Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-08-22

had not favorably Impressed his COM
rades.
This probationer, Dreyfus, who was
regarded as untrustworthy and insin-
cere in his pretensions, was, according
to the witness, equally disliked by his
comrades and superiors, was, Fabre
added, constantly endeavoring by all
sorts OF means to learn the secrets of
the plan of concentration of the East
ern railway system, and in his anxiety
to secure Information neglected his
duties. His official ruties, witness also
said, placed it in Dreyfus' power to dis
close the documents referred to in the
bordereau.
Witness could emphatically deny
ALL DREYFUS HAD SAID
on .this subject.
When Major Berth showed witness
the bordereau the latter was struck
with the resemblance of the caligraphy.
Dreyfus was the only officer who made
a bad impression in his bureau and the
opoinions of the chief and heads of
other departments confirmed witness
belief
Gen. Fabre, in conclusion, declared
he was still as firmly convinced as in
1894 that the prisoner was the author
of the bordereau. (Sensation).
After NJ. Demange had pointed out
the discrepancy in Fabre's present
statements and those he voiced in 1894,
Col. Jouaust invited Dreyfus to reply.
The prisoner said Gen. Fabre quite cor
rectly described the work on which he
was engaged when probationer, espec-
tally emphasizing that he had to keep
the dossier relating to the concentra-
ton centres on the Eastern system post
ed up. This was not fictitious task.
The prisoners reply was made in
calm, measured tones and his frank
ness seemed to favorably impress the
judges.
Col. D'Abboville, former deputy chief
of the fourth bureau, related how
Fabre had showed him a photograph
of an anonymous note in which the
writer intimated to his correspondent,
evidently foreign to army" that he
had confidential documents to commun-
icate.
The witness told Fabre that the doc
uments mentioned showed the writer
could only be an artillery officer be-
longing to the general staff who partici-
pated in the expedition of the head
quarters staff in June and July, 1894.
The position of Dreyfus correspondent
with these conditions and, to their
surprise, a striking resemblance was
apparent in the writings of Dreyfus
and the anonymous letter
Witness further declared that
ONLY A PROBATIONER
would possess the information mention
ed in the bordereau. 1t was not only
because of the resemblance of the
handwriting that suspicious were di
rected at Dreyfus, but because he was
in a position to be acquainted with the
documents enumerated
NJ. Demange wished to know why
Col. D'Abboville said in 1894 that in or
der to discover the author of the bor-
dereau he thought it necessary to in
vestigate the officers who participated
in the expedition of the general staff
that year.
Witness replied that he was induced
to do so by the expression in the bor-
dereau, Il am going to the manoeu-
vres,' for he considered the expedition
of the general staff equivalent to the
nanouevres, although troops were not
actually present
Counsel pointing out that a great
deal of argument was founded on the
expression, Il am going to the man
oeuvres,' said it should not be forgo ten
that in 1894 the expression was under
stood to apply to the expedition of the
headquarters staff.
In reply to the usual question, Drey-
fus said that he had never held any
conversation with Col. Sandherr, the
late chief of the intelligence depart
ment, who was so little acquainted
with him that he once addressed him by
another name.
Greater interest in the proceedings
was manifested when the name of the
next witness was announced, former
chief of the detective department
Cochefert, who was present when Drey-
fus underwent the dictation test in Du
Patty de CLAIMS office.
NJ. Cochefert declared he knew abso-
lutely nothing of the Dreyfus case when
the minister of war. Gen. MERCER. sum
moned him to confer with him on the