The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-30
All the Secret Documents in the Fa-
nous Case Alleged to Have Been
Burned Some Time Ago.
DECISION QUIETLY RECEIVED
NO DEMONSTRATION WHEN THE
JUDGES MADE THEIR RULING.
Nj. Dupuy Hopeful of COMPLETING His
Cabinet TO-Day--Anti-Semite Man.
ifesto to Frenchmen.

PARIS, Oct. 29-The Court of Cessation
has decided to grant a REVISION of the Drey-
fus case and will institute a supplementary
inquiry. The court, however, has declined
to order the release of Dreyfus The judges
accepted the conclusion of NJ Bard, the re-
porter in the case. NJ. Yvos Guyot, in the
Steele to-day, asserts that the secret docu-
ments in the Dreyfus case were burned
some days ago.
AT the opening of the Court Of Cessation
to-day NJ. Mornard resumed his argument
in behalf of the Dreyfus family, insisting
that the bordereau was not in the handwrit-
ing of Dreyfus or an imitation by him of
the writing of Major Esterhazy. The latter
hypothesis, counsel continued, was absolute
ly improbable. lift was an imitation, the au-
thor of it must be third party. If it was
10 imitation, the author of the bordereau,
he asserted, can only be Major Esterhazy
himself. Continuing, NJ. Mornard pointed
out that the honor of the army was not
involved in the doings of the court-martial.
as, like other courts, they can err without
their honor suffering. After M. Mornard
had closed his argument the court retired
to deliberate. Following is the text of the
decison:
In view Of the letter of the minister of
justice, dated Sept. 20, 1898; in view of the
arguments of the public prosecutor de-
nouncing to the court the condemnation
pronounced by the first court-martial of the
military government of Paris on Dec. 22
1894, against Alfred Dreyfus, then a captain
of artillery attached to the general staff;
in view of all the documents in the case
and also of Articles 44S TO 446 of the code of
criminal procedure, amended by the law
of Tn,
of an application in proper form for re-
vision
Whereas, The matter has been brought
before the court by the public prosecutor
in virtue of the express order of the min
lister Of justice; and,
Whereas, The application comes within
the category of the cases contemplated in
Article 443. and has been introduced within
the period fixed by Article 444; and,
Whereas The Judgment, revision Of
which is demanded, has the force Of chose
jugee; and,
Whereas, The documents produced do
not place the court in a position to decide
all the merits of the case, and there is
quiry;
For these reasons the court declares the
application to be in proper form and legally
admissible, and states that it will institute
a supplementary inquiry, and declares there
is no ground at the present moment for
deciding on the public prosecutors applica-
tion for a suspension of the penalty"
The judges of the court were occupied
for three hours and half in considering
the judgment. The public, whose admission
to the court was regulated with the greatest
care; awaited the decision with marked
calmness. During the suspension of busi-
ness the public crowded into the lobbies,
and there was evident anxiety to hear the
verdict. There was no demonstration when
the court arose.
The decision created no public excitement
and complete tranquility prevails on the
streets.