The San Francisco call., 1898-02-23
Evidence Substantiatinq Asser- tions of the Novelist Now
 on Trial.
CHEERED BY THE CROWD.
The Counsel's Calm Arraignnent of Army Chiefs Excites
 Applause.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

PARIS, Feb. 22-The precincts and Hobbies of the Palace of Justice were deserted to-day, the fourteenth of the trial of M. M. Zola and PelleuX for the allegations which the former brought in the Aurore, published by the latter, against the conduct of the Esterhazy court-martial. The Assizes Court it. self was thronged. M. Laborie, counsel for M. Zola, resumed his argument for the defense. He chronologically re- viewed the case from the arrest of AL fred Dreyfus, pointing out that, as Ma jor Paty du Clam interdicted Dreyfus from speaking, the announcement of his arrest, published by the Libre Par ole and Eclaire, must have been com municated by the Ministry for Wor.
 Continuing, M. Laborie charged the Libre Parole and Eclair with lying in regard to the guilt of Dreyfus, and re- ferred to Major Paty du Clams at- tempt to intimidate Dreyfus and to Major Forzinetti's belief in the lat ters innocence. He also dealt with the court -martials decision to conduct the trial in secret in spite of the protests of the press. He said this was the req son of the unceasing protests in behalf of Dreyfus, which troubled all high minded persons" adding:
 "The strength of those of our adver- saries who are acting in good faith lies in their belief that the whole af- fair was conducted with justice and legality; but the facts do not bear out this belief" (Murmurs.)
 Counsel for the defense then de- clared that eight months prior to the arrest of Dreyfus the Minister of War possessed photographs of the paper containing the expression, That scoundrel of D., and showing that a French officer had relations with two former military attaches. This document, M. Laborie pointed out, did not refer to Dreyfus; but, all the same, the culpability of Dreyfus was founded upon it, and it was the document which the yelled lady hand ed to Major EsterhaZy, the latter sur rendering it to the Minister of War only on securing a receipt. Referring to General Mercier, M. Laborie said:
 Maybe he is a brave soldier, but he is not familiar with great affairs. In the absence of proofs he substituted his own arbitrary impression, and thus had an innocent man condemned
 Counsel also asked why the docu- ment referring to That scoundrel D." had not been previously spoken of, as the defense could have brought into court foreigners who disputed it's genuineness The statement caused a commotion in court and the presiding Judge interrupted counsel to say:
 I've would not have heard them"
 If we did not summon them," con- tinued M. Laborie, it was because we wished to discuss between Frenchmen alone an affair solely concerning Frenchmen. However, opinions may differ in this affair-in the hour of danger we all show a solid front to the foreigner" (Applause)
 Then, denouncing the action of the prosecution in having Dreyfus write from dictation, counsel said:
 Such a trick proved the emptiness of the prosecution, for had they pos sessed proof of his guilt they would not have had resource to such theatri- cal effects at the opening of the court martial, and. the judges, having only the bordereau, would have acquitted Dreyfus, had not, contrary to all laws, their judgment been led astray by the secret communication of the docu- ment."
 After reading an account of the court martial he added:
 "I have all the papers concerning the affair in my hands, and I solemnly af- firm that there is nothing in them against Dreyfus. I pledge you my honor, gentlemen, that there is no proof against Dreyfus.'
 The statement made a commotion and there were remarks of approba- tion among the public.
 A short adjournment of the court fol- T.
 sons shook hands with M. Laborie, whose moderate but firm utterances made a considerable impression upon the audience. When the hearing was resumed M. Laborie referred to the alleged confession of Dreyfus to Cap tain Lebrun-Renault, and remarked:
 If written report of it exists it was drawn up as an afterthought and l could have proved it by a witness