Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 13, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 April 1882 — THE PERUVIAN INVESTIGATIGN. [ARTICLE]

THE PERUVIAN INVESTIGATIGN.

Before resuming the testimony of Shipherd on the 15th inst., a letter was read from Mr. Blaine, signifying his wish to be heard by the committee in reference to Peru-Chili matters now under investigation. Mr. Belmont abandoned the witness (Sbipherd), saying that as he had refused to answer several Questions which had a special bearing on the case he did not see any use in wasting any further time on him. In reply te a question by Mr. Lord, Shipherd said the dealings he had with Mr. Hurlbut were by the advice of counsel Being pressed on this point, he testified in effect that in his dealings with Mr. Hurlbut he had acted wholly on the defensive. He said that at the time he had the long interview with Mr. Blaine his chief and controlling interest was to secure,if possible, the Secretary attention to the matter. He said that when Mr. Blaine used the remark, “That won’t fetch hi m, ” he referred to Bh> pherd and those he represented, and the expression was regarded by him as a jocose remark, and not specially significant. He would not state whether any Senator had received any stock in the company or not. Some amusement ensued when Mr. Wilson endeavored to discover what consideration was given Cochet for his.claim. Shipherd said he understood the consideration paid for tne claim was eminently satisfactory to all parties. Before the Peruvian investigation, on the 18th, J. R. Shipherd testified that he approached Walker Blaine as an attorney norder to learn the workings of his father’s mind in regard to the company’s schemes. The witness again declined to state the names of the Directors of the Peruvian Company or its stockholders. Representative Deuster, after stating that Sbipherd bad evaded every question of weight, moved that he be dismissed, but it was resolved to set him aside until next week. William Henry Hurlbert, editor of the New York World, and brother of the late Minister Hurlbut, appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Peruvian matter on April 20. The clerk read from Shipherd’s testimony his description of the interview between himself (Sbipherd) and Hurlbert, in which the latter is accredited with saying he had seen and held in his hands a dispatch from Blaine to Minister Hurlbut, ou which was written a marginal note, ‘ 1 Go in, Steve,” or “Go it, Steve.” The witness said : “The whole narrative of this conversation with me is an absolute and profound misrepresentation of facts. He sought au interview with me and stated his ca°e and gave me a long narrative of his relations with Blaine, and complained bitterly that he had not been well treated by the Secretary. There is no truth in the statement that I told him I had seen such a dispatch with a marginal note.” Witness said his relations with Blaine were of a friendly character. He had several conversations with him. The Secretary failed to convince witness that be (the Secretary) was carrying out the policy of President Garfield. He failed to convince him because of his ways and methods. Witness continued: “The Secretary always suggested to me something in the nature of a political flirt. As a Democrat I had never much faith in his methods, though personally I liked him, and my brother seemed to have great confidence in him.”