Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-05-06
BLAIR'S IDEASAND'BE

Narrated Before the House Committee on
the Peruvian Company Investigation
Gen. Grants Name Brought In-ktl-
| patrick's Instructions-A Rapid Relapse
Into the Dizziness, Staleness and Tedium.
WASHINGTON, May 5.-The examination of
| Senator Blair was resumed to-day. He re-
fused to state the amount of stock rendered to
him by Shipherd, and said: "Blaine under
stood at the first interview that l appeared
| there as counsel. He knew was DESTROYS OF
aiding Shipherd. / asked the secretary il
| from his knowledge of the affair there could
and he said he could see none. never con-
cealed my connection with the company. I
should do the same thing over with the same
lights. I've no apology to offer, here or else
where. never regarded the ecrip offered me
by Shipherd of any value unless an agreement
with him had been carried out, that is to
say, if the company had been organized
and money raised it would have been a
wealthy and powerful company. There were
men of wealth who were interested in its move.
ments, if the conditions for its success were
possible, however, at that time Il
Witness explained why he used the language
syou should act as though ships were on
their way" The explanation, however, did
not vary from the statement heretofore pub
lished.
Upon being asked if he understood the gov
crnment as demanding from Chill that she
should not insist on the dismemberment of
Peru, witness declined to discuss the meaning
of the dispatches. He had no other informa-
ton than that indicated in the dispatches.
Blount asked: How did You learn General
Grants opinion upon the matter?
Witness had thus far refrained as far as
possible from mentioning names and the COM
mittee would not insist upon that line He
had heard of Gen. Grants views from others
and he had seen them over his own signature,
but he did not care to pe instrumental in bring
ing on other criticismsof the press. He had just
seen comments upon himself and could, he
thought. stand up under them. AS for Gen.
Grant he knew nothing of his opinion in this
relation that he, (Blair) did not consider
highly honorable to him. He finally stated
that he had personal communication from
Shipherd and documentary evidence relative
to Grants views.
Witness knowledge of Gen. Grants views
was denied from Shepherds statements to
him exclusively, with the one exception of
Gen. Grants endorsement upon draft of the
instructions to be sent Minister Hurlbut.
ment alluded to, and produced copy OF the
draft of instructions which Shipherd ordered
to be sent Minister Hurlbut about the middle
of October, and remarked that he believed it
was upon the original draft of these instruc-
tions that Gen. Grant had made his endorse
ment.
Witness then read the draft of instructions
which Shipherd wished to have sent to Kill
patrick. It was much briefer, and informed
fric OH fhoff no inst RI IT
but were intended likewise fer him.
Witness showed Blaine a copy of the papers.
He declined, however, to make any use of
them or do more than he had indicated in his
instructions already given. The attitude of
the state department was never stated to wit
ness any more thoroughly than the instruc-
tions given in June.
Shipherd had wilfully misrepresented him.
The committee had seen more of Shipherd
than he had and could judge of him and of the
character of his mind. So far as his (Blair's)
expressions were concerned he had been mis-
represented. He (witness) had never put
things in as strong a light as Shepherds
very hopeful nature has probably conceived.
Representative Blout quoted from Ship
herds testimony that the SUBJECT of bribing
Hurlbut had been mentioned in Blaine's pres
ence and the remark of Blaine, II don't think
that will fetch him."
Witness did not hear any such converse
ton.
Representative Blount asked: Did you not
see the Arizona letter and was it not submit
ted to you because you werea counsel of Ship
herd?
its preparation and did not know any part of
it till after it was sent. l presume, of course,
it would not have been shown to me unless l
had been counsel.
Question-Would you have continued as
counsel if you had seen the entire letter before
it was sent? Was it not gross misrepresen-
tation of the state department.?
Witness in reply to the question said he
would have considered it his highest duty as
| ment was being grossly misrepresented, to
step in and interfere, but he could not see
how, inasmuch as this letter passed through
the hands of the American minister, who was
on the spot, and armed with his instructions,
any harm could come of it, or any misrepre-
sentation of the state department could be
made, no matter what Shipherd might write.
Witness said his opinion in regard to the
Landreau claim was based upon the report of
the house of representatives. He would not
give much for American citizenship if the
government will not protect citizen in prop
erty acquired before he became citizen.
Rice-I want to know upon what you, as
lawyer, base favorable judgment upon the
validity OF the Cochet claim.
Answer-The guano of Peru was worthless
to her until, through the efforts of Cochet, the
guano became known as fertilizer and the
subject of commerce and source of immense
wealth to Peru. Landreau discovered beds of
guano where it was not before known to exist.
Cochet discovered by analysis the value of
guano. AS to the fact that the same compen-
sation should be made for these discoveries,
do not think any fair man would assert. AS
10 the amount, do not assume to say.
Adjourned.
Unitarian Conference.
CLEVELAND, o., May 5.-The Western