The Portland daily press., 1882-05-05
THE PERUVIAN COMPANY.
Senator Blair's Examination Continued

| Chairman Williams said, 81 understood you
we're more interested in the policy OF the Unit
ed States than in any financial sonemea NEE ;,.
| terested in the subject of the inter-oceanic
| canal, and in that connection with the opera
| tions of DeLesseps. He thought that with the
proper policy toward Peru by this country, her
| integrity of territory might be preserved ana
| an alliance with her might be Of great value to
| this country. The witness thought some oe-
| cided action should have been taken at the eX-
ira session of Congress. At that time the
strongest assertion of the Munroe doctrlne
should have been given out tnat no o'nel enan y,
American control should be allowed over any
Isthman transit. "Just what the United states
ought o do TO preserve the territorial integrity
of Peru have never considered, otner Lnan
that we ought to go just SO far as polite. be-
lieve in North and South America for North
and South Americans. believe that Provi-
dence has designed the leadership on this con-
tinent to be with this country.
Mr. Williamson defending tie western en-
trance of the Isthmian canal, which do you re-
gard as the most Important alliance for tho
United States, with Peru or Nicaragua?
Mr. Blair-I should judge an alliance with
Peru to be much more v, lue. Peru can sustain
population of many millions.
Mr. Williams-Whend did you first meet snip
herd?
Thelwitness replied that the first intery Kew. ew
took place at his (Shipherd's) office IN New
York. Elk Senator Cragin introduced them.
The interview was brief. The conversation
was in substance that he (Shipherd) wanted 10
engage the witnesses services IN bringing tne
subject of the Peruvian company 10 tne atlen-
tion of the State department. The witness ln-
dicated that he would see Shipherd later in
regard to it. 80 atsh;r-
herds Office about the 10th OF July. Inc WIZ
ness was under the impression that Cragln was VA
with him, but went away again. Most OF tne
conversation took place between them when
alone. The witness would not undertake 10
give the dialogue with fuency and apparent
accuracy that Shipherd had employed, put
would endeavor to give the substance =: ~,
the Cochet claim, discussed the situation IN
Chili-Peruvian affairs, the pro6aDlilty tnas
Chill would accept the money indemnify, anu
the desire on the part OF those Shiphero repre-
sented to assist Peru in raising the amount 70.
Quired, using the Cochet claim as tne OASIS Oh
negotiation with Peru, and by settlement OF
this kind to secure for the United States the
incidental commercial advantages winch other
wise might go to foreign powers.
Mr.. Williams-You understood that IL was
desirable to enable Peru to secure the retire.
ment of the Chilian forces from her territory
and to enable her to satisfy Chili's demands
for indemnity?
Answer--Yes, I did =,
Mr.. Williams-It was your purpose to aid in
accomplishing this result, was 1t not!
Answer-Yes, sir.
Mr.. Williams-Just what Shipherd want
ed you to do; will you please be careful 10
state to the committee your understanding Oh
it?
Mr. Blair-He wanted me primarily to exam
inc his papers and give my opinion upon them,
but more particularly he desired me to ascer-
tain the attitude of this government toward
Chill and Peru. He wanted me to see the sec
retary of State and learn what the poiicy OF
this government would be. thought 1t pro-
per and right to do so.
Mr.. Williams asked If the witness knew of
any other counsel at the time retained by Ship
herd.
The witness replied, "he (Shlpherd) showed
me Boutwelps opinion and mentioned having
consulted other counsel. At that time ne (Snlp-
herd) seemed to entertain no doubt Wnatever
of the validity of the Cochet claim. The specl-
fic and important thing the initial thing IN
fact for them to know was whether the policy
of this country would be such as would make
it safe for them to enter into contracts and
hold property on Peruvian SOIL
The witness understood our government to
assume posi- ion of warning away other pow
ers which was entirely in accord with his views
of what it ought to be in all matters affecting
the affairs of this continent.
The witness was asked if he understood that
the Peruvian company expected to be able to
furnish the amount of indemnity which Chilli
would demand, and replied, There was no
Peruvian company at that time L supposed
there was syndicate embracing those ne had
mentioned to me as being interested IN the
claim do not recall the names of all of than,
but they Gro published in the prospectus J.
think Shipherd's estinatv Of his ciafm was q
billion dollars. L do not know what IL was
worth. considered 1t dependent upon sqose-
quent arrangements with Peru herself. un-
derstood the indemnity was put down at ABOUT
35 mill ion."
Mr.. Williams inquired relative to the inter
view of July 25th and 26th at Blaine's house.
ID frtd hi i'm
something in relation to this matter, out SAID
he did not care in SO important matter to
transmit to Shipherd the views of the depart
ment but desired Mr.. Blaine to see Shipherd
andtalk with him. Mr. Blaine readily assented
and the interview occurred on the evening OF
the 25fh. Mr.. Blaine seemed full of company
and the interview was brief, perhaps halI an
hour. The conversation was general. Moth
ing was said by any one that was not heard bg
all. The witness could only give IN general
terms the subject matter The conversation
turned upon the probable policy of this govern
ment, what attitude our government would
take and whether its policy would be perma-
nent and well understood. Mr.. Blaine seemed
to know something of the Landreau claim, but
in regard to the Cochet claim after IL was ex-
planned to him he raised some questions.
At an interview the next morning lasting
about an hour Walker Blaine was there short
time and took part in the argument. Inc SUP
stance of the interview wasa pretty thorough
discussion OF the COCn0G Clalm. hI. DiotHo
made the point that it originated as claim
upon Peru by French citizen, and that Ship
herd could have no rights against Peru that
Peruvian would not have; that the claim
seemed to be merely an assignment TO an
American citizen.
Shipherd asserted that the claim was not a
chose in action but was based upon actual
property.
Mr.. Blaine then seemed to assent to the pro-
position, if it was as Shipherd represented that
the American claimant would be entitled to
the kindly offices of his government Mr..
Blaine communicated to US the substance OF
the instructions he had given to Minister Hurl-
but and Minister Fitzpatrick, and these instruc-
tions, which I am very sure were comrnunicat-
to us at that time, Mr.. Shipherd said were all
that he desired. The understanding was
at that time that Chilli would accept money
indemnity, SO that it seemed If there was no
CT ange in the policy of this Government that
it would be safe and wise for the syndicate to
60 on and form their company and negotiate
with Peru in the matter of aiding her to pay
the indemnity. Mr.. Blaine seemed quite clear
from the previous history of the Landreau
claim, that it was one for which this govern
ment could properly exercise its good offices,
unoficially, in securing hearing and ad1udl-
cation by the government OF Peru.
The witness was asked why the Secretary did
not consider the Cochet claim as entitled to the
same consideration, and replied, because he
to an American citizen.
Question-Did not Shipherd claim that
he also represented or owned the Landreau
claim?
The witness understood that Shipherd told
Blaine that for purpose of negotiation with
Peru he (Shipherd) was authorized TO repre-
sent the Landreau claim, and in fact the
Cochet claim was a prior lien and should take
precedence.
Belmont-How do you reconcile that with
the letter of Robert Christie to Blaine, in
which he states that he is attorney for the Lam
dreau claim and the only person there is to act
for it?
Williams--f the gentleman will pardon me,
have but question to ask and then am
through.
Mr.. Blair-Certainly and If the Chairman
please 1 would like to answer the question. l
do not know Mr.. Christie and have no know
edge whatever of what connection he has with
the Landreau claim. am only giving my
understanding of what was said at this inter-
view concerning the Landreau claim.
Mr.. Williams-At this interview did you
hear any allusion made by Shipherd to his offer
of $3.50, 900. in stock to Mr.. Hulbut?
Answer-None whatever. certainly would
have heard it if anything of the kind was
said.
The examination was then postponed till
to morrow.