Daily globe., 1882-03-23

WASHINGTON. March determination of
Shipherd was resumed this morning. Ship.
herd produce copy of his letter to the presi-
dent dated April %, 1881, alluded to In his
testimony yesterday. In this letter Shipherd
states that the interests of his clients in Peru
are so great as to entitle them to consideration
in the discussion of any plans in the future Of
the PROSTATE republic. He further states that
the purpose of this note is that the decision OF
appointments of ministers to Chill and Peru
shall be reserved until the facts relating to the
claims of the Peruvian company shall have
been laid before the president.
Shipherd stated that he had found the let
ter of May 81, but had written to his son to
make copy and send it to him and he ex-
pected to lay it before the committee in a few
days.
Kasson said if the witness knew any in
stance in which Hurlbut's official action had
been purchased. Shipherd replied that In the
statements he made yesterday, he spoke from
his knowledge of the events that had occurred
notice at the time, and from which he had
formed his opinion of Hurlbut. In connec-
ton with his opinion and in further reply to
the inquiry, he called attention to the deci-
sion of the United States supreme court in the
case of Clark against the United States, in
which it was shown that Gen. Hurlbut while
the service OF the United States at New Or
leans, accepted bribe-
Representative Kasson then asked if in all
his (witnesso correspondence with Gen.
Hurlbut the latter ever intimated that he de-
sired to have an interest in the Peruvian
claim.
AnsWer-"No, sir, he never did"
Witness stated in further reply that no Of
ficer of the United Seates in the diplomatic
service or otherwise ever expressed any desire
or listened to any proposals for interest in the
claim of the Peruvian company.
Witness was then asked by Kasson-Who
now holds the Landreau claim? and replied,
It is now held by Americans, but I could not
without violating private confidence disclose
the names of the parties. The legal name of
his (Shipherd's) company, witness stated, is
the Peruvian company, incorporated under
the laws OF Georgia, and the stock is held in
this country. Witness declined to state how
much had been paid in for stock, or
from what parties the claim was
purchased, or whether the original parties
were paid for their claim in the 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. Witness stated the company have
notified Peru of their claim, but never re-
ceived any reply in acknowledgment of the
claim. The Peruvian company never had any
official correspondence with the Peruvian
government. Whatever advices the company
had received had been received from
private sources. Representative Kasson
explained the object Of his inquiry.
to be the discovery whether the allegation on
which the investigation is based, that the
,lofix x-a
enterprise, dependent for its success entirely
upon the intervention of the government, is o
true one, or whether the claim by the COM
pany is solid one, and its business such as
American citizens have perfect right to en-
gage in.
of his connection with the Peruvian company.
which began in March, 1881; when he became
counsel for his clients who purchased this
CLAIM. Witness recognized the magnitude of
the interests involved, and opened negotiations
with Gov. Boutwell, with a view to
securing him and as counsel upon all matters
affecting International questions. Gov. Bout
well examined the papers AMI after three
weeks called upon witness and stated the
clam was good and that he was prepared TO
lay it before the president. Several confer.
ences ensued as to what counsel should be en-
ployed, but at no time was anything said in
favor OF employing any man. Witness dis
cussed with Gov. Boutwell, the question of
renewing through the secretary OF state the
negotiations which had begun with the exec
should undertake to open the negotiations.
About that time, however, it was suggested
that certain senator, whose name witness
declined to give to the committee (being a
warm personal friend of the secretary,
would perhaps be the best person for
that delicate mission. Gov. Boutwell,
approved it, and shortly afterwards witness
had an interview with the senator at his (wit.
messy Office in New York, lasting about four
hours, and in which all the papers were sub
mitted to the senator. Witness asked him if
he would accept retainer in the case as coun-
sci, and the senator replied with vehemence:
"No sir. Under no conceivable circumstances.
You can readily see this matter might come
before congress in some shape for its action,
and it would be manifestly improper" The
senator added that we had no need OF counsel
in the sense / had mentioned that we had
simply to lay our case before the secretary and
president. The whole country was interested
and it was his duty as senator to further the
interests of our company. He was then on
his way from his home in New Hampshire Cat
this point there were visible signs of amuse-
ment, in view Of witness repeated refusals
to disclose the name of the senator) to Wash
iugtOn, and he stated he would be pleased to
bring about for me an interview with the sec
retary of state Witness was asked how he
came to obtain the charter under the laws of
Georgia, and explained that in looking about
for the most favorable conditions he heard of
a charter which had some time since been
granted to Duff Green by the state OF Georgia,
and which contained such extraordinarily ad-
vantageous features, allowing the establish
ment of branches at any point in this country,
or on any road that they decided to obtain this
charter. The company is now acting under
this charter, and the stock has been regularly
Issued, and under the clause permitting 2
branches they established headquarters in New
York city.
Witness was again asked il he still had any
objections to giving the name Of the senator,
and replied: Since so much has been said in this
connection, perhaps it would be better if I
should right here and now give an entire his
tory of the connection of this senotor with the
Peruvian company. have already spoken of
his refusal to take retainer. At subsequent
date, having been advised by the secretary of
state and several friends, both in the senate
and house, that the case could never come be-
fore con ngress, but weuld be settled in the
state department, the senator did take a fee as
attorney for the company, and acted in that
capacity for nearly five munths. His entire
connection with the case was during a recess
of congress. Shortly before the reassembling
of congress in December he had another
interview with me, and stated he was satisfied
that the questions involved in the affairs OF
the company, would come before congress in
manner involving legislative action, and ne
should therefore reconsider his position as