Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-08-17


shown to others by Col. Henry after he
had pieced it together. Col. Sandber,
| saw it later.
"Esterhazy mas also said the docu-
inent was stolen from an embassy and
! brought ny porter. 1t is false to say
! the intelligence department ever had
any relations with a porter Of that
embassy. 1t is possible Esterhazv is
| preparing some surprises for rs he.
| tween now and the end of the trial
They won't disturb me any more thar
| other surprises
Referring to the question of the com
picity of Henry and Esterhazv the
witness said: IF Henry had hoe, the
accomplice. of. Esterhazv how GAN IL
be admitted that he himself broueht
the bordereau, which might have
caused him to be suspected. to the in
| telligence department?
| General Roget while testifyinp con-
stantly turned towards the nrisnnar IN
see the impression made by his demo-
sion which was virtually a speech 70,
| the prosecution. The general dis
coursed at length on thief amous scene
| with Col. Henry in the office Of NJ
;.
| and said Nj. BertuIus asked Henry ia
| inform the witness that he, Rertulus,
was friend of the army and begged
the witness to call and see him when
he would communicate the result of
his Investigations into the blanche"
| andd "Sparanza" forgeries.
In reply" said Gen Roget. II said.
When you see Bertulus you will thank
| him in my behalf. Tell him the in
vestigation does not interest me in any
way | added that was rather dis
pointed out. was perhaps Il trap.
The general added that NJ. cavaignac
(then minister Of war; approved of his
| Uhe WitnessesD course t.wards NJ
| BertuluS. The general nc..t dwelt on
| the seizure of papers at tho house of
| Madame Pays on which M. Rertulus
! largely founded his conviction of the
| guilt az Henri. The general tried to
| refute NJ. l'ertulus' statements.
Genc,al Roget declared that he did
not desire il ~ be said that he dues-
toned the faith Of some of the wit
nesses VINO had been heard. He add
ed: II make this statement SO that
| there shall BE- no misunderstanding
1 anu al VI 't'i Ai4t+t lslE Ntl'lS bt' Ibl
| testimony is open O. criticism even as
| our utt"rdrces are.
Continuing. the witness said NJ. CAST
| mir-Per;cr before the court If casa
tion that an amoassajor COULD demand
an official denial to II, statement that
| important documents were found al
| his embassy. Thr ambassador how
ever. knew il was a fact but admit
| ting that he did not know it, there is
| nothing surprising in the occurrence
| in view Of the facility with which an
attache tdo not mention his name as
the minister has forbidden IT'D allowed
! compromising letters % lie around.
! read one such letter which was very
| compromising to a person whose name
/ ! cannot mention. Why. therefore
| should the bordereau 20 astray?
The general insisted upon the truth
! OF the statement that ministry at
taches. IA" and III" under whict
! letters he referred 10 col. Schwartz
| hopper az the German embassy al
Paris. and Major Ponizzardi Of the
! Italian embassy at the French capita
at the time. worked together almost
daily. and he quoted a passage from
Il letter exchanged between them a.
follows: M. HanotauX. the sly fel-
! low. is glad at the embassy denying
| The embassy must deny.
/ In the same document. declared Gen
| Roget WAS 4 name written twice. AN,
| the name. hc asserted. WAS THAI Of Drey
! fus The name II tsterEazy. hc added
was not found in any IF thr documents
mono uf which could ~ aScrihe,l ID lin
with the exception MA the peNt hiru
which COL PioquIrt discovered in sue!
An extraordinary manner.
The witness said h. then felt great I'M
caeinesS in regard 60 The ducuneut COZ
tanning thc words "Cctc canaillr de a.
\ certain military attachc, said The ZOE
| cral later I'll his testimony informed Co!
/ Saudherr that there was some one win
| Initiated his handwriting perfectly. Th'
name IF Dubois the witness turihc'
! Said. was found IN tho correspondence N
| the military attaches. dubois" IN.
! general explained. was IN "unflrtunate
who Vainly tried to sell the secret Of tn
! smokeless powder used in the Frencf
! army.
iii. said Cen Roget, mo other porsn1
can he found to whom The initial - cas-
| apply to whom does it then apply
| AZ ~ made this remark. the witness
/ faced about and looked tiXediN al tn
| prisoner. who. however. merely shruEge
| mis- shoulders. Nov. continued the g II
| rra! THE eXplana tiuns furnished on thi.
| point by NJ TarireuX former minister u
! iuSticel troubled mc SpmrW hat but 4.
! not insist
| Here Gen. Roget paused. the cNcitemen'
! under which Ec was lahnrlng being alinpS
| uncomfortable. In Il thick. choking voice
| he continued: "And Wei. in tho presence
| Of diSutereSted Testimony Ike mine. Yot
| will not allow preference 10 ~ show
| to the evidence Of persons who have
| benefited by treason. At THIS point N,
general broke down ana tears streamcp
down his checks.
| Resuming his testimony, the genera
set to work in the effort 70 prove the
| guilt of Dreyfus He declared there were
| traces Of treason in every graph ui
! the bordereau ana that ID CYfus alone.
| not t.sterhazY. could be acquainted with
the plans it contained. Tx criticized The
| deposition OF Ma jor Hartmann of The 22l
| Artillery. i'm regard to this point. The
| witness then traverscd the old ground,
! trying to prove that DrcyfuS alone was
| aware Of The secrets Of the new artillery
guns. of the plans for the concentrates,
! of troops ana of the contents of the
| firing manual. He then endeaVored t.
/ show that Col. Picuuart had recourse to
! fraudulent methods with the intent of in
! terminating some other than Dreyfus-
| ana declared Picquart spent lo00b francs
with the object OF organizing campaign
Of surveillance ''of an unfortunate officer
who was guiltless.
This 100000 francs. he added. was a re-
serve accumulated by Col. Sandherr, ny
strict economy. from the funds at thu
dismissal Of thp war office. This reserve