The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-04-08

The Versatile Witness Again1n the
+ Tolls OF tho Investigating Com.
mittee and Subjected to a
Scathing Examination.
He Surveys the Situation, and Is Proof
Against the Wilcs OF the
Cllarmer.
The Correspondence Between Minister
lIurlbHt and Witness Is offered
In Evidence,
And Exhibits the President Of the
Peruvian Company
In No Enviable or Crcditable
M Light.
Other Foreign and Domestic News.
Other Foreign and Domestic News.
Shepherds Examination.

WASHINGTON, April THE examination
Of Jacob r. Shipherd is conducted by men,
bcrs Of the committee on foreign affairs, ac-
cording to their position, beginning with
the chairman Williams. Under this ar
rQngement democratic mcmbor Of the com
mittee will not have an opportunity to cross
examine the witness until the Republican |
members have concluded, and Representa-
tiyes Perry Belmont, of New York,
upon whose resolution the investigation
was ordered, is the last member on the
committee list Chairman Williams was
absent to-day, and Orth, OF Indiana, pre-
sided over the investigation As soon as n
quorum was in attendance Rice inquired.
IF the letter published in the
New York Herald May 10Th
tor Jones, Is the letter alluded to in the
postscript OF May 2lst."
After reading :he letter, Mr.. Shipherd
replied II think ii is"
Rice-"Up to that time IL had been the
Intention of your client, had it not, to offer
the presidency Of the Peruvian company to
General Grant,"
Mr.. Shipherd replied that it had, but
that, fearing that from that let
ter there might not be perfect
harmony between General Grant and Presi-
to adhere to their original intention.
Shipherd was asked to give tho names
Of any members of congress or
other parties to whom his pro-
pectus had been sent. He replied
that he could if il were deemed proper
question. The committee decided the
question to be proper, Shipherd replied
that he had no correspondence with any
member oil congress, as n member, or with
respect. to any action as member, that
all his dealings or correspondence
with such persons was with them as citi-
zens and In their private capacity
Ricc-"The committee IN unable to divide
aperson into two parts--one as member of
congress and the other as n private citizen.
The committee fails to admit of such u dis
Mnction, and expect you to answer"
Shipherd then declined to answer.
After some discussion as to
the propriety of his replying, which was
demurrcd to, he was asked If he had any
correspondence with any member Of the
4 house and replied that his only correspond
ence with any member was with Mr.. lew-
1T. He wrote him as n capitalist, not
knowing that no was n member, and that
Hewitt sent him very courteous reply
by the same messenger who bore his
(Shcpherd's) letter to him.
Rice then read from the printed evidence,
taken at former hearing, Shepherds state
mcnt in regard to his belief that Hurlbut
was not only purchaseablc, but that he
would insist on being purchased, and
asked what he (Shipherd) had to sustain
the allegation.
Shipherd replied; "Nothmg but the
letter and collateral correspondence with
General Hurlbut, which would DO submit
ted at proper time"
Rice-"l deem the present proper
time"
Witness replied that he could not get
ing to New York, but that he had with
him several original letters from
Hurlbut which he would submit
to the committee. The letters were then
read by the clerk. The first letter bore the
date OF Belvederc, Illinois, June @, .lSSt,
acknowledged the receipt of letter from
Shipherd, and stated that he (lIurlbut)
could take no action in the matter of the
Peruvian company, except under instruc
tions from the state department. The
second also bore the date of Beveaerc,
Illinois, June 10, 1881, and was of a similar
tenor, stating that any action in the matter
must be dictated and decided in Washing.
ton. The other five letters bore the date OF
Lima, Peru. The third letter bore the date
of September II, 1881, acknowledged the
receipt of documents from Shipherd
and stated that no such instructions
had been received by him lHurl.
butt Us no had stated had beer
forwarded to him at Lima by the state do
partmcnt; also intimating that such
great interests MS he (Shepherd) claimed tC
have in charge should be represented al
Lima by competent person; that Peru
was In urgent need of assistance. The
fourth letter bore the date of Octo
Der IL, 1881, acknowledged the
receipt of duplicate documents and
minated the writer didn't consider the
claim of the Peruvian company ms solid ~
had been represented by Shipherd. The let
ter also discussed ut some length the Cochctl
claim, aud pointed out its weakness. The
fith letter bore the date OF October rs, 1881
was very brief, aud simply stated that tn,
writer was unaware of the status of th,
French company, which was reputed e
have offered pecuniary aid to Peru. Tn,
sixth letter bore date Of October ~, 1881
II acknowledged the receipt of let
ter from Shipherd intimatcd tina
the Caldcron government was rapidly
being accepted, and IL the Peruvian
company expected anything to be done TO
thcm instructions should DO tclegraphe,
from tho state department ut once. TIL,
seventh and last letter bore the dat
of November %, 1881, and notinc,
Shipherd that he (Hurlbut) In,
sent their correspondence TO tn
state department and returned his (Ship
herd's) last and most singular letter, an,
positively declined any other correspond
once. The writer adds 1.-THE tone q
your letter is displcasing, and wish N
more OF them"