Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-03-23
The Witness Continues His
Story. Wednesday.
BE Declines to Answer Certain Question!
and Refuses to Give Names.
WASHINGTON. March ~.

ten o'clock, when the examination was re-
sumed.
Shipherd produced a copy OF his letter to
the President, dated April 18th, 1881. which
was alluded to in his testimony, yesterday,
and in which he opened negotiations upon the
subject of the Peru,i ian Company.
The letter was read by the chairman, and
in il Shipherd states that the interest of his
clients in Peru great as to entitle them
to consideration in the discussion of any
plans affecting the future of the PROSTATE re-
public. He further states that the purpose OF
this note is that decision on the appoint
ments of ministers to Chilli and Peru shall be
reserved until the facts relative to the claims
of the company shall have been laid before
the President.
Shipherd stated that he had not yet found
the letter of May 2lst but had written to his
son to make a copy and send TO him, and he
expected to lay 1t before the committee in a
few DAYS The chairman announced that the
committee would, in turn, ask such questions
AS they might desire, relative to matters under
discussion, yesterday.
Representative kasson asked if the witness
knew any instance in which Hurlbut's 6ftc-
ial action had been purchased.
Shipherd replied that in a statement he
made yesterday, he spoke from his knowl-
edge of events that occurred many years ago,
and which came under his notice at the time,
and from which he had formed his opinion
of Hurlbut. In connection with this opinion,
and in further reply to the inquiry, he called
attention TO a decision of the L. 5. Supreme
Court case, Clark VS.. United States, in which
it was shown that Hurlbut, while in the ser
vice of the United States, at New Orleans,
accepted bride.
Representative kasson then asked if in all
his (witness) correspondence with IIurlbut.
the latter ever intimated that he desired to
have an interest in the Peruvian claim!
Answer-No sir he never did.
The witness stated in a future reply that
no officer of the United States in the diplom-
attic service or otherwise, expressed any de-
sire or listened to any proposals for an in
terest in the claim of the Peruvian Co.
The witness was then asked by Represen.
tative kasson, who now held the Landreau
claim:
He replied-It is now held BY Americans,
but could not without violating private
| condolences, disclose the names of the par
| ties.
The legal name of his tShipherd's) COM
| pany, the witness stated in further reply is
! the Peruvian Company, incorporated under
| the laws of Georgia in 1870, and every share
| of stock is held in this country. The wit.
| ness declined to state how much has been
| paid in for stock or from what parties the
claim was purchased, whether the original
| parties were paid for their claim in stock OF
| the new company, or whether the company
| has ever taken possession of any property in
Peru, or whether they have resident agent
| in Peru.
The witness stated the company have mott
| fled Peru of their claim, but have never re-
| ceived any reply in acknowledgement of the
| claim. The Peruvian company has never
| had any correspondence with the Peruvian
government. Whatever advices the cOmpa-
nv has received, have been received from
| private sources.
! Representative Kasson explained the OBJ
| ject of his inquiries to be the discovery
| whether the allegation which the investi-
| CATION is based, that the Peruvian company
was purely speculative enterprise DEEPEN
| dent for its success entirely upon the inter
vention of this government. is true one,
or whether the claim of the company is a
valid one. and its business such as American
| citizens have perfect right to engage in.
| Shipherd then went into long explanation
of his connection with the Peruvian compa
ny, which began in March, 1881. when he
| became counsel for his clients who purchased
| this claim. The witness recognized the mag
nitude of the interests involved in the claim,
and opened negotiations with Gov Boutw ell
| with view to securing his aid as counsel
| upon all matters affecting international ques-
| tons. Boutwell, examined the papers, and
| after three weeks, called upon the witness
and stated that the claim was good and that
he was prepared to lay it before the Presi-
dent. Several conferences ensued as to what
| counsel should be employed but at no time
| was anything said in favor of employing any
man on account of his official station or rela-
| tions. The witness discussed with Boutwell,
| the question of renewing through the secre-
tary OF state the negotiations which had been
| begun with the executive who had since been
| disabled, and suggested that Gov. Boutwe III
should undertake to open negotiations
| About that time however, 1t was suggested
| that certain senator, whose name the wit
ness declined to give the committee being a
warm personal friend of the secretary would
| perhaps be the best person for that delicate
mission. Boutwell, approved it, and shortly
| afterwards, the witness had an interview with
the senator at his partners office in New
| York lasting about four hours, and in which
| all papers had been submitted to the senator
The witness asked him if he would accept
| retainer IN the case as counsel, and the
senator replied with vehemence
| No, sir. Under no conceivable circum-
| stances. You can readily see that this mat
| ter might come before congress in some shape
lor It's action. ana II would be maDltesty i'm
! proper.
The senator added that we had no need
| for counsel in the sense | had mentioned
that we had simply to lay our case before the
| Secretary and President. The whole coun-
| try was interested and it was his duty as a
| senator to further the interests of our com.
| pany. He was then on his way from his
| home in New Hampshire to Washington and
he stated that he would be pleased to bring
| about for me an interview with the secretary
| of state.
At this point there were visible signs of
amusement in view of the witness repeated
| refusals to disclose the name of the senator
The witness was asked how he came to
| obtain a charter under the laws of Georgia,
and he explained that in looking about for
the most favorable conditions. he heard of a
| charter which had sometime since been
granted to Duff Green. by Georgia. and which
contained such extraordinarily advantageous
features. allowing the establishment of
branches at any point in this country or
abroad. that they desired to obtain this char
ter. The company is now acting under this
charter, and the stock has been regularly is
sued. and under the clause permitting
branches, they have established their head.
quarters in New York city
The witness was again asked if he still had
objections to giving tho nama IF tho soma