Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1899-09-16
DEMANGE'S ADDRESS.
Closing Appeal Of the Counsel for
Drcyfus.

Drcyfus.
Rennes, Sept. On. Demange began
his address by saying:
when yesterdays sitting ended l
was about to deal with what l called
indirect evidence, namely, the technical
value of the bordereau. The prosecu-
ton, by taking separately each of the
notes containing information supplied
by the writer of the bordereau de-
duced the opinion that Dreyfus alone
could have communicated the informa-
ton in the documents. If he had at his
disposal proof of this he should have
given it. 1t devolyes upon the public
prosecutor to prove that Dreyfus pos
sessed this information, and nobody
but he. That is how the question must
be put. We are before a court Of JUS
tice, where suggestions have no place.
In order to produce proof | must ask,
and we must know, what was the in
formation supplied. Consequently we
must have the notes delivered; other
wise we have to deal with a hypothesis.
THAT is my first objection, 10 which
| challenge the public prosecutor to
reply"
Counsel, remarking that the hypothe-
sis accepted in 1894 could not now be
maintained, proceeded minutely TO eN-
anime the theories Of the headquarters
staff, especially Rogct's, whose argu-
mcnts he refuted seriatim. lie SIM
ilarIy analysed the evidence of MERCER,
reiterating the argument as TO the ut
ter improbability of an artilleryman
employing the incorrect terms used in
the bordereau in connection with artil-
lery matters.
Counsel then reviewed the well
known facts in the case, showing that
Schwartzkoppen, German military at
tache at Paris, had supplied informa-
ton to his government years before re-
garding the "12O short" field gun. lie
said that only the internal construc-
ton of the brake of this gun remained
a secret, but Dreyfus knew nothing
about it and never asked Tor infOrma-
ton on the subject from the few Off
GERS knowing it. Therefore, counsel
contended, Dreyfus could not have be-
trayed this secret. Regarding the
practical tests of the gun, Demangc
continued, Dreyfus was similarly ig-
nCTant. Mercier's statement that Drey-
fus attended the trials could be dis
missed, as it had been proved the only
leakage resulting from those trials had
been furnished by the spy Grenier. 1t
was thus apparent into what error all
the witnesses supporting the prosecu-
ton had fallen. Their opinions had
been most imperfectly formed and the
Judges must be on their guard against
them, honest and sincere as they
doubtless were.
Generals Change of Front.
Counsel refuted the imputationS
against Dreyfus based on the firing
manual, which he said were purely by
pothetical. After showing the prison
er had never seen the "120 short field
gun fired, counsel read letters from
Esterhazy proving the latter attended
the Citations camp and probably wit
messed the trials. but the prosecu-
tion," added Demange, had not to
choose between Dreyfus and Ester
hazy. 1t had only to prove Dreyfus
guilty, and could not do SO. On the
contrary, we have shown Dreyfus did
not possess the documents commune
nnfnI nor fhn I'm fnrp,nfin, nnntoinn fl
in them"
Dealing with the note referring TO
the covering of troops, Demange point.
ed u Mercier's change of front Oh the
subject. In 1894 the general contended
it IA with reference TO the commands
Of these troops that the leakage oc-
Cured, while he now asserted il was
regarding the mobilization and trans
port of troops. The prosecution had
thus advanced two versions, which
must cause the judges terrible search
ings of conscience, and especially as
no proofs had been furnished. What
right had the prosecution TO advance
statements without corroboration?
Reverting to the firing manual coun
sci showed how Esterhazy had secured
a copy of it, and pointed to the fact
that his government had asked
Schwartzkoppen for supplementary
information, which showed the orig
inal intelligence was incomplete and
supplied by an incompetent person,
which must therefore have been of
fered, and for a graduation bar, which
Esterhazy had obtained from a friend,
Had all these proofe existed against
Dreyfus, how strong would have been
the Ease for the prosecution. But their
hypothesis was not even probable,
while the theories of the defense wers
all supported by documents cuiled
from the secret dossier.
Dealing with the last line of the Dor
dereau, Il am going to maneuvers,'
counsel produced a note written by
Dreyfus, proving he knew in May, 1S9a
he would not attend But
E~sterhazy's regiment was at the pa'
neuvers regarding which information
was supplied. He continued:
was Esterhazy there? I do not
know. But what is certain is that
Dreyfus, if he were the author OF the