New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-18
FORCING OUT THE TRUTH.
rELLIEUX MAKES FURTHER ADMIS-
SIONS.


THE COURT.
paris Feb 1.-THE usual crowds assembled
=. che Assizes Court of the Seine to-day. the
.enth Of the trial Of Emile lola and NJ. Perreux.
manager Of the "Aurore." for rejecting severe
3, mon the conduct Of the Esterhazy court
martial
NJ. Clemenceau. counsel for the "Aurore.
asked the Cour, to order the Ministry Of War
70 produce the original bordereau. which figured
IN The Dreyfus trial. but the PRESIDING Judge
rbod tina, it was Impossible.
counsel for the defence then examined NJ.
uoriaud the stenographer. and the latter CON
err,ed the statements that Major Esterhazy
,ba writer Of the bordereau. The witness added
,ha, Major Esterhazy also wrote the word
.r-blan" in the letter addressed to Nine. De
Bouancey.
NM. Couard and varinard, handwriting tx
n.rts. declined to express opinion on the let
;s- on the ground that they had not examined
/, as experts.
n raplv 10 the reiterated application Of the
defence for the original Esterhazy letter. the
court said that decision had already been
given on the subject.
General Pellieux testified that he caused the
seizure Of he letters against Senator Scheurer-
Ksstner Of which Major Esterhazy denied the
euthorship and which experts declared were
f,-eeries adding that the report Of the experts
o,a ;he letters themselves were In the hands OF
Magistrate Bertulus.
The defence then expressed desire 10 see the
O-,g,nals and the Presiding Judge replied that
the r4oues, would be sent Ia the Government
-s,,v g expected tomorrow
vopr EXPERTS AGAINST ESTERHAZY.
Professor CRY Of the Record ONCE affirmed
,ba, the handwriting Of Major Esterhazy and
,h., ~ the bordereau bore striking resem-
blaDoe While Professor CRY was testifying. NJ
zola interposed declaring that forty eminent
rersonages held the same opinions as the pro-
lessor. adding. We did not call all of them. be
,a,,se We did not wish 10 abuse the time Of the
Court and jury"
characteristics showed the hoTdereau 70 be IN
Major EsierhdZY : handWruns' ana ne duueu'
Coi1nel Picquart was prepared 10 prove IN court
that Major Esterhazy could have known the
contents Of the borderaau. provided his tthe
ColoneTs) evidence could be heard behind closed
General Gonse was hen called. He affirmed
that technical details precluded any one but
an artillery officer from writing the bordereau
4 warm discussion ensued between General
Conse and Colonel TicQuart. as 10 the date
The hordereau was seized Colonel F1cquart
said II was in April ana Generdl Hohse COT
tended il in August
NJ Labor interviewed. and scored by pointing
out hat In the primal document In Whlch the &C
cusation was brought against Dreyfus the date
was April and he made this an argument
against the General
Colonel Picquart then announced that he was
willing 70 make a statement without closed
doors and the court took short adjournment
in order 10 consider the matter. When the
session was resumed. General Pellieux rose and,
in an Unexpectedly LOUD voice. saIu. ASH 10
be allowed 10 speak.
PEI.LIEUX's STARTLING STATEMENT.
a,od
,,sreased as the General. advancing steadily 10
the witness-stand. said: I'VE have acted legal
r.. but as the defence has not cited certain es-
sential matters will repeat in the words OF
Colonel Henry: You ask for light. Then you
shall have it
Continuing General Pellieux remarked: AT the
t.y,e " Castelin interpellated the Government:
tAr Minister 81 War had received absolute proof
- the guilt OF Drsyfus. This proof. which
have seen. IS N the form OF note in when are
the words: Never say you nave had relations
with this Jew This note was not signed ana
was accompanied 10y visiting-card. on which
was the same cipher word as on the document
General BOisdeNre can corroborate what have
This is an absolutely new feature thrown into
the case" said NJ Labor.
You have read the report Of NJ dOrmesche-
VILE" replied General Peleux. although il was
read behind closed doors.
TRYING o SEE THE DOCUMENT.
To this remark VI. Labori retorted:
This document cannot be considered reliable
evidence until It has been fully examined The
condemnation OF Dreyfus was brought about by
a secret document. and It now appears that
second document exists. Why should it not be
discussed The excitement in the country is IN
creasius daily; II is our duty 10 insist upon the
fullest light. and whatever may be said,
revision - The trial has now become absolutely
imperative" (Nurmurs and applause)
LET this document he shown US. continued
" Zola's counsel and Il Dreyfus is guilty we
VIII admit the fact and Will all return 70 our
vocations 2 peace or war the latter which
mon General We need not fear with such Off
GERS as YOU" Applause)
Continuing VI Labor remarked: Let Gen
eral PeUeux. therefore. explain himself unre-
servedly. ana let the document he brought
Il absolutely approve Of the words Of General
Pellieux replied General Gonse' but | do not
think the documents in question can be brought
here"
CALL FOR Bo1sDEFFRE.
Here General Pellieux irterposed saying:
Mention has been made Of a secret document
introduced al the court-martial. but no proof
has been adduced ! ask that General Boisdef-
fre be heard"
captain was then dispatched 70 fetch the
General referred to. and in the mean while the
presiding Judge called upon Major Esterhazy to
testify but NJ Labor interviewed saying: oh,
no. Not until General BOisdefre has been
heard. The Incident is too grave for the case
20 proceed until it is completely cleared up.