The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-04-21
THE PERUVIAN COMPANY.
Editor Hurlbut on the Stand.
HE ADMITS AN INTERVIEW WITH
SHIPHERD BUT DENIES SHIP
HERDS VERSION.
Mr.. Blaine to Appear Before the Com
mittee Monday.

WASHINGTON, April 20.-William Henry
Hurlbert, editor of the New York World, APP
peared before the Shipherd investigation COM
mittee to-day and admitted the interview with
Shipherd and many of its minor features, but
denied all the substantial statements OF Ship
herds version of the interview, notably the
declaration as to the marginal note $50 in,
Steve, alleged to have been written by Sec
retary Blaine ON the instruction Of Minister
Hurlbut. The witness said he never gave the
slightest intimation that he had seen such
dispatch. The gist of it, he said, was that Mr..
Shepherds statement rests entirely upon an in
cident which 1 learned from some other
source, that marginal note was made upon
dispatch. The witness said: My relations
with Blaine were of a friendly character.
had several conversations, and from him
learned that President Gartield's policy was to
continue and give effect to the Calderon
government, bringing about peace on the
west coast of South America without spoliation
OF the territory of Peru Blaine failed to con-
vince me that he was carrying out this policy
by his ways and methods. He always sug-
gested to me something in the nature of a
political firt AS a Democrat, had never
much faith in his methods, though personally
I liked him.
The witness saw Mr.. Blaine several times be-
tween September and December, and at no
time he (the secretary indicated that he dis
approved of his (witness's) brothers career.
Mr.. Hurlbert also said that his brother, the
late minister to Peru, consulted with him as
to the letter from Shipherd to him tending
S250,000. He regarded it as bribe and de-
sired to have it Immediately exposed, but the
witness advised him to wait for further devel-
opments.
At still later period in the hearing the
witness said that the go in Steve" dispatch
may be in existence, and he is not clear that it
does not exist He was not only positive that
he had no such dispatch in his possession but
that he had not shown it to Shipherd.
Witness read letter from his brother in
which the latter characterized Shipherd as an
indefatigable nuisance who had been kicked out
of the Peruvian legation and the State Depart
ment and expressed desire that the cor
be made public. Witness did not understand
that Mr.. Blaine showed the dispatch with the
marginal note upon it to Elmore, but simply
indicated that only in that way could he ex-
press his views, being estopped from doing SO in
official dispatches. Witness had heard Mr.
Corbin, brother-in-law of Gen. Grant, once
owned half of the Landreau claim. In 1874
the Landreau claim was pressed upon the
State Department as witness was informed by
Peter Heoner, ex-Gov III. ID. Cooke, Jay
Cooke and Joseph Carter. On being asked,
"Were the same people behind Shipherd you
have mentioned as urging the Landreau
claim" he replied, ''Oh, do not know; I can
only infer" In reply to question Mr.. Hurl-
bert said in general terms he gathered that Mr..
Blaine approved the plans of the Credit In
dustriel in their effort to obviate the spoliation
of Peru his opinion being based upon the fact
that letter from Gen. Grant to Mr.. Elmore
holding that the United States should step in
and oppose such course on the part of Chilli
was submitted to Mr.. Blaine who cordially APP
proved its sentiment.
This concluded Mr.. Hurlbert's examination.
The chairman announced Mr.. Blaine would
appear before the committee at half past ten
Monday morning, and the investigation ad-
journed until then.