Austin's Hawaiian weekly. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1899-190?, 1899-07-01

be held by any one to be the traitor by whom the
documents it enrnerates were communicated to
foreign Powers. The Court of Cessation, says
its Reporter, has not to consider the question of
secret documents laid before the Court-tnartal.
These are matters which would be pertinent were
the question one of simply annuing the verdict.
But NJ. Ballot-Beaupre had previously discussed
this matter, coming to the conclusion that, since
the bordereau is fact, it is impossible to maintain
that there is neither crime nor offence and, con-
sequently that mere quashing of the verdict is
inadmissibe. Therefore, he reasons, the only
question for the Court to decide is whether revi-
sion shall shall not be ordered and in dealing
with that question it has to assume that every
thing in the original trial was done regularly and
according to law Thus the fundamental question
comes to be--Is the bordereau in the handwriting
of Dreyfus? 1t was by this answer to this ques-
ton that NJ. Baot-Beaupre startled the Court
and the audience. Gentlemen" he said, latter a
profound study of the question: for my part
have to the conviction that the borderean
was written not by Dreyfus, but by Esterhazy."
In this country most people who have followed
the wndings of the long intrigue came to this
conclusion long ago, yet even they may perhaps
share the surprise OF the Partisan audience at
hearing their conclusion thus directly formulated
by the Reporter OF the Court of Cessation. Fol-
lowing the lines of procedure in many ways
strange to us, NJ. Ballot-Beaupre has set aside
much that in this country would be of cardinal
Importance, but, on the other hand, has gone
longer step beyond what all English Judge would
have thought 1t necessary to decide
1T will be observed that the Reporter entirely
respects the chose jngee. He puts aside altogether
every question concerning the manner in which
the Court-martial arrived at its decisions. He
does not enter, in giving his conclusion, INTO
any of the numerous questions raised by his eab=
crate resume of the presented by one side
and the other. He takes the b0rderean the
foundation of judgment which he does not call
in question, and inquiries simply whether there is
any new fact that destroys or shakes that founda-
ton.
1T seems somewhat narrow and technical
way of dealing with monstrous miscarriage OF
justice Indeed it is almost conical to think that
the upsetting of gigantic conspiracy which has
agitated France for couple of years turns upon
such piece of careessness in the choice of paper
as novelists have worn tllreadbare. But can
not doubt that M. Ballot-Beaupre knows his law,
and as little can we doubt that he has chosen the
line of argument which will least divide the Court
of Cessation. 1t has been made abundantly clear
conviction, nor the appalling revelations of the ur-
scrupulous forgery and perjury by which the case
against him has been bolstered up, would suffice
to procure revision of his sentence in the absence
of something that would force unwilling minds
to set aside the technical objection to interfering
with the chose jngec, however Ubiquitous that may
be. NJ. Ballot eaupre has found new fact,
which he thinks must be admitted to be such by
all but the most bigoted defenders of the con-
spiracy. He confines himself to that new fact, he
sets aside everything debateable and contestable
he refuses to enter upon any of the arguments
which appeal to the general of equity or