Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-04-25
Gilmore, the Peruvian minister,

Elmore, the Peruvian minste
entirely satisfied me, and therefore
wrote this letter. After that received fro
Hurlbut further dispatch dated the % I
November, which crossed this dispatch
mine--they were en- route at the same time
In which he says:
Iwrots the departrnet in my No II my opinion
npon the Cochet claim. In which Shipherd and b
| associates are interested. have also written
reply TO Shepherds letters giving him my views
his case SO far as know its merits have pointe
out to him the utter defect of proof a. to their pos
tons The whole colossal speculation is based upo
assumptions, not evidence. Thus nrst, 1t IL NJ
true in fact that the Cochst disoovere
either guano or its uses as fertize
AS such it has been known and used for hundred
of yesrs, far back into the time Of the 1ncas See
ond 1t Is not true that Peru ever recognized him
any such capacity. Third, 1t is not true In fact tbs
hi rights. whatever they were, descended to his
legitimate son, under whom these parties claim, @
at sny event that any record of legitimization ha
| thus far been produced press nted these defect
| to shtpherd, who does not like my criticism an
writes to Mr.. - that he can get on qnie wei
| without me, as he has the home government and s.
its friends IN his side and pledged t. his scheme
very glad TO be relieved, for he has ov' rwhelme
with voluminous matter so strangely written ant
| with such angular assumptions that am inclined
| to doub. his sanity, or his truthfulness.
That letter was received the 18th of Decem
Der or in the very last days of November. II
answer to it wrote to Hurlbut December 5:
SIR: Your No. IS of the Cd ult., in relation &
the Cochst claim has been lately received. hav,
pleasure in expressing my appreciation of You
course detailed therein with regard to Sh1pherdi
advocacy Of that claim, and especially Your action iI
sending hiher the correspondence In the case. The
iaclosed copy of letter which have addressed tC
Shiphsrd shows my less decided opinion than you
have as to the ndeceny and dishoner Of his attempt
10 influence the diplomatic consideration OF this
claiu. Perhaps I should mitigate somewhat the
severity Of my language in view Of the possible fact
pertilenty suggested by you, that Shipherd Ia not
wholly in his right mind.
Beimont-Was there not dispatch of Nov.
10 touching the Cochet claim?
Blaine-No, cir; not one word touching the
claim or about an intervention. Not one
word; not one syllable. That comprises the
whole correspondence touching the Cocnet
claim as claim for Intervention by our gov
eminent. have read everything there was
about it. What MIR. Belmont alludes to I
presume have right here in my hand. had
not received on the 18th Of November Hurl.
butts letter of Nov. I'd. On the 18th of No
venber, after had written my letter of the
18th TO Hurlhut, and instructed him not to
use his good Office for the COcbet claim, and
that the Peruvian company still survived,
with all its ownership in the claim as a
Peruvian claim, uncontrolled with all
it's claim uncontrolled, with all It's counsel
in full blast, and all its stockholders, so far as
[ know. still interested as to the prosecution
of Cochet claim, which was the Peruvian
claim.
IL regard to Shepherds story of the $3.50, 600
bride offered to Hurlbut the following letter
was read:
To Hon. James G., Blaine:
DEAR SIR-I never heard Shipherd state to
you that he had offered Hurlbut $3.50,
stock. never heard made such an offer
M In ho y,y,S1 fcha d ofh ~
evidence before the foreign affairs committee.
(Slgned, HENRY ". BLAIR.
Blame read similar letters of denial from
Ey-Secretary Boutwell,, Scott Lord, Ex- Senator
Cragin and VIM. II. Rageletson, and raised
general laugh by adding: "There is O very
arge lie out there, and don't think 1t will
'equire very searching investigation to
ocdte It,"
Blaine then read his (Blaine's) correspond
nee with Secretary Evarts, In which the lat
er denied that shipherd had any authority in
,iven any opinion or been asked to give any
whatever in regard to the Cochet claim; that
lie mas absent in Europe and did not know |
Until his return and then only through the |
'ublic prints that shipherd had been using |
lis name. 81 have not" said Blaine, 1.-THE |
highest hesitation in saying that this m IAN |
hipherd should be sent before the grand |
Try. 1t is fat, unqualified perjury on his |
art, that ought to be properly punished"
Blaine read letter from Elnore in which |
be following passage occurs:
ain regard to my alleged statement that |
ad seen the marginal note, Go In, steve,' |
eed not assure you that 1t IL absolutely |
alse -
Chairman Williams reminded the witness |
bat he had not yet supplemented this state.
lent of Eimore's with any denial of his own,
D which Blaine quickly responded: sob, oh,
is an absolute detesable lie out of whole
10th, and don't think the man Is OF sound |
lind"
Blaine desired 10 say something in relation
} the interview bstween Shipherd and Hnrl.
ut inasnuch as Shepherds version involve d |
ne good name of the dead president and the |
cad minister
He then read Shepherds version and made
le remark: "With both of these gentlemen
cad II may be matter of some difficulty to
sprove the statements, except inferentialiy,
ut / believe them to be the grossest false.
Gods, and will endeavor to show them 30 to
T."
He then pointed out the absurdity of Ship.
erd's version, that he met Hurlbut by the
tiers appointment, and that he sat upon q
,fa in public corridor and held no such an
terview as Shipherd described, and utterly
scredited any other explanation than that
lipherd, seeing by the papers that Hurlbut
as at the Fifth Avenue hotel, wsylald him
I'd secured merely casual chat In the public
al.
Blaine characterized in most forcible Ian
lage the assumption of Shipherd in sssum
e TO speak Tor President Garfield as simply
famous, and with eloquent vehemence de-
AIRED he was prepared to take most solemn
It'll, go firm were his convictions, that Presi-
mt Garfield went to his death without ever
wing seen or heard of ShIpherd or his claim,
this point Blaine called attention to some
,estions asked Shlpherd by Belmont
the Landreau claim, which he said
1t words in his (Blaine's) mouth which he
not use and Belmont refused to discuss the
lestion at this time and the committee adj.
urned till Wednesday, when the examination
Blaine will be resumed.