Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-05
BLAIR AND BLAINE
Not Exactly in AccOrd-The Senator
Says the Ex-Secretary Seemed TO
Assent to Shepherds
Proposition, and Furnished Him, in Sub
stance, His Instructions to Ministers
Hurlbut and fitzpatrick.

WAsHIS6ToN, May 4.-Ihe examination
of Senator Blair was resumed this morning,
Chairman Williams conducting the ex-
animation.
Witness said he early became interested
in the subject Of an interoceanic canal, and
in that connection with the operations OF
DeLesseps. Thought that with proper
policy toward Peru on the part of this coun-
try her integrity and territory might be pre-
served, and an alliance with her might be oil
great value to this country. He believed in
the strongest assertion OF the Monroe doc
trine. The first interview with Shipherd
took place at his (Shipherd's) Office, in New
York. Ex-senator Cragin introduced them.
The interview was brief and the .conyersa-
ton was, in substance, that he (Shipherd)
wanted to engage witness's services in bring
ing the subject of the Peruvian Company to
the attention of the state department. Wit
ness indicated that he would see him (Ship-
herd) later in regard to it. The second in
terview took place in Shepherds Office about
the Goth of July. Witness was under the
impression that Cragin was with him, but
went away again. Most OF the conversation
took place between them when alone. The
substance of it was, in effect, that Shipherd
Slant At E nd segs tie g gaa Il tH
Chili-Peruvlan affairs, the probability
that Chill would accept a money indem-
nifty, and the desire the part of those he
(Shipherd) represented to assist in Peru in
raising the amount required, using the
Cochet claim as basis of negotiation with
Peru, and by settlement of this kind to Sc
cure for the United States incidental conf
mercial advantages which otherwise might
go to foreign powers. / understand that it
was desirable to enable Peru to secure the
retirement of the CHILEAN forces from her ter
ritory, and to enable her to satisfy ChilIs
demands for indemnity. 1t was my purpose
to aid in accomplishing this result.
Williams-Wlll you please be careful to
state to the committee your understanding Of
Just what Shipherd wanted you to do2
Blair-He wanted me, primarily, to ex-
anime his papers nd give my opinion upon
them, but more particularly he desired me to
ascertain the attitude of this government to-
ward Chilli and Peru; he wanted me TO see
the secretary of state and learn what the
policy of this government would be. j
thought il proper an4 right TO do 20.
Witness understood our government TO
assume a position of warning away other
powers.
Witness was asked if he understood the
Peruvian Company would be able to furnish
the amount of indemnIties which Chilli would
demand, and he replied that there was no
Peruvian Company at the time. He sup
posed there sort OF a syndicate,
embracing those he had mentioned TO
me as being interested in the claim. Do
not recall the names of all; they are pub
lished in the prospectus, l think.
Chairman Williams then inquired in re-
lation to the interview of July 25th and
26th, at Blaine's house.
Witness saw Blame and told him some
thing in relation to this matter, but said he
did not care, in SO important matter, to
transmit TO Shipherd the views of the de-
partment, but desired Blaine to see Ship
herd and talk with him. Blaine readily
assented, and the interview occurred on the
evening of the 18th. Blaine seemed full of
company, and the interview was very brief
perhaps half an hour. The conversation
was general, and nothing was said by any
one that was not heard by all. Witness
could only give in general terms the subject
matter of conversation, which turned upon
the probable policy OF this government;
what attitude our government would
take, and whether its policy would
be permanent and we'll understood.
Blaine seemed 10 know something of the
Landreau claim, but in regard to the Cochet
claim, alter 1t was explained to him, he
raised some questions, At the interview the
next morning, lasting about an hour, Walker
Blaine was there short time aud took part
in the argument. The substance of the in
terview was pretty thorough discussion of
the Cochet claim. Blaine made point that
it originated as a claim in Peru by French
citizens, and that Shipherd could have no
rights against Perur that Peruvian would
not have; that claim seemed merely an as
signment to an American citizen. Shipherd
asserted that the claim was not chose in
action, but that it was based upon actual
property. Blaine then seemed to assent to
the proposition, if it was as Shipherd rep
resented, that the American claimant would
be entitled to the kindly Offices of his gov
erument. Blaine communicated to us the
substance of the instructions he had given
Minister Hurlbut and Minister Fitzpatrick,
and these instructions, which / SIN very sure
were communicated to US at that time, Ship
herd said were all he desired.
Blaine said it seemed quite clear from the
previous history of the Landreau claim that
it was one for which the government could
properly exercise its good offices, unoficially,
in securing a hearing and adjudication by
the government Of Peru. The secretary did
not consider the Cochet claim as entitled TO
the same consideration, because he said it
was an assignment from foreigner to an
American citizen. The witness understood
that Shipherd told Blaine that for the pur-
pose of negotiation with Peru he (Shipherd)
was authorized to represent the Landreau
claim; that in fact the Coehet claim was a
prior lien and should take precedence,
Belmont-How do you reconcile that with
the letter of Robert Christy to Blaine, in
which he states that he is the attorney for
the Landreau claim, and the only person
authorized TO act for it?
Williams-If the gentleman will par
don me, have but few questions to ask,
then | am through.
Blair-Certainly. ii the chairman will
permit me / would like to answer the ques-
tions. l do not know Christy, and have no
knowledge whatever what connection he has
with the Lsndreau claim; l am only giving
my understanding of what was said at this
interview touching the Landreau claim.
Williams then asked it the witness at
this interview heard any allusion made by
Shipherd to his offer of $4,000 in stock to
Hurlbut. Answsr-None whatever; i GER
tainIy would have heard it if anything of
the kind was said.
Adjourned.