Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-23

could information be given beyond the state
ment of the warrant of arrest. Lowell was
further informed that insolvency could not
be discharged from custody, his conduct hav-
ing brought him under the British coercion
statutes.
Freliughuysen. upon receipt of this infer
nation, directed Lowell on March 4, 1882,
TO urge the British authorities to exercise the
discretionary powers conferred by the exist
ing coercive statutes, and order prompt tri j
in all cases of imprisoned Americans.
In response to this Lowell informs Ere.
linghuysen, under date of March 9TH, that
the British authorities have assured him that
the matter will have their immediate stten-
ton. Lowell also informs the Secretary that
the full correspondence between himself and
ths British authorities upon the subj act has
been forwarded by mail to the Department of
State.
The Peruvian scandaI-COntinuation OF
Shepherds Testimony.
WASHINGTON, March 22d.-Shipherd pro-
duced a copy of his letter to the President,
dated April %, 1881. In this letter Shipherd
states that the interests of his clients in Peru
ton in the discussion of any plans affecting
the future of the PROSTATE republics. He
further states that the purpose Ct this note is
that the decision as to the appointment Of
Ministers to Chile and Peru shall be reserved
until the facts relative to the claims of the
Peruvian Company shall have been laid be-
fore the President.
Shipherd stated that he had not yet found
the letter of May Dist, but had written to his
SON to make copy and send it to him, and
he expected to lay it before the committee in
few days.
Kasson asked if the witness knew of any
instance in which Hurlbut's official action
had been purchased.
Shiphsrd replied that in the statements he
made yesterday, he spoke from his knowledge
of events that occurred many years ago, and
which came under his notice at the time and
from which he formed his opinion of Hurl-
but. In connection with this opinion, and
in further reply to the inquiry. he called at
tention to decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Clark against
the United States. in which it was shown
that Hurlbut, while in the service of the
United States at New Orleans, accepted o
bribe.
Representative Kasson then asked if in all
his (witness) correspondence with Hurlbut
the latter ever intimated that he desired to
have an interest in the Peruvian claim.
Answer-No, sir he never did, and added
tn 1t 1 officer of the United State in diplo-
matte service or otherwise, expressed any de-
sire or listened to any proposals for interest
in the claim of the Peruvian Company.
The witness was asked by Kasson " Who
now holds the Landresu claim ?" and he re-
piled cit is now held by Americans, but 1
could not, without violating private conf
dence, disclose the names of the parties" The
legal name of his (Shipherd's) company. the
witness stated, was the Peruvian Company,
| il corporated under the laws of Georgia, in
| 1870, and every share Of stock was held in
this country. The witness declined to state
how much had been paid in for stock, or
from what parties the claim was purchased,
| or whether the original parties were paid for
! their claim in stock of the new company; or
whether the company has ever taken posses
sion of any property in Peru; or whether
! thew have resident agent in Peru. The
company have notified Peru of their claim,
| but have never received any acknowledgment
OF said claims. The Peruvian Company
never had any official correspondence with the
| Peruvian Government whatever. The adj
vices Of the company have been received from
| private sources.
! Kasson explained that the CT Jet of his III.
quiries was the discovery of the truth or
falsehood of the allegation on which the in.
vestigatiOn il based and either it shows that
| the Peruvian Company was purely a spec0la-
tive enterprise, dependent for its success en-
| tirely upon the Intervention Of this Cove n
nent, or that tie claim of the company is
/
citizens have perfect right to engage IL.
| Shipherd then went into a long explanation
Of his connection with the Peruvian Com
| pany 1t began in March, 1881, when he be-
came counsel for his clients, who purchased
this claim. Witness recognized the magni
tude of the interests involved. and opened
negotiations with Governor Boutwell,, with a
view Of securing his aid as counsel upon ali
matters affecting international questions.
| n pi,a1 ha
after three weeks called upon witness and
| stated that the claim was good, and he was
prepared to lay it before the President. Sew
eral conferences eusued as to what couIs
should be employed, bat at no time was any
thing said in favor of employing any man on
account of his official station or relations.
Witness discussed with Governor Boutwell,
the question of renewing through the Secre-
tary of State the negotiations which had been
begun with the Executive, aud suggested that
Governor Boutwell, should undertake to open
the negotiations. About this time, however,
it was suggested that Senator -, whose
name witness declines to give the committee,
being a warm personal friend of the Secretary.
would perhaps be the best person for that
delicate mission, Governor Boutwell, APP
proved it, and shortly afterward witness had
an interview with the Senator at his wit
nessD eff q in New York, lasting about four
hours, and on which occasion papers were
submitted to the Senator. Witness asked
him if he would accept a retainer in the case
as counsel, and the Senator replied, with
vehemenc4, mo, sir, under no conceivable
circumstances You can readily see that
this matter might come before Congress in
some shape for its action, and it would be
manifestly Improper" The Senator ad lei
that we had no need OF counsel 10 the sense |
had mentioned that we had simply to lay
our case before the Secretary and President.
The whole country was interested, and it was
his duty as Senator to further the interests
of our company. He was then on his way
from bis home in New Hampshire lat this
announcement there were visible signs of
amusement, in view of witness repeated re-
iusas to disclose the name Of the Senator.
to Washington, and be stated that he would
be pleased to bring about for me an inter
view with the Secretary of State.
Witness was asked how he came to obtain
a charter under the laws OF Georgia, and ex-
planned that in looking about for the most
favorable conditions, he heard of charter
which had some time since been granted Duff
Green by the State of Georgia, and which
contained such extraordinary advantageous
features, allowing the establishment of
branches st any point in this country, that
they decided to obtain this charter. The
company is now acting under this charter,
and the stock has been regularly issued
under the clause permitting branches. They
established the headquarters in New York
city.
Witness was again asked if he still had
objection to giving the name of the Senator.
and replied, "Since go much has been
said in this connection. perhaps it
would be better that should right
here and now lives the entire history Of the
connection of this Senator with the Peruvian
Company. 1 have already spoken of his re-
fusal to take a retainer. At a subsequent
date, having been advised by the Secretary Of
State and several friends, both in the Senate
and House, that this case uld never come
before Congress, but would be settled in the
State Department, the Senator did take fee
as attorney for the company, and acted in
that capacity for nearly four months. His
entire connection with the case was during
the recess of Congress. Shortly before the
reasse nbl ng OF Congress, in December, he
had another interview with me, and stated
that he was satisfied that the questions in
volved in the affairs Of the company would
come before Congress in manner involv.
! ing legislative action, and he could
not, therefore, reconcile his position
as counsel for company upon