facts within my
personal knowledge-pressed upon my personal atten-
ton many years These facts hope to be able To
submit to the committee tomorrow morning In the form
of a printed sheet, which widely circulated and
brought TO nv knowledge at the time Of its circu-
ation at the date TO which referred yesterday
now call the attention Of the committee to the decision
of the United States Supreme Court which may be
found In 1O2 United States Reports page 322 In the
case of Clark against the United States in which un-
derstand that the United States Supreme Court udciay
determined that General Hubut, when in military
mand deliberately accepted an Infamous
brbe say all this in sef-defence and because was
compelled take notice Of facts notorious and pub
shed with the orignation or publication OF which
have never had anything TO do
Mr KassonI ask if at any time in the course OF your
entire correspondence or connection with MI Hurlbut
while Minister, he intimated to you, directly or
indirectly his desire for an interest in any claim which
you represent
Witness-No sir; I think stated yesterday (but If
IF not desire do today that nothing ever passed
between General Hurbut and myself touching any pr
vae interest. present contigent, or in any form winch
might be reserved for himself, except contained in
the letter and for which he has no responsibility
sHIPHERD SHOULDERS ALL RESPONSIBILITY.
II. kaSgOn-H0
rectly.
Witness-No would be glad to say enphatically that
General Uurlbut could not prevent my making him
proposition Infamous otherwise. and for all that may
have passed between himself and which the commit
tee may find improper, alone am responsibe-and II Is
all found In that letter
Mr.. Kasson-Did you at anv period during this
spondence or negotiation with officer of the United
States Government either lomatc officer abroad or
an officer of any department Of the Government at
Washington, make any proposition TO interest such OIL
Ger in the claim directly indirectly, other than that
proposed to Mr.. Hurlburt.
Witness-No, sir.
Mr Kasson-Did any such officer ever intimate to yOu
his desire to be interested in any way In the claim which
you representa-
Witness-No. sir.
Mr. Kasson-Turning now to the claim ITSELF state all
the old claims which You regard as included within
the claim Of the Peruvian Company
The witness replied at some length that the only claim
to which Peruvian Company asserted title was the
claim Of Alexander Cocbet the original discoverer of
the guano Individuals who were large stockholders In
the Peruvian Company represented themselves to him
as being also part owners Of the claim known a. the
Landreau claim. and they had requested him to keep
general lookout in behalf OF the Landreau claim.
Mr. Kasson-Do you know what company OF lndlVlduas
represented the Landreau clams
Wltness-I suppose do.
Kasson-State IL.
Wiiness-I cannot without violating private conf
witness then stated that ne knew there
was no counter claimant for the Coche claim The PERU
vian Company was Incorporated under the laws OF
the State of Georgia and the stock Of the company
Mr. Kasson-Has any money been paid in the
stock
Mr. Kasson~Iow much
Witness-I decline TO state, because 1t is merely
Mr. Kasson-were the original claimants paid in the
stock Of the new company
Witness-1 decline 10 state.
Mr. Kasson--Has there been a resident representative
of the company In Peru
Witness-I decline to state.
Mr ssonHas the government Of Perm admitted
the VALIDITY Of the claims OF the Peruvian Company
Wness-No response to the correspondence published
Ia Mr. Kasson-Have they responded in any other way
TO the ratification Of the claims of this company
The witness in further answer to Mr. Kasson, stated
that all the stock Of the company held IN the United
Staes bnt he declined to stale how much money had
been paid on the capital stock, how much per share,
as that purely private matter. He also declined TO
stated however that parties had any
lien on the company for the purchasemoney aud that
declined to state whether the original claimants were
paid amy part % e h n had an G po e
Of property In Peru claimed as belonging 10
the company. He declined TO slate whether
there had been a. resident representative Of
the company in Peru since the organization
OF the company. He stated that the Peruvian
Government had been formally informed by the com
pany Of s ownership Of the Cochet claim ana that no re-
spoGse had been received. There had been no cOrres
pondence official semi i-oical received by the Peru
Wan Company from the Peruvian Government Whatever
the private correspondents, agents ana representatives
of the company
Mr. Kasson explained that the object OF his Inquiries
was TO show whether not this valid claim and
whether the company organization Tor inc pro,
motion Of legitimate Undertaking IL had been alleged
that the fact being recognized by the Peruvian
Government had led the company TO apply for me pro-
lection Of It's Government He, therefore, invited
the witness TO state fully whatever related the valid
character the undertaking and 20 the legal right Of the
company ask the aid OF the United States Government
HOW SHEPHERD GOT INTO THE CASE.
The Witness promising that the question was too
broad 10 be covered In extempore manner at this
tme proceeded with the following narrative: This
claim was brought to my attention as practslng
Continued second PAGE