The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-08-29

before he retired to produce the docu
ments furnished to him for comparison
of which the defense had no knowl
edge.
Colonel Jouaust-Certainly
NJ TriSSionierres thereupon adde,
that upon referring to his report of 1879
he found he had concluded the write
had attempted to disguise his hand
writing. but that toward the end he hat
relapsed into his ordinary handwriting
After a brief suspension of the ses
sion, the court resumed hearing testi
mony, and NJ. Charavay. the archivis
! and reporter of ancient manuscripts
was called to the witness stand. Hi
| deposition was so inaudible that he wa
requested to speak up.
Examined the Bordereau.
I'm 1894" said NJ. Charavay, Il, witt
] two colleagues, though acting under
separate instructions, was commission
ed to examine the bordereau and &
number of documents for comparison
unsigned and in different handwriting
| L examined first the latter documents
and by the process of elimination, fixed
upon one resembling the bordereau.
was then furnished with specimens OF
the handwriting in question, but was
not told the name of the writer. / asked
if the document could be regarded as
genuine, and was told the place whence
it emanated, which could not be men,
toned by me and which could leave nc
doubt in regard to its value.
Il make this remark because / think
1t explains my opinion, for ! could not
consider that a document of this nature
which was not marked by certain dis
similitude of handwriting. / therefore
attributed to the discrimination. the diff
ference l was careful to note in my re-
port.
Handwriting the Same.
81 must inform the court, that in
view of the fact that handwriting.
which was not produced in 1894, and
which is evidently akin to the hand
writing of the bordereau, as the hand
writing of Dreyfus has since been sub
mitted to me. l cannot maintain with
the same degree of certainty the con-
illusions of my former report, and l
can only make one statement, namely,
that those two handwritings resemble
the bordereau.
Il should, however. point out one OF
the typical dissmilGrities upon which
l laid stress between the writing of the
bordereau and the documents sub
mitted for comparison, namely, that
the double IS" is not found between
the bordereau and the new handwrit-
ing. In other words, the double ="
of the bordereau is found in Ester
hays writing"
After repeating the evidence he gave
the court of cessation. NJ. Charavay
declared il was the new element, the
handwriting of Esterhazy which led
him to declare he did not adhere to his
conclusions n 1894.
In conclusion. NJ. Charavay energet-
ically protested against General Mer-
cier's accusations, adding that what
convinced him that he had made a mis-
take in 1894 was the publication of Es-
terhaZy's letters. the discovery of the
Henry forgery, the Inquiry of the court
of cessation and EsterhaZy's confess
sion. The conscience of the witness
compelled him to say that in 1894 he
was misled by similarity in handwrit-
ing.
Relief to His Conscience.
TT is a great relief to my conscience"
II. Charavay added, Ito be able to say
before you, and before him who is the
victim of my mistake. that the border
eau is not the work Of DreyfuS, but of
An immense sensation was caused in
court by this statement.
Replying to Colonel Jouaust. the wit
ness said that the mere examination of
the bordereau and the documents pre-
scented for comparison were sufficient
to convince him that the bordereau
was not written by Dreyfus.
NJ. Pelletier, another expert, pre-
faced his evidence by saying he desired
to make a definite statement on the
point on which he was in entire dis
agreement with General MERCER.
After replying to a question or two
from the court, Nj. Pelletier said:
After settling this personal matter,
there remains nothing but to maintain
n their entirety my conclusions TO the
effect that there is no likeness between
he writing of the bordereau and that
# the prisoner"
NJ. Couard. the official expert in the
1sterhazy case in 1897 then testified
hat he was instructed by Major Raw |
Try to eXper = examine the bordereau
md specimens of Esterhazys hand |
writing. The witness insisted upon eX- |
,erimenting with the original border /
.au and specimens of Esterhazy's cali |
presence of experts. Beyond this the |
Xperts and Esterhazy had no rela |
ions. The latter, therefore, could not /
lave influenced him, and the witness !
protested against NJ. Zola's accusation. |
nd adhered to his opinion in 1897, that /
he bordereau was not the work of |
isterhazy. He, the witness, would /
saSef MS head on tnlS- tLauSnlef.D
Never Saw Dreyfus' Writing.
Replying to a question, NJ. Couard.
rhile reasSerting that the bordereau
'as not the work of EsterhaZy, declined |
o commit himself in regard To DreyIus, |
those handwriting he had never been
allied upon to examine.
Maitre Demange. of counsel for de-
ense, asked the clerk of the court to
cad the evidence of NJ. Attheiin before
he court of cessation in regard to the
of EsterhaZy's letter which
I. Coudart doubted, and the evidence
others, showing how the letter was
eized. and testify nS to its geauinen S.
hitch was done.
Before adjourning for the day. Col
mel Jouaust announced that n. De
'reycenit, former minister of waI> Mr..
allifet and NJ. Cordier would be Cam
led tomorrow. The government COM
,issary. Major Carriere, rose and said:
L have handed the court a letter re-
.rring 10 the health of Colonel Du Patty
e Clam. Il indicates that Du Patty de
lam is writing his evidence and that
6 will send il to US. That deposition
as not arrived. /, therefore. ask the
resident of the court 10 be kind e.lo1g
, instruct the reporter of the second
arts courtmartial to have the evidence
: Du Patty de Clam taken by court
this, and at 1850 the court adjourned
u the day.