The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-08-29

except In regard to a personal fact
4eysSOniers Too Certain.
NJ Teyssoners followed. He said he ad-
| hered In all respects 10 his report dated
Oct. 20, 1894, in which he eXpressed the opin-
ion that the bordereau was the work OF
the writer of the documents seized at the
prisoners residence. For purposes Of com
parison, the witness ieugthily criticised
the bordereau letter by letter, pointing out
resemblances to the prisoners haudwrlt-
ing.
In conclusion. NJ. Teyssonlers said he
thought 1t impossible that II 1re tangible
reasons than those induced him to the be
| lief chat ne hoped the court would share.
(SensatIon).
Referring to The court, witness said he
noticed the prisoners handwriting was r.
legible and he had never seen the docu-
ment distated to Dreyfus.
The copy of the bordereau made by
Dreyfus was then handed 10 NJ. Teysson-
iers, who declared it had never been given
TO him for purposes of comparisou. (sen-
sauon)
The witness added that he would require
three daSs to give an opinion on IT, He
could not conclude his examination on the
spot. He must have time.
Here a member of the courmartial Civ
ing the result Of his examination of the
! bofdereau, remarked:
The letter 'I' is always isolated, even
at the beginning Of words"
To this NJ. TeyssonieIs replied that this
popularity was also found in the prison.
ers handwriting.
When he was invited TO reply to the
| witness, Dreyfus said M TeyssonieIs re-
marks seemed 10 him quite incorrect and
in order to reply properly, he the prison
| er. must have the documents under his
! eyes. As regards the criticism on the sub
| ject OF paragraphlng. Dreyfus added:
II beg to reply that one docs not make
a fresh paragraph except when beginning
a new idea. Every time l beg n a new idea
| in anything ! write / make a paragraph.
| The prisoner In conclusion, asked the
! president of the court to request the wit
| ness before he retired, 10 produce the doe
uments furnished to him for comparison.
of which the defense had no knowledge.
Col JOuaust Certainly"
Nj. Teyssoniers thereupon added that ON
referring to his report of 1894. he found
J he had concluded the writer had attempt
ed to disguise his handwriting, but that
towards the end he had relapsed into his
ordinary handwriting.
Considered Himself Accused.
The witness having begged leave to
speak of a personal fact, addressing the
judge, he said;
Before you 1 am only a witness, but"
turning towards the defense, before this
other tribunal, am, perhaps an accused
| person
Col Jouaust: Not at ALL you are not
| accused"
NJ. Teyssoniers: 81 am ar accused per-
SON"
Here the witness picked up a newspa-
per which he had brought with him and
| began to read. whereupon Col. Jouaust,
said:
you cannot read a newspaper"
1T Is a newspaper, it IS true" replied
M Teyssoniers, but it is also the report
OF NJ Ballot de Beaupre."
Col Jouaust: I'VE have no need to con-
sder the reports OF the Judge. The Incl
dent is closed"
why ChnravRy Changed.
After a brief suspension Of the ses-
sion the court resumed hearing testI-
mony, and M. Charavay, the archivist ana
expert in ancient manuscripts, was called
to the witness bar. His deposition was
so inaudibe that he had to be requested
! TO speak up.
In 1894" said NJ. Charavay, "I, with
two colleagues, though acting upon sep
arate instructions, was commissioned to
examine the bordereau and a number OF
documents, for comparison. unsigned, and
| in different handwritngs ! examined first
the latter documents and by the procesa
Of eliminating, 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 regard
ed as genuine, and was told the place
from which IL emanated which could not
be mentioned by me, and which could
leave no doubt In regard TO it's value.
NOW / 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 writing of the bor-
A.. ,.ftt
has since been submitted to me, l can
not maintain with the same degree of GER
tainty the conclusions Of my formeh re-
port and can only make one statement,
namely, that these two handwritings re-
semble the bordereau
Il should, however, point out one Of
the typical dissimilarities upon which
laid stress, between the writing of the
bordereau and the documents submitted
for comparison, namely, that the double
s is not found between the bordereau aud
the new handwriting. In other words, the
double s. of the bordereau is found in
Esterhazy's writing"
After repeating the evidence he gave
before the Court OF Cessation. NJ. Chara-
way declared that il was the new element.
the handwriting of Esterhazy, which led
him TO declare he did not adhere TO his
conclusions in 1894.
In conclusion, NJ. Charavay energetically
tions, adding that what convinced him
that he had made a mistake IN 1894 was
the publication of Esternazy's letters the
discovery II the Henry forgery the in
qury of the Court of Cessation and Es-
terhazy's confession.
The conscience of the witness compiled
him TO say that in 1884 he was mislead by
similarity in handwriting.
1T is great relief TO my conscience"
NJ. Charavay added. 40 be able 10 say te-
fore you and before him who Is the victim
Of my mistake that the borGereau Ia not
the work Of Dreyfus, but OF Icsterhazy"
An immense sensation was caused IN
court by this statement
Replying TO Col. Jouaust, the w'tuess
said that the mere examination Of the bor-
dereau ana the documents presented for
comparison were sufficient TO convince HIN
that the bordereau was not written by
Dreyfus.
The prisoner. on being asked the Gus
tomary questions. requested NJ. Charavay
TO give further particulars as 70 the rea
sons which led him 10 modify his opinions