National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-06
aLArR,s TESTIMONY.
Some Questions which re Declined 60
Anawcr-Thc Lnndrchu Claim.

NNaAA''NN~ !
He declined twice to say what amount Shipherd
had rendered him. witness repllcd to further
questions, "Mr ploiro understood ,bo, an.
pearod there as counsel. He knew that was de-
srous OF aiding Mr.. Shipherd. l asked the Secte-
tary H. from his knowledge of the affair there
oorid no or,, ,n,,,ro,,.,a,s ~ 49,, oo,,, ~ oorn
o w W "s i'iP'opley VI luy u0'ns "e ~"
fore this interview with shipherd No one in
timntcd to me that there was any improperly in
my being connected with the company until this
invcs ugntion b, gan. never concealed my con-
nection. I should do the snmo thing over with
tho same light. have no apology to offer here or (
Chairman williams asked the witness; " Did |
you regard the securing the iflcndly offices Of this
Government as the first important step to be taken
in the Shipherd entcrprlse9"
Answcr--I regarded the persuAding Chill TO take |
an indemnity instead Of Insisting upon the dis. |
momberment OF her territory as an important step |
TO lake. wanted the United states 70 take pc; |
siuon friendly ~ Peru. considered u adultlOnal
hlu u tne tlsndly Offices o. tne Unlteu states were
secured. did not expect the policy OIL INC gnlteu
States would be at all changed on account OF these
claims
Q-Did you unuetstnnd the GoVernment as de- |
manding nom chill that she should not insist upon
the ACKNOWLEDGMENT Of pernY ,,,,-I
witness declined to discuss tho meaning OF tho
dispatches; he had no other view OF the policy
thnn that Indicated IN the dispatches.
Witness slaled that he had personal oommuni.
cntion from Shiphcrd, ana documentary evidence
relative TO General Grants views
SENATOR BLAIR's PRIVILEGES As COUNSEL.
far witness nut himself ON his privilege as counsel
i'm dcciining TO answer questions.
Witnoss%i have moi Suggested ANYTHING further
than Information coming 10 me through Inc ACT of
nv client
MIR DIount tbought tho commiitee had n RIGHT
to view oftheir own. and did not believe that
scheme such rs ghIuherd's which mil III have in.
VOWED this country in war with south America,
hc ~ n p o any such P'o''o'on "
Witness soid his Enowiodge of Gcnorni Grants
views was derived from shinherd's Statements 10
him exclusively with the one exception OF Gen.
aFul iNnn n nj
| lions 10 he sent 70 Munster Hurlbut.
" Did you understand thHt General Grant favored
formal demand by our Government upon Peru
AL DO not undertake to give the language, but
think II was form OF dispatch indicating the
INSTRUCTIONS to our minister to use their good
| Offices.
"GooD OFFICES"
Mr.. Blount was abont To ask a question based on
the words " good Offices" when the witness inter
rupted with the remark that he did not care to
Si 1m 'EscG words when he had
| words
| Mr. Blount-I do not propose to be lacking in
any courtesy to the gentleman but am not going
TO be cstoppcd from n. king any question unless by
the decision Of The committee.
! Witness simply desired to remove q msappre-
| houston. He then ic.stated his understanding of
uhS a9c, w Muueu 20, nh9 ptoHnceu copy on
10 %insrr Wurb W nb n Ee mdae Of e o So
iober ana remark, d, he lelieySd II was upon the
oIlglnal uiaN ol .hcfS lnSuuct'o"s llnl uencIai
ul.iis ho l'l'e wv inv uoe"e"
| r.. 4
Mess .neh rSaa uai. o, instIuotl2ms wnSn
IhIpheIu MisnYu w ia ~ hvllt W NJ. npn'ilSh
lay IN snu, nv M Mi nr nA
tended likewise for him. Witness was not sure
upon which Paper General Grants Endorsement
was made.
Witness did not know who prepared the paper.
Shipherd sent him lBlairl copy, which he (Blair
| showed TO Mr.. Blaine The latter decnet, how
ever to make my ugc of them, or do more than he
had indicated In his instructions already given.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
Renresentntiye wilson read from sbinberd's tas
timonv ms IN lie n ndetsinn DIM 9Trived atdnring
The interview with Mr.. BiHineHreiatiye 10 the nj
matter " '"' 0'''N S'''>' ''""'N '"' 0"''' CIV
Witness replied. The attitude of tho state De-
nnrtmcnt wac never stated In my nresence any
,morn stronSiv tbnn in the ins,rnctinns aivan h,
Jnnc ''"e'' 'i " VIZ s'0' az
In hirbar renlv 10 Renrescntative Rlount ,v,t .
moss sud he did no, cnre by sev that NJ Shinbsd
.hHd vyiiiniy misre nresented him The co,nrniitee
had seen more of Mr, Shpherd than he ISir' Blair
Ind and could iu,ige Of him md the chararier az
his mind So lar ne his mir BiSir's1 oxnressions
were concerned he hs d been misreprescnted. He
iwitnessl had never put thincs In 20 strong a light
as Mr.. Shepherds very hopeful nature had prob.
ably conceived
Representative Blount then quoted from Ship.
herds testimony that
Tur suRJrcr OF pn,nIyo uup1pur
49,, ,,',,~,,oa W ,,n p,aI,,'',s .i-o.a, 90
hau osei NJ ~ m i, ny, MN i
tntch him " 1' ''' O' '-A '''"' " i
Witness did not hear any such conversation.
Witness further stated that ut the time he supposed
the lcttei-which is now spoken of as having been
r., II.
Tracy, the Peruvian consul in New York, who
looked upon this plan of raising the required in
demnity as the only way to save his country.
| -. - 49, $50 o,
THE LbrrEH TO Mi'' AhlIobA'
Representative Bount then read at some length
from the letter TO Mr.. Arizola, aud asked IL he
(Bair) understood that to correctly state the att
tude of this country at that time.
Witness supposed that any American company
entering into contracts with The PERUVIAN Govern
ment would have the support Of It's own Govern,
ment. As to the United States staying the hand OF
Chill witness supposed II the indemnity was paid
there would be no occasion 70 stny the hand ofChi
Q-Was not Mr.: Arizoa the agent OF the Peru
Wan Company at Lima?
| Al never heard or knew that the PERUVIAN
Company had any agent at Lima
Representative Dlount-Did you not sec this
letter and was not submitted TO you because you
were the counsel OF MT, ShlpheruY
| Al had nothing whatever to do with is pre-
1t was sent. l presume, OF coursc, It would not
have been shown to me unless had been counsel
Q.-Would you have continued us counsel II you
had seen the entire letter before u was scntY was
1t not gross misrepresentation OF the state Depart
mentY
Witness replied that some portions of the letter
: stated the case much more strongly than was cor.
) rect. II he (Sbpherd) meant by the highest au.
thority the State Department witness Thought il d
! MISREPRESENTATION. Witness was not prepared &c
define 1t an outrage, for he was not here to abuse
. THE LASppEAu CLAIM
? NJ, pio,r, ,ho, ,oni, ~, mo 7 ondroo,, o,o,,,
hi i ia te v ~, ~ s -, a ,, et ~ i
anu cieu asonuoit " i S ,epoIS upom VIM eiain
py wy tM oSe. ~, .,iS g. Sv e a ~,
hshnu IL n sa nan pa linz vi. ny