Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-04-21
Hurlbert's Examination.

Hurlbert's Termination.
WASHINGTON, April 20-Wm. Henry Huri-
bert appeared before the foreign affairs COM
mittee this morning. The clerk read from
Shepherds testimony this description OF the
interview between himself (ShipherdD and
Hurlbert, in which the latter Is accredited
with saying that he had seen and had in his
hands dispatch from Blaine to Minister
Hurlbut on which was written marginal
note $50 in, Steve" or $50 it, Steve" .
Witness said: The whole narrative OF this
with me was an absolute and
profound Misrepresentation of the facts. he
sought an interview with me, and states
his case, and gave me long narrative OF his
relations with Blaine and complained bitterly
that he had not been well treated by the score
tary. There is no truth in his statement that
told him that had seen such dispatch
with marginal note. The story he gives OF
the instructions sent to the old admiral with
acontrary. construction upon the margin was
a story I recognized as having heard before.
He repeated this story in highly dramatic
manner, and it seemed likely that Blaine might
have told him the story, but never gave him
the SLIGHTEST intimation that had seen dis
patch with a marginal note. Shipherd has
completely confused the real facts OF the incl
dent. Having heard the story before. it
was my expression in my inter
Rlaine had taken this method OF indication
that the marginal note might have been sent
to supplement or complete the instructions
Contained in the body OF the dispatch: The
Peruvian minister first related the incident 70
me. He said that in conversation with the
secretary he complained to him (the secretary
that the department or government oao not
taken Just such course toward teru OF sent
such instructions to Hurlbut as ne (the re-
ruvian MINISTRY had expected ana Inc lmPISs.
sion I Gathered was that Blaine had told the
Peruvian minister this incident to imply that
he had in the margin of this dispatch his real
views. which circumstances did not ADMIT OF
his doing in constitutional manner. IL was
simply an incident in my nind suggested oy
a conversation with the Peruvian minister and
I did not think of it again until the converse
ton with shipherd, when his relation OF tne
same story gave me the impression tnat q
marginal note might have been mace upon
the despatch to my brother.
Witness said his relations with Blaine were
of q friendly character. He had had several
conversations with him. The secretary falieo
to convince the witness that he 1.-THE secretary
was carving out the policy OF President Gar.
field. He failed to convince him because Oh
his ways and methods.
Witness continued: The secretary always
appeared to me somewhat IN the nature OF q
noIitical fiirt. AS q Democrat never had
much faith in his methods though personally
liked him and my brother seemed to nave
great confidence in him. The last interview
witness had with Blaine was about the !2tn or
18th of December, just before the publication
of the state department dispatches. In that
publication there was a dispatch dlsapproVing
his brothers course. Witness saw Blaine
several times between September and Decem-
Der at no time did he 1.-THE secretary lnuica,e
that he disapproved OF his witness protner's
course. -.
Witness received several letters from his
brother in which he alluded to the letter OF
approval, and he expressed something OF as
constituent and indignation.
Witness was asked if he had any vi these
letters with him, and he replied he had. ne
then read the following letter from MS
brother. Minister Hurlbut, dated Lima, Dec.
9, 1881.
Shipherd and his pre.enses. They have been
kicked out of this legation and out OF the
state DEPARTMENT, but he is nuisance. /
hope Sam, Randall will call for all papers In
the department in reference to him and his al
fairs. I have sent all his letters back
to the department and l anxlously desire
that the correspondence be made puonc.
have fears, hope not well grounded, taal our
government means to slide Out OF Inc Ame,t
can position here. My personal talk
with Blaine and Garfield Of course will not
appear in any official correspondents, but IL
was the motive for my action. think tney
will throw me overheard unless congress
backs ND the American course l have taken
here. Personally care little about IL, out
must say that in Blaine's letter OF the go OF
November to me was manifest dlsposition 10
hedge.
Witness was asked if he could state what his
brothers. understanding of his instruction were
and replied he understood that he was to have
elastic powers to carry. out the policy begun
by Evarts; to bring about peace between Chill
and Peru; to induce the South America Re
publics to cease war; to prevent the spoila-
ton of Peruvian territory being made con-
ditioh of the terms of settlement oil the dlm-
cnlties between Chill and Peru.
In response to question witness said: 1
do not understand that Blaine showed a dis
patch with marginal note upon it to ElmoIe.
the Peruvian minister, but simply related 10
him the incident referred TO, to indicate IN
that way only he could do what he might
wish to do. Witness had heard that Corbin,
the brother-in-law of Gen. Grant, would half
of the land claim.
Witness said in conversation with his brother
before the latter sailed to Peru no mention
was made of the Peruvian company. His
brother did refer to one Shipherd and said he
had been asked by President Garfield to see
Shipherd and look into his claim; also that he
had seen Shipherd and had received while In
Illinois several letters from him, one OF whlcn
was a brazen attempt at bribery, and that ne
proposed to take them to Washington and
show them to the secretary. Witness ADVISED
against this course, saying ''you were ADVISED
by the president to look after tins mater D. l
would advise you to take the letters to Peru,
get at the bottom of this matter, and then
send home to the government all you lind In
regard to it."
Witness then added am not sure but 1t
might have been better for Blaine IL my brother
had at that time shown him Shepherds letter.
Williams-How SO!
Witness-Because, If Blaine had seen that
letter he possibly might not have entertained
that person (Shipherd) SO long, as II were, IN
awares, don't know what influence senator
Blair may have had, but from my knowledge
of Blaine should think he would have dis
missed him (Shipherd) at once from any
further consideration. :.
Witness continued: In general terms
gathered that Blaine approved the plans OF
the Credit Industrial in their eHort 10 ooviate
the spOllatlOn OF PERUVIAN terrltory'. iet.e,
of an extremely eminent American impressed
that view. The letter was read to Blaine and
he cordially approved its sentiments. The
writer of the letter was Gen. Grant, and 1t was
addressed to the Peruvian minister, Gilmore,
with whom Gen. Grant had very pleasant
relations during his visit to China, Elmore
being at that time Peruvian minister at China.
Witness had requested copy OF this letter
and had brought it with him. AT the request
of the committee he then read the letter, as
follows:
New York, Nov. 1871 1Ss1.-My Dear Mr..
Elmore: I am sorry i was not in when you
called on the 18th. AS soon as l returned 10
the house I read your letter and accompany
ing papers and expected to see you at o'clock.
MY note being in verbal message was given
to you to call at that hour, which you may
not have received. Since you were here Ihear
that President Calderon has been carried of
to Chill as a prisoner. hope this Is not true.