The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-09-03
PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.
Numerous Clashes Between the OPP
posing Parties Yesterday.

PhUCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.
Numerous Clashes Between the OPP
posing Parties Yesterday.
/ Rennes. Sept. 2.-When the Dreyfus
courtmartial reassembled this morn
! ing, Major Hartmann of the artillery,
whose deposition was interrupted yes
terday by the adjournment of the court,
assembled the stand and completed his
| testimony, referring to his examination
OF the paragraphs of the bordereau re-
lating to notifications in artillery for
nations. He pointed out that much
depended upon whether the word for
nations referred to formations in time
OF war, or in times of peace. In the
former case, he added, only an officer
belonging to the first bureau of the
headquarters staff could have obtained
the information prior to July 4, 1894,
except through steps which would i'm
mediately have led to his detection
After July 4, 1894, when the decree
was issued making effective the new
notifications in the artillery, it was a
matter of common knowledge. If the
formations referred to were merely
maneuverS. only an officer attending
the maneuvers of the Third brigade at
Chalons' camp could have obtained the
information, and no officer of the head
quarters staff could be suspected
tNote-Dreyfus was not connected
with the first bureau, and did not at
tend the Chalons maneuvers. Ester
hazy attended those maneuvers.)
The Firing Manual.
Discussing the firing manual, Major
hartmann showed that it was widely
distributed in 1894, and could have been
borrowed by an officer of any arm Of
the service attending the gunnery
school. But the comments in the Dor
dereau, in the opinion of the witness,
could only he attributed to a non-artil-
lery officer.
Major Hartmann was proceeding to
discuss the shells, when General de
Loye objected, saying such matters
could only be discussed in camera Col
onel Jouaust decided that if a secret
session of the court was necessary. it
could be held at the end of today's ses-
sion, or the first thing on Monday
morning.
Members of the courtmartial then
questioned Major Hartmann, who diff |
fered with them regarding the mean |
ing of sentences in the bordereau, and |
the witness proceeded to show how /
Esterhazy could have collected the
ChalonS camp information sufficient !
to enable him to compose a report on |
madagascar and the covering of troops. |
Leakage of Information.
Replying to NJ. Labor, the witness
the testimony he had given
before the court of cessation in regard
TO the communication Of the secret ar
tillery documents by Archivist Bou-
tonrot. Counsel recalled the state
ments of Generals Roget and MERCER,
Captain Frestaetter's
e1a%s 11a
about the shell, and asked
The witness if he was sure the leakage
could have occurred in 1894, to which
Major Hartmann replied:
Certainly, in both the case of the
shell and the detonator"
Replying to further questions, the
major said that while he was connected
With the artillery technical department
lie never saw Dreyfus.
General de Loye here advanced
lgain. and remarked that Major Hart
nann's evidence did not give him the
that it wholly accorded with
he real facts. (Sensation.)
Continuing, the general proceeded tc
efute Major Hartn1anns arguments.
lie asserted Dreyfus could have casu-
lily distracted information from the
conversation of officers acquainted
With the details of the gun and the
/
ware of il.
The witness replied that if the gen
raj tenor of his evidence was adj
litted to be true it was difficult for
he details not to be true also He
sked General de Loye to be more ex-
licit.
The general reiterated that Dreyfua
ould have obtained the information
rom officers with special knowledge
tho had impaired it unconsciously dur
lg the course of conversation
How Information Was Obtained.
The major pointed out that this s
ould hardly have happened in the ]
ase of Dreyfus as it had been shown
lroughout the trial that it was suf- c
Gent for any person to have been in
ouch with Dreyfus for that person to
what had passed between {
OF doubt that if an artillery officer /
ad been asked for information by l
reyfus, he would have came forward
, say so, ''as it would have been his
.rict conscientious duty (Commo- e
on.)
At the conclusion of. his testimony
ajor Hartmann asked if the artillery
apartment of the war office had not
vestigated the leakage at Bourges !
cISIdi Ot lOyt TtpleQ-
There have been many INQUIRIES 3
to many leakages but the artillery de-
artment has never inquired into them !
i regard to Dreyfus, it was asked to e
so and supplied information, but
lat is ALL a
Major Hartmann retorted that he
as surprised that when an officer was
,cused of the most abominable crime :.
treason it was not thought neces- \
Try to open an inquiry with the view
proving him guilty or innocent.
General de Loye-Pardon me. / said
ere was no inquiry. But let us =,
lderstand one another. l meant no :
ouiry on the part of the artillery de-
lrtment.
Dreyfus' Only Inquiry. !
Replying to Colonel Jouaust, General b
J Loye said he had made an inquiry G