Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-05-04
THE PERU INVESTIGATION.

THE PERU INVESTIGATION.
Senator Blair Examined TO.day-His
Interview with Shipherd and with
Secretary Blaine.
The examination OF Senator Blair was resumed
| promptly at 10 O'Clock this morning before the
| loreign affairs committee. Chairman Williams
began the Investigation by asking: 81 understand
you are more interested In the policy of the United
states than in any financial scheme?"
| Witness replied that he early became interested
In the subject of an inter-oceanic canal, and In
| that connection, with the operations of De Les
seps, he thought with a proper policy towards
Peru on the part OF this country, her integrity OF
territory might be preserved, and an alliance with
M ner i9gnt be OF great value to this country Wit
at The extra session OF Congress at that time; he
| thougnt the strongest assertion OF Monroe doc
trine should have been given out; that no other
| than American control should be allowed over any
| lsthmian transit In further reply witness said:
| Just what the United States ought to do to pre-
serve territorial integrity of Peru, have never
considered, other than that we ought TO GO Just
| lea for North and south America. believe Proyi-
| dence mas designed leadership on this continent
Question:" In defending the western entrance
| or the lSthmuS canal, which do you regard the
more important alliance for the United States
Answer.-"I should judge an alliance with Peru
| would be OF much more value. Peru can sustain
| poUulatioH OI many lnlllonS.
THE SENATOR'S INTERVIEWS WITH sHIPHERD.
| Mr.. Williams then asked: "When did you first
| meet Shipherd?"
| Witness stated in reply that the first interview
with Shipherd took place at his (Shpherds) ofrice
| NO. 10 Spruce street, New York; ex-senator Cra-
| The conversation was In substance that he (Ship-
herdl wanted to engage witness service I'm bring
| attention OF the State department. Witness fndf-
| Gated that he would see him tShipherd) later In
regard to it, The second interview took place at
| Shipherd's Office about the 10th OF July. Wit
| ness was under the impression that Mr.. Cra-
gin was with him but went away again. Most OF
alone.
Witness would not undertake to give the dialogue
with with the huency and apparent accuracy that Ship
herd had employed, but would endeavor to give
the substance OF it, which was, I'm effect that Mr.
Shipherd explained at great length the points of
| the Cochet claim and discussed the situation In
| Chflt-Peruy1an affairs; the probability that Chill
would accept the money indemnity. and the desire
on the part OF those he (Shipherd) represented to
assist Peru in raising the amount required, using
| the Cochet claim as basis OF negotiation with
Peru, and by settlement OF this kind to secure
| Tor the United States the incidental commercial
| advantages which otherwise might go to foreign
| powers.
| Chairman Williams asked: ibid you understand
that it was desr able TO enable Peru to secure the
retirement OF the Chian forces from her territory
and to enable her to satisfy Chill demands for an
| indemnity?"
Answer.-Yes, I did.
Chairman Williams.-It was your purpose to..aid
| iH accomplishing tiiiS TeSult, WAS IL UOCI
| AnSwer.-Yes, sir; it was
WHAT sHIPHERD WANTED THE SENATOR TO Do
Mr. Williams.-Just what Mr.. Shipherd wanted
you to do will you please be careful to state to the
| committee your understanding OF it.
Answer.-He wanted me primarily to examine
MS papers ana give my opinion upon them, but
| more particularly he desired me to ascertain the
| attitude OF this government toward Chill and
Peru; wanted me to see the Secretary of State and
| learn what the policy OF this government would
| De- thought it proper and right to do so.
| counsel at that time retained by Shipherd.
Witness replied he [Shipherj) showed me
| Gov. BoutwellS opinion, and mentioned having
| herd) seemed to entertain no doubt, whatever, OF
| the validity OF the Cochet claim.
Witness was asked IL he understood that the
| Peruvian company expected to be able to furnish
the amount OF fdemnity which Chill would de-
mand, and replied there was no Peruvian COM
pany at that time. adding. 81 supposed there was
| SORT OF SYNDICATE OF GENTLEMEN
| embracing those he had mentioned to me as being
interested in the claim. 1 do not now recall the
names OF all OF them, but they are published in the
| prospectus, think"
Question.-What was the amount OF the idem-
nifty demanded and what did you understand to
be the amount or value of the Cochet claim9
S. did not Know What fS n was Sasi Worh mhs
| l considered It dependent upon subsequent
| Nemn1ty was put at about $35, ,000,o00.
THE INTERVIEWS AT Mr.. BLAINR's HOUSE.
Chairman Williams then inquired In relation to
the interviews OF July 18th and 26th at Mr. Blaines
| house.
Witness said he saw Mr.. Blaine and told him
something In relation to this natter but he said he
did not care In SO important matter to transmit to
Mr. Shipherd the views OF the department. but de-
sired Mr Blaine to see Shipherd and talk with
view occurred on the evening OF the 25th. Mr..
| Blaine seemed full OF company, and the interview
| sation was general; nothing was said by any one
that was not heard by all Witness could only
conversation turned upon the probable policy OF
this government, what attitude our government
would take, and whether its policy would be per-
| to know something of the Landreau claim, but in
regard to the Cochet claim after 1t was explained
| to him, he raised some questions At the inter-
Mr.. Walker Blaine was there short time, and
| took part in the argument The substance OF the
Cochet claim Mr. Blaine made the point point that tn tit it
| originated as claim upon Peru by French citi-
| zen, and that Mr. Sh1pherd could have no rights
| against Peru that a Peruvian would not have;
that the claim seemed to be merely an assignment
| to an American citizen Shipherd asserted that
the claim was not chose in action but was based
| upon actual property. Mr. Blaine then seemed to
assent to the proposition-n it was as Mr.. Ship
herd represented.that the American claimant
would be entitled to the kindly offices Of his gov
| ernment.
Witness continued: Mr. Blaine communicated to
us the substance OF the instructions he had given
to Minister Hurlbut and Minister Fitzpatrick, and
these instructions which am very sure were com;
were all that he desired. Mr.. Blaine seemed quite
clear, from the previous history OF the Landreau
claim, that 1t was one for which this government
could properly exercise its good offices, unof-
1cially, in securing hearing and adjudication by
the government Of Peru.
THE CocHET CLAIM.
Witness was asked why the secretary did not
consider the Cochet claim as entitled to
the same consideration, and repned:-" Be
cause, as he said, 1t was an assign
ment from q foreigner to an American citizen
UNI fhQn Glynd q
claim that he also represented or owned the Lam
dreau claim 2"
Witness understood that Mr.. Shipherd told Mr.
Blaine that for the purposes OF negotiation with
Peru he (Sh1pherd) was authorized to represent
was prior lien, and should take precedence.
Mr. BelmOnt-How do you reconcile this with
the letter OF Mr. Robert Chr1sty to Mr.. Blaine In
which he states that he is the attorney for the
Landreau claim, and the only person authorized to
act for it,
Mr. WIlliams--If the gentleman will pardon me
have but question to ask, and then I am
through
Senator Blair.-Certainly, II the chairman please
would like to answer the question. 1 do not
ChrfSfy and n hat