New-York tribune., 1882-04-07
SHEPHERD STILL TALKING.

ING TO sHIPHERD
WASHINGTON. April 6.-The examination OF
Jacob r. shpherd resumed this morning before the
House Committee Foreign Affairs In the absence OF
MIR. Williams chairman on account of sickness, the
chair was occupied by Mr.. Orh. The examination was
conducted by Mr.. Rice.
Mr. shipherd stated that the Peruvian Company
owned the claim of Alexander Cochet and that II ala
not own that of Landreau that Cochet lived in Peru
portion OF his life. and died in Paris leaving natural
ia Peru; and that is through that natural son ha'
Peruvian Company possesses the title which sets
up The company claims that Alexander Cochct WIS., III
his lifetime, of one-third of the guano
deposits In Peru that that claim vested in him from the
discoveries in ls40 and that 1t, therefore,
covered all guano that had been taken from those
deposits in the interval This claim was based upon
decree of the Peruvian Government dated February l5
1888 the effect that anyone who shonld thereafter
discover property belonging any suppressed convent
or other property belonging TO the state. shond nave
right TO the third part of such property
Q-Have you seen any notice. or DO you Know OF any
notice In any scientific work. which you refer this
committee for Information in reference to the life and
character of Alexander COchet
Al think know of none that is not quoted or re-
ferred to in one or the other OF the doou-
ments which have been furnished 10 the state
Department The first document that was furnished TO
me was what purpOrted TO be manuscript copy Ill
Spanish OF the old Spanish pamphlet 1t was stated 10
that only sin gle copy of that pamphlet had been OBJ
tanabe by him. and that he had paid about $4,000 for
of Lima that the original deposited for safe-keep
ing with who had safe in Lima He explained
that had friend there who was merchant with Sc
cure that he had deposited the original there and
had brought the copy with him. The original copy mas
not been produced in America. After this manu-
script had furnished and after this translation
had been furnished Inc, a large parcel or Cochets
original papers was received by US from
Paris They were delivered TO our messenger
there by the notary who had sealed them up at the time
Of Cochets death Among these papers was found copy
of the original award Of 5000 of guano, signed APP
parently with the autographs Of the principal officers of
the Peruvian Congress- and certified by the French Min
lister, under his SEAL to be true duplicate copy OF the
original In connection with these papers were also
found originals in the handwriting Of Cochet, which, as
my translator contain duplicates OF this
pamphlet. We have, therefore. we think. in New
York the original manuscript authentcating this pam
pnet and covering the substance Of the whole pamphlet
Q-Do You know from WHOM these manuscripts just
spoken Of were obtanedf
A-As / am informed they delivered to Peter
Hevner who went to Paris as our messenger. They
were delivered to him by the notary in Paris, which
notary had scaled them up originally
Q.-And all these papers are here, are they
A-No sir There are many papers i'll New York
which have been here. intended to state Only that
among these papers my translator assures me that he
finds complete duplicates OF this original alleged
panphet in the handwriting of Cochet covering these
parts for which he seems to have been respOns bic.
WHAT COCHET DID AND CLAIMED.
O-What did Cochet claim OF the Peruvian Govern
ment
A-Cochet made certain Investigations in-o guano
with special reference to its utility i'll Europe The re-
suits Of these investigations the initiation Of trade
in guanO to Europe. Guano was sent there and Sold
Cochct not only gave good deal of attention to the
matter Peru. hat went to England and prepared Ia
bles for me use OF LngSA FARMERS ne ehNc ls3 or
years To the development OF the guanO trade pc
ginning first with the development OF IL chemical quail
ties He seems himself TO have been only moderately in
terested IN any qu'Soh OF enIaiS uus ISHt
he did make a claim on one AlT, cOulrYnan or ms,
who initiated the trade for some partnership interest," 10
the original discoveries and imtiators oi I'M.
to M spen em that he wa the original dr.
coverer This issue Cochot the one hand aud
Allier and QuirOs the other. seems to have been
brought to hearing in the Peruvian Congress and the
Peruvian Congress decided first generally and ab5O
lutcly that somebody had conferred great advantage
on the state secondly that Committee of Award
Committee Of Prizes should inquire and determine VINO
was the original discoyerer and that that original die
IONS OF nano for his expenses etc When that award
was obtained there was an exception by the committee
The committee annexed TO me award oI tms 1000
tons Of the condition that Cochct should
give to the state certain valuable dscoVe1es whch nc
frate Of soda into nitrate OF potash. This Cochct was
unwilling do; and. therefore, the award gave hun
nothing. That s 1t gave him the 1000 tons OF glano
as first d-coyerer therein a0udicaiing that c was
III
which ne claimed the committee had no authority TO
annex and which he refused to comply with. As mat
Iurlbus letter states, the matter was brought
up before mixed commission in 1851. an confident
that the record viii show that all that COchet attempted
10 get was the 5000 tons Of guanO.
We have no knowledge that Corhet ever claimed one
third he supposed he entitled 70 Onehird OF
the grano in Peru and Therefore thrro may be very
the claims set up BY my clients
The points which General Butler (among our cOunseD
INSERTS that the effect Of the award was simply to al
judcae absolutely, that COchet was the original dseoV
of g1ano within the meaning OF the decree nat mas
been read and that II ne ne dlscoNerer the tile 70
onehd vested absolutely in him at the time OF the dis
covery by operation OF law -, .
dealings of Alexander COchet and the Peruvian Com,
Cochets cOlaltlOnal acccPIahcT Soch1, VII With
was said 10 have been founl IN Pars ana OF which GER
the Peruvian Company; the assignment by Galaclo
COchet OF his interest IN his putave fathers claim MIR
Rice said: You claim that under this decree OF 1888
gvng the discOverer Of convent or other property III
Peru belonging TO the nation one,third, Alexander
Cochc because he made scientific discovery by which
the value OF guano was enhanced was emitted TO one
ds.overer within the meaning of this decree and was,
Therefore, entitled 10 one-third ,.,o- -
coSeryi A-Yes; ne discovered the essential thing
which the decree was intended TO pIlhg out 49, d.. -.
Q.-Ihe guanO beds had lain there since the days or
IiIaro and long before that and were not Known! A.
O-But because Cochet made scientific discoveryiyou
said that third Of these guano deposits vested III
himl A.-rna' is the view Of our counsel
Odd the Peruvian Government have any property
fn that scientific discovery At took about $1,000
600 900 cast. az the drccf result or IL.
Q-l ask did the Peruvian Government have any
property IN this discovery Ave 50 understand IT,
O-Ifthe Peruvian Government had no property or
ownership this scientific discovery then COchet did
not property belonging u the Peruvian Govern
neut property be .ouging 10 any scientific man who
cou Tn 1t in the realms of science Al do not know
that understand the drift of the question The object
OF the decree 10 bring within the control OF he
Government the value by which the Government might
profit tOchct brought out ~ 2OOOoOOOO III value and,
Under the decree entitled to Onc-tllrd.
Q-waai paid TO Galacio Cochet for his interest
Al decline to state
Q-You ate ia your testimony a. 10 your interview
with General Ilurlbut: Mr. HUrhut stated 10 that
he had tell tina. the President regarded
NV IA made the printed papers, being as
efrong q case both ia law and in equity could
ne ms e Al