The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-09-07
General Billots broad insinuation of COM


plicity between Dreyfus and Esterhazy.
From a spectacular view point. however.
the great event of the sitting was the battle
royal between VI. Labor and Colonel Jou-
aust over certain questions which the ad-
vocate wished to put to General Billot. NJ
Labori lost control of himself under in
fuence Of his deep feeling of indignation
and his belief that Colonel Jouaust was
deliberately gagging him in the interest of
the military clique. His voice, which at
first resounded through the courtroom. be-
came choked with emotion. The spectators
held their breath as he retorred deiantly
to Colonel Jouaust's refusal TO put the ques-
tions. his words drowning Jouausts voice
in an irresistible torrent, whose force was
heightened by his passionate gestures.
TRARIEUX AGAIN.
The largest audience yet assembled In the
Lycee was present when the open session
began at $50 o'clock. Senator Trarieux,
former minister OF justice. at once resumed
his deposition in favor of Dreyfus, which
lad been interrupted by the adjournment
of the court yesterday. He delivered his
testimony in an emphatic tone.
A striking incident occurred when Com
mandant Lauth, a moment later, asserted
that Lieutenant Colonel Picquart had al
ways shown the greatest contempt for the
officers of his bureau, asserting that on
enc occasion Picquart had brought to the
general staff in the presence of Mesdames
Henry and Lauth. woman. Madame I'D.
who was the wife of a magistrate, and
Lauth intimated Picquarts mistress. Lieu
tenant Picquart arose and cried: Il pro-
test absolutely
At the same time there arose from the
spectators chorus of indignant cries of
"Canaille," "Cochon" and Miserable" The
gendarmes were ordered to suppress the
outbursts of Indignation, which had been
evoked by the conduct of Commandant
Lauth in publicly naming a woman in a
| scandalous connection.
General Zurlenden. formerly minister of
| war, followed Commandant Lauth at the
witness bar. He spoke in justification of
| his action while he was military
| governor CT Paris and minister of
war in the matter of the prosecution
of Lieutenant Colonel Picquart. taking the
ground that the measure was absolutely
necessary I'm order that the court should
| clear up the charge of forgery brought
| against Picquart.
| NJ. Trarieux replied to General Zurlinden,
reproaching him with Lieutenant Colonel
| Picquart's ten months in prison.
NJ. Labori then asked question of Gen.
eral Zurlnden regarding the petit bleu.
| Colonel Jouaust, president of the court
| martial, refused to put the question on the
| ground that the court was engaged i'm the
trial of Dreyfus and not of the Picquart
| affair. NJ. Labori. however, insisted, taking
the ground that the petit bleu demonstrated
the guilt of Major Esterhazy, and that con-
| sequently ii was very important for Drey-
fus.
M. Labori then tackled General Zurlin-
den. who admitted that the magisterial IN
quiry showed that the petit bleu was no,
tempered with when 1t first arrived at the
Intelligence Department. and that. conse-
quently, Picquart could not have beer
guilty, as alleged, of dstorting the docu.
ment.
NJ. Labori asked that NJ. Paleologue. the
expert of the Foreign Office, ie consulted
with reference to the reading before the
court of diplomatic documents. which estab.
lished irrefutably the authenticity of the
petit bleu. VI. Paleologue. who sits behind
the judges, came TO the front OF the stage
and said that he did not know 10 what
| documents NJ. Labor alluded.
THE document" replied NJ. Labori, cir
which is recounted conversation between
NJ. Delcasse (former prime mnister) and
Count Won MISUNDERSTANDING German
minister TO Paris). in the course of which
Count Won MISUNDERSTANDING had saiC
Colonel Schwartzkoppen had admitted tina
he sent Major Esterhazy a number of tele
graphic cards, or petits bleus."
NJ. Paleologue responded that what NJ
Labori said was quite true. and that the
document belonged to the diplomatic dos
sier AS to the petit bleu in question, added
M. Paleologue. Colonel Schwartzkopper
could affirm whether he wrote 1t himself, OF
whether he had not seen II, but In any case
NJ. Paleologue said he believed 1t was sen
by Colonel Schwartzkoppen. This declare
ton by the expert of the Foreign Office ere
ated a marked sensation in court.
Then came the scene in which Colone
Jouaust and NJ. Labori were the principals
The reading of Colonel Du Patty de Clam
deposition followed.