Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-04-21
go IN, STEVE"
HURLBUT'S BROTHER ON THE
STAND.
That Marginal NOte-BIaIne a POlItI-
esI FIsFt-Garfieid's south AmerI-
can POIIcY-The Dead Minister'S
View of ShtahRrd and Hts Sehf mes.

View OF Shtgherd and HIs Sche mes.
WARRINGTON, April 2O.-William Henry
Hurlbut, editor of the New York World,
was before the House Foreign Relations
Committee to-day concerning the Shipherd
Investigation. The clerk read from Ship
herds testimony his description of his in
terview between himself (Shipnerd) and
Hurlbut, in which the latter is accredited
with saving that he had seen and held in
his bands dispatch from Blaine to Minister
Hurlbut upon which was written 8 marginal
note ''Go in, Steve," or ''Go it, Steve"
Witness said: "The whole narrative of
this conversation with me is an absolute and
profound Misrepresentation of facts. He
sought an interview with me and stated bis
case, and gave me long narrative of his
relations with Blaine, and complained BIT
terly that be had not been well treated by
the Secretary. There is no truth in his
statement that / told him / had seen
such dispatch with a marginal note. The
story he gives of the instructions sent to
old Admiral with contrary construction
upon the margin, was story recognized
as having heard before. He repeated this
story in highly dramatic manner, and It
seemed likely that Blaine might have told
him the story, but | never gave him the
slightest iptimation that | had seen the dis
patch with the marginal note. Shipherd hss
completely confused the real facts of the
Incident. Having heard the story before, It
was nv impression at the time of nv inter
view with Shipherd that Secretary Blaine
had taken this method of indicating that
the marginal note might have been sent to
supplement or complete instructions con-
tanned in the body of disnetch. The Peru
Wan Minister first related the incident to
me-"
Mr.. Kasson-"Then the gist OF 1t Is that
Shepherds statement rests entirely upon an
incident which you learned from some
other source that the marginal note was
made upon dispatch?"
"That is precisely the case "
In answer TO 9 question cf Mr.. Belmont
witness testified that his impression was
that there was a marginal note on the dis
match. 1t was recalled by the story which
Shipherd repeated. Witness relations with
Mr.. Blaine were of q friendly character
and originated entirely out of the situation
attending the assassination of the President.
and witness interest in his brother, who
was a Minister of the United States. He
had several conversations with the Secre-
tarv Witness said: "My understanding
of President Garfeld's policy was that it
was " COuIluuo anu RlN6 effect JD blb Odt-
deron Government In bringing about peace
on the west coast of South America without
spoliation to the territory OF Peru
"Did Secretary Blaine convince YOU that
he was carrying out the policy of President
Garfeld?"
81 can't say that he did. He always sug-
geated to me something in the nature of
political firt. As Democrat have never
had much faith In his political methods
though personally liked him, and my
brother seemed to have great confidence In
him.
The last interview witness had with
Mr. Blaine was about the 12.h or 18th
Of December, just before the first publtca-
tion Of the State Department dispatches
In that publication there was dispatch
disapproving If his brothers. course. Wit
ness saw MIR. Blaine several times between
September snd December, and at no time
did be (the Secretary indicate that ne dis
approved of his (witnees') brothers. course
Witness read letter from his brother, dated
Lima, Peru, December 9, 1881. as follows:
"The CbilIan papers are full of that in
fernal Shipherd and his pretences. They
have been kicked out of this legation and
out OF the State Derartment, but he is an
tndefafigable nuisance. | hope some one
vii call for the papers of the department
in Difference to him and his affairs. | have
sent all his papers back to the department,
and | anxiously desire that the cores
pondence be made public. have fears-I
hope not well grounded-that our govern
ment means to slide out of its American
position. My personal talk with Blaine and
Garfield, OF course, will not appear in any
of the official correspondence, but 1t was
the motive for my action. l think they
will throw me overheard, unless Congress
backs up the American line | have taken
here. Personally | care little about It, but
| must say that in Blaine's note OF the 22d
OF November to me there was a manifest
disposition TO hedge.
In response to question By Mr.. Lord,
witness said: Il do not understand that
Blaine showed the dispatch with the mar
ginsl note upon it TO Mr.. Elmore, the Peru
Wan Minister, but simply related to him the
incident, and referred to IT to indicate In
that way that he could do what he might
wish to do"
Mr.. Belmont proposed several questions
In regard to the Landreau claim, and elicit
ed In response that the claim had been be-
fore the rublic prominently about eight
years. That in 1876 Mr.. Thomas, the
United States Minister at Lima, took much
interest In assisting people there in investi-
eating he claim; that upon his death Richard
Gibbs succeeded him, and that leading
law er OF New York drew up the brief about
this Landreau claim and gave it to Mr.
Gibbs to take with him, which, to witness
mind, was an indication that 1t was at that
time deemed of some Importance. Witness
had heard that Corbin, the brother Flaw
of Grant, once owned half of the Landreau
claim. In 1874, the Landreau claim was
pressed upon the State Department, as wit
ness was Informed, by Peter Leverer, ex
Gov. H. d. Cook, Jay Cook and Joseph
Carter.
Witness here took occasion to say GAS
to Sbipherd himself he played very small
part in any consideration he may have had
in this matter Of the Peruvian Company.
My brother intimated that he saw through
his schemes, which were most transparent,
aud he said, i shall make short work of
Shipherd and the people who are behind
him ~