Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-04-25

Cochet claim to be tor actual properly taken
by Peru, instead OF Offering mere claim,
and he found there was no ground for the
allegation of Shipherd about its being prop
erty in possession, on which the alleged
opinion of Evsrts was based. | had a con-
versation in reference TO it with Elmore, the
Peruvian Minister, which entirely satisfied
me, alG therefore l wrote this letter. After
that received from Harlhpt further els
patch, dated the q Of November, which
crossed tbs dispatch of mine-.hey were en-
route at the same time-in which he says:
wrote the Department in my No. 10 my opinions
upon the Coehet claim upon which Shipherd and
his associates rely. have also written in reply to
Shpherds letters, giving him my views OF his case
so FAR ss know its merits. have pointed out to
him the utter defect of proof as to three positions
each vital. The whole colossal speculation rests
upon assumptions, no. evidence. Thus first, it
is not true in fact that Cochet discovered
either euauo or its uses fertilizer AS such it
has been kEown and used for hundreds Of wears far
back inso time In case second, it is not true that
Peru ever recognized him in any such c c,nacitv
Third it is not in fact that his rights whatever
they were, descended TO his iliegitmate son under
whom these parties claim, or in any event that any
record OF legitimiztou has thus far been produced
presented these defects to ShpheTd, who does not
like my criticism, and writes to Mr.. - that he
gets quite well without me, IS he has the whole
Government and all tn. r friends on his side and
pledged to his scheme. / am, very resps etfully,
s. A. HURLBUT.
sHIPHERD AS LIAR.
This maa Shipherd comes before the CON-
mittee and swears Il think 10 several places
that he told me at the very frs. interview
that he had written his bribery letter to
Hurlbut and that was aware of the fact
from the first. Now, MIR. Chairman, if there
were not any evidence on the subject, it
would be q very remarkable statement that q
man should come to the American
Secretary of State, introduced by Sena-
tor of the United States, and should
deliberately tell him that he had offered o
bribe Of $3.50. 600 of stock to Minister Pleni-
potentiary in foreign country. That ought
not to require great deal Of evidence in
rebuttal but he goes further than that. He
says he told all his counsel the same thing.
On reading that testimony, l wrote to Sens.
tor Blair. He replied, "I never heard Ct
that offer being made until about the 4.h or
9TH OF December last, when you showed me
the letter of Shipherd Of June 3D. returned
to the Department by General Hurlbut."
Blaine continued: There ia o very large lie
out there somewhere, and l don't think It
will take great deal Of investigation to To-
cate it. | then wrote TO several Of the coun-
sci. The answers contained these words:
From ex-SscFetary Boutwell,: 81 had no
knowledge of the proposition from Shipherd
to Hurlbut. referrad to by you, prior to the
receipt of Shepherds letter to rne, dated De-
cember s, 1881"
Blaine-There is another case of perjury by
somebody.
From Collector Robertson, of Ne1 York {:
Shipherd never told me he had written a
letter 20 Stephen A. HuIlbut, after he was
appointed Minister to Peru, offering him
$3.50, 600 Of stock of the Peruvian Company"
From ex-Sesator Cragin " "Shipherd never
told me he offered General Hurlbu5 $3.50, coo
or any other amount of stock Of the Peruvian
Company, either after or before he was ap-
pointed Minister to Peru, and I never had
an intimation Of any kind till Shepherds
letter appeared in print"
THE LANDREAU CLAIM.
There was one other subject upon which I
had a conversation with the President, and
with which the President was familiar from
his service in the House as was familisr with
it from my service in the Senate. That brings
me to the Lsndreau claim, with which Ship
herd has nothing whatever to do He had no
more right to speak for Landreau than he
had for the house of August Belmont & Co.
His assumption was no greater in ors case
than in the other.
Blaine here read a note from Robt. Christy,
an attorney cf Washington city, and attorney
for the Lsndreau claim, who said thai
neither Jacob r. Shipherd, nor any other
officer of the said Peruvian Company had
any right whatever to represent this claim
before the Government of the United States,
| nor before any officer or department thereof.
Blaine continued: When I told Shipherd
that John G. Landreau was United States
Consul at Santiago de Cuba, he did not
know the fact. He did not know the man
was living. When he came to speak OF the
Landresu claim, said, 81 am familiar with
that. The American representative of it is
an officer of the State Department" It was
evidently a piece of intelligence to Shipherd.
I wish 90 separate these two claims entirely.
There ia not the remotest connection between
them.
TILT WITH BELMONT.
Blaine then gave few of his correspond.
ence with Hurlbut IN relation to this Ian.
dreau claim, and said +: was very much
struck with sentence in the printed report
of the testimony tpage 1897, where Belmont,
a member of this committee, stated as prefa-
tory to question as follows ''On the 10th
of December, Blaine wrote his last dispatch
to South America in which he said, in effect,
There shall be no treaty of peace without a
recognition Of the Landreau claim"
Belmont (interrupting)- suppose that all
questions in regard to my examination will
come up more properly when I have the right
to question you.
Blaine-Yes.
Belmont-And do not care to enter into
discussion at present.
Blalne-I was proceeding to comment
upon it. Belmont-a member of this com.
mittee-;s pleased, to construe what say in
this way (again quoting from Bslmont's
question:. What 1 said was as follows {:
In dispatch to Trescot5 of Decem-
Der Is. 1881. while disabusing the mind Of
the Chilean Government OF any impress
sion that the United States meditates
Intervention on behalf of private claims be-
side the use of its good Offices, you will say
should have an opportunity to be heard in
support of his claim before tribunalin Peru
competent to decide it, and that if decided in
his favor, n treaty of peace which might cede
the territory to Chile should not be made III
disregard Of any rights which Landreau may
be found, after an impartial judicial investi-
CATION, to possess. Further than this
the Department Of State has rot
felt authorized to go, and I must ex-
press the hope that the Governments
of Peru and Chile, to both of which you are
| accredited, will recognize the moderation and
justice of the request made by this Govern
ment," and MIR. Belmont translates that into
! declaration by me that no treaty of peace
shall be made uuless the Landreau claim is
provided for. That is the freest translation 1
ever read.
Belmont-As 1 stated before, prefer not
to enter into discussion. | am not here fer
discussion. I am here for examination.
Blaiue-You simply put words in my
mouth there which never uttered.
Bslmont-I do not think anything of the
kind.
Blaine-On page 122 Of the testimony Eel
mont again quotes me as saying, in my dis
| patch of August 4sh, that no treaty of peace
between Chile ami Peru shall be made unless
there is recognition of Landreau's claim as
prior lien upon any territory upon which
Peru might be required TO cede to Chile. 1
am at loss to find any such language in my
dispatch. I merely notify Belmont. so that
he can at the proper time show where it ex-
ists.
Belmont-C as there were no
Courts in Peru at that time l considered
that the claim could not be adjudicated but
Of course all these questions will come up
! later.
Blaine-Do you mean still to say you attri-
| butte that language to me as being used by
me. or as being quotable from my dispatch
! Belmont-I do not think it necessary to
continue in this line. L shall not attempt to
make any answers to Blaine's implication
| further than this, the report of my examina-
ton is apparently correct, and l am not re-
| sponsible. What I mean to say is this {: