New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-05

for other reason, hiI We WIN
The next morning. wedd so. .,.,v,
Q-Who present at the first mte i wself Mr
recollect no parties who were present pu' m!een' ~
shipherd and MIR. Blaine. 1880, An Mr.
oASpat how long did tho interview continue A mo
lave moi got the sort OF memory that would enaoe me
10 swear 10 time but think We talked Tor hii' an muir
or may ,s an that interview you three talked in
mon A.-Yes; SO far as know nothing was SAID by
ve to the commiitee as nearly You can reco-
lec the substance OF ,he ves Ipnw that
can separate the subject matter of the evening
interview from that Of the interview next morning MI
was and something OF the men who were associated
him. mentioning various names to MI Elaine bI ba
which the company desired to make OF the.' ho
were to 90 on. to know the policy which the Govern
ment would pursue toward Gnu ana ISIuu
u tn ay o. is wish take terrory Peru
Of course there nothing for any American company
territory OF Peru should only be taken as asu reSva
designed to ask of Clli that she snouid she hen
rltory only after reasonable opportunity na1 p S
afforded Peru 10 pay pecunary indemnify ana atr
Peru had failed 10 DO ~" theh tneIe was an Jdh h y
for An American company 10 utlZe THESE Claims ~ III
agreement with Peru rendering the amount denhIte
SSna matter micht be worked out in accordance with
the Interests this Peruvian Company and with the
He wished 10 know what attitude the Government was
going 10 Occupy the South American question -
Q.-What was Mr.. Bldiues responses A-Mr Blame,
In the claims themselves seemed TO Know
somcihlnc ahuuI the Landreau claim | do not know
whether ne mentioned having knowledge OF IL when ne
was in Congress The Cochet claim being explained to
him do know whether am running lhtO ne inter
view OF the next morning., he raised some question III
Mr Lord-Do You regard the interview of the evening
aud that Of the morning of the 2otD as SUD
stantialiy the same interview .,..u 49,, : ,o
The wItness-They are the same interview; bal nave
been attempting 10 separate them In tnc evening at
length as it was the next morning linen was iui3 "
cusscd. .. -, ...rox.
morning Occur and WHO were present Al VVSu i
in the There Vas nobody present puo DIV, WE
was there while, and that he joined III the aisu
Inent which raised Oh this question ., .,rao g.,
common the the interview the hgnt az
Ayes think that MI Blaine h"G 0tnci UIiS
Mr. Riec-Did YOU or Mr.. shpherd at that time have
any conversation with Mr.. Blaine at watch the other
was moi present Did you and Mr.. shlpherd separate
Al recollection that we dld. "outu 'l ihi
a quite extraordinary If mah could swear aleT tls
leigch of uue that he was actually present Su vrV
eyey word that said that he ala not hetu every
word that was SAID not recolect our being sepa-
The charman-Give the substance of that interview.
The wltness-There was pretty thor3aga discussion
OF COchet claim. IN which MI. shpheId eHplaheu
ms relation TO II and stated the views OF MS
counsel Mr. Boutwell, who mad exsnineH Ine ma it
lng between a Peruvian ana french ci,i%em anu
hat Mr. snpherd's own statement oil poruT came
land that Mr. shipherds assignment was from me
or those ineres Ell with Dim could nave rights which
would not have III the same claim anu tnat
Peruvian could have no right to american protection
or coinenance in any regard Whatever ON that point
1 remember that Walker Blaine lonea ~ 'ne uistss
sion. sustaining the view when MS a'neI tooA' Hi
shipheTd contrOvered that and also put ms claim pll
cipaly upon the ground that his tide was not 10 rsht
IN action. but tnat II was 10 ac'ua proper! am
portion OF the sOthe rea! cstateOf fcru STAINING on
that ground he put his rights Il think Mr. Biaine SUP
staulaly seemed to concTde then3 as oIn7 tII
the though the claim had orIsinated between
occurred the correct view do not know Nv
whether ii had ever been suggested ~ r n or
The view OF sucn claim as MI Blaine under
stood the COchet claim 70 be- An American cilHen un
stiOuulg has the right acquire tlllc
against foreign Government by assignment from CIT
zcn of that same foreign Government ana IL must, as
seemed Inc, be always question addressed 10 lhe
discretion OF the owners GoyerDment wiener .
under all the circumstances tlat surround inc
of private and OF pubic Of IA ; MdnGnai
terere by giving good offices OF III some substantial way
ways addressed 10 the discretion OF Government and
II would be In such case ar Inns. 90 NOT hhO" hat
this is sound nerna lOna law, but II seems 10 ne mat
o~As The result Of that interview, what did Mr..
Blaine prcnisei A-As the result of that interview,
THINK MIR Blaine explained the instruction Il think he
read tDem to- u.s. When he had given to Mr. urbut
and Fitzpatrick; which instructions were all that
Sniuberd 10 e1pIcssed ninIsc1) had desire
whatever for lie had the understanding tand sup
posed that the world had tnv tns a ae
both by Chill and Peru the basis Of their negolatlo II
should accept pecuniary indemnity, 1t was the under,
sandng that Chill would do so Ine United states mad
beng probability that that poney % 20 M DC ReF6n
sendiug his representatives TO Peru, making
delDte agreement with Peru as TO the
and for an assignment OF hypothecaton pledge in
whatever made OF the resources OF Peru TO secure
the payment Of these CLAIMS or Oh Whatever shouu oe
agreed upon in resec, 10 them and OF such advances
as necessarily must have Including Of course TINS
INGENUITY provision for her foreign deb anu
FOR the ming expenses OF her Government
ODD MIR. Blame Indicate what the state Department
would do ia the .utuIe IN regard to either OF those
claims A.-Nothng that recoleet further than tnat
he would examine them He seemed quite clear, from
there = was not much doubt as to the American
claim being entitled 10 the good OlCt5 OF
the Government IN securing hearing ana SQudlcatoh
by the tribunals in Peru. In reference to the Cochet
ei.n az stated you he aimed his blows directly AT
any ue right which the owners might have TO recog-
milton IN any form by the American government De
thUt claim the assnlneh iom IOIelehel ~
Mr. sllsonEDld shpherd give Mr.. Blaine to under
stand that he had the control of the LandIeaq claim
Sso0 o VIII With 'o Peru he had the management of
i mn' cTaIn IA well as Of the Cocner claim
and he claimed further that tie Cochet clalu mad
prioy 10y reason OF the of Cocbet having been
rendered earlier Of Landreau, and that tine
Coclct claim stood the relation to the Laudrean
c.im prior mortgage docs to suDse quent one ana
that must be so dealt with ID equity ana IL an! agre
men adjustment made IN regard 70 tnose ens' 30
thai, without an agreement with the o"ners OF Ine
Landreau claim, the owners OF the Cochet claim would
some communication, understanding, between Ship
herd and the OF the Landrean claim, or some OF
Mr. Beimont-How do yOu explain the letter OF MIR.
Chflsty which read the other day by MI BlaiGei
Tne witness-I do not know what the letter waS
the attorney for Landreau claim and that one
else had a right 10 represent IL
The witness-i do undertake to explain II. sim
My explain what know. 1 do not know Mr. Christy.
never heard OF until that the other day.
The charman-In either OF these interviews any
reference made TO the letter OF June 10 General Hur
but proposing 70 give hun an interest III the Peruvian
Company the amount OF S20O,OOOf
The witDess-No there Was not. l never heard
OF that letter until about the 4th OF 9TH Of
December was Mr.. Baino's house evening. He
was reading. There pile Of what appeared to be
letters and top he pushed ~ and told TO
read 1t. II this letier Of June Z. l had 10
knowledge OF II before.