Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-04-08
PROBING SHTPHERD.
THE CHAMPION JOBBER FENCES
His Efforts TO Purchase Hurlbut-
VOIumInOus correspondence but
Few DiseIOsures-HIs Attempt TO
Retain Walker Blaine.

WASHINGTON, April THE examination
of Jacob r. shipherd is conducted by the
members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, according to their position, begin
ming with Chairman Williams. Under this
arrangement the Democratic members of
the committee will not have an opportu-
nifty to cross-examine the witness until the
Republican members have concluded. and
Representative Perry Belmont, Of New York,
upon whose resolution the investigation
was ordered, is the last member on the
committee list. Chairman Williams was
absent to-day, and Mr.. Orth, Of Indiana, pre-
sided over the investigation. As soon as
quorum was In attendance Mr. Rice inquired:
"Is the letter printed in the New York
Herald of May 10Th from General Grant to
Senator Jones the letter alluded to by
you?"
After reading the letter Shipherd replied:
''I think 1t is"
Mr.. Rice-''Up to that time it had been
the intention OF your clients, had it not, to
offer the Presidency OF the Peruvian Com
pany to General Grant?"
Shipherd replied that it had, but that fear
ing from buab l6GJ6F bHdb Jl6T6 ulRub 0Ob De
perfect harmony between General Grant and
President Garfield, it was not deemed ad-
visable to adhere to their original intention.
Shipherd was aeked to give the names of
any members of Congress or other parties to
whom his prospectus had been sent, and re-
piled that he could, II it were deemed
proper question.
The committee decided the Question to be
a proper one.
Ihfrbard ron1fad that ho had
spondence with any member of Congress as
member, or with respect to any action as
member that all his dealings or CORE
spondence with such persons was with them
as citizens, and In their private capacity.
Mr.. Rlce-"The committee are unable to
divide a person into two parts, one as q
member OF Congress, the other as private
citizen. The committee fail to admit of
such distinction and expect you to an
swer?"
Shipherd then declined to answer.
After some discussion as to the propriety
of his replying, which witness demurred to,
he was asked il he had any correspondence
with any member of the House, and replied
that his only correspondence with any mem
Der was with Mr.. Hewitt. That he wro'
to him as a capitalist, not knowing that he
was member, and that Mr.. Hewitt sent
him a very courteous reply by the same
messenger who bore his (Shipherd's) letter
to him.
Mr. Rice then read from the printed evil
dence taken at the former hearing, Ship.
herds statement In regand to his belief that
Hurlbut was not only purchaseable, hut
that he would insist upon being purchased,
and asked what he (Shepherd) had to sus-
tain this allegation.
Shipherd replied: Nothing but the letter
and collateral correspondence with General
Hurlbut, which he would submit at the
proper time"
Mr.. Rice-"I deem the present the proper
time"
Witness replied that he could not get the
collateral correspondence now without go
ing to New York, but that he had with him
seven original letters from Hurlbut which
he would submit to the committee.
The letters were then read by the clerk.
The first letter bore the date, Belvi-
dere, Ills, June 6, 1881, acknowledged
the receipt of letter from
Shipherd land stated that he (Hurlbut) could
take no action in the matter of the Peruvian
Company except under instructions from
the State Department. The second also
bore the date OF Belvidere, Ills, June 10th,
1881, and was Of similar tenor, stating that
any action in the matter must be dictated
and decided In Washington. The other five
letters bore the date of Lima, Peru. The
third letter bore the date OF September 18th,
ments from Shipherd, and stated that
no such Instructions had been received
by him (Hurlbu) as he (Shipherd)
stated had been forwarded to him
at Lima by the State Department, and also
intimsting that such great interests as he
(Shipherd) claimed to have in charge should
be represented at Lima by thoroughly
competent person, and that Peru was in
need of assistance. The fourth letter bore
the date of October 4th, 1881, acknowledged
the receipt OF duplicate documents, and in
timated that the writer did not consider the
claims Of the Peruvian Company as solid ss
had been represented by Shipherd. The
letter also discussed at some length the
CoChst claim and pointed out
It's weakness. The fifth letter bore the ste
OF October 18th, 1881, was very brief, and
simply stated that the writer was unaware
of the status OF the French Company, which
was reported to have offered pecuniary aid
to Peru. The sixth letter bore the date of
October 26.h, 1881. 1t acknowledges the
receipt of letter from Shipherd, intimated
that the Calderon Government was rapidly
being accepted, and that, IL the Peruvian
| Company expected anything to be done
for them, instructions should be telegraph
ed from the State Department at once. The
seventh aud last letter bore the date of No
vember 23d, 1881, and notified Shipberd that
he (HurlbuD had sent their correspondence
to the State Department, and returned his
(Shipherd's) last and most singular letter,
and positively declined any further CORES
pondence. The writer adds: "The tone of
your letter is displeasing, and l wish to have
no more of them"
Another reason given by witness for his
unfavorable opinion of Hurlbut was that he
never could see any merit in the case of the
Peruvian Company. Although lawyer, he
could never see any strength in the claim,
and this in the face of the fact that Gov
ernor Boutwell, thought we had perfect
case. General Butler thought so, and so
did every other lawyer who looked into It.
Mr.. Rice remarked, "Was there anything
singular in that. Were not these gentlemen
your feed counsel?''
Witness thought that when he received
Mr.. Blaine's letter of December 81, and
learned for the first time that
some one in the State Department was
shocked at his (Shipherd's) wicked letter to
Hurlbut; that 1t was very singular that he
respondence with him (Shipherd) for
months and should never have taken
any offense till then. Witness at
this point suggested that he had procured
copy of the letter written by him to Walker
Blaine en- August 9th, 1881, which had never
been published, and as it should come In at
this time chronologically, he would offer it
nO"' AnO iOIIeI was Tedu ny I1e CLERK. 1I
is over half column in length, and is a
master specimen of how to say, by indirec-
ton, what he did not care to say openly,
to wit:
That he (Shipherd) desired to retain
Walker Blaine as private counsel to in
Auence his father in a case in which the
father was expected to act judiclally In
letter Of over one thousand words the only
passage that means just what It says is the
concluding one of twenty words, asking
for meeting to settle terms.
Witness was asked II he ever received any
answer to this letter, and replied "Only
through Senator Blair. He told me a few
days afterwards that the Secretary wished |
would hold no correspondence with any of
his assistants on the subject of this claim"
You received no reply of any kind from
Walker Blaine ?"
'I did not.'