The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-23
the decision would be announced tomor-

the decision would be announced tomor-
row.
Leading counsel then submitted to
General Gonse a number Of searching
questions on Esterhazy's relations with
the general staff. The general, as re-
suit, became very much excited, es-
pecially when he asked if there was not
an intrigue in favor of Esterhazy and II
he did not take part in it?
It's false it's false" shouted the
general, and from his manner, one
would imagine he spoke sincerely un-
less he is a fine actor.
GENERAL GONSE DISCONCERTED.
The general, however, was viSibly
disconnected at several of M. Labori's
questions. The witness voice grew so
faint that it was scarcely audible.
Finally counsel asked why Esterhazy
was not arrested after the inquiry,
and General GOnse replied:
Because General Saussier deemed it
proper to leave him at liberty"
Yes" retOrted NJ. Labor, but Cen
eral Saussier must have been deceived
by the general staff"
The abrupt declaration, accompanied
by an expressive gesture in cOunsel's
best style, caused a sensation in court
amidst which the general returned to
his seat, looking very i'll at ease.
Major GendrOn, who depOsed yeSter-
day, was recalled after General GOnSe,
and supported the latter's statements
General de BOisdeffre then jumped to
his feet and denied in the most forcible
manner EsterhaZy'S statements, adding
that had he been present, he would
have given him the lie with all the
contempt he deserves.
The court adjourned for the day at
11:4O a. m.
Following are the proceedings in de-
tail:
PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.
Comptroller Roy, the first witness
called today, gave his impressions Of
Dreyfus, which harmOnized with those
of the generals who have already teS-
titled. But the witness was unable to
give a single specific fact to SubStan-
tiate his impressions
Major Drevieu testified TO long
string of similar insinuatiOns. He re-
ferred to Dreyfus' alleged bOastfulness
of his money and his irregular attend
ance at his office.
After Dreyfus had rebutted one or
two of this witness statements,
Major du Chatelet was called. He de-
scribed the alleged condolences of Drey-
fus in regard to women and gambling.
Maitre Demange expressed surprise
at the fact that the witness had not
mentioned this at the court martial of
1894, to which Major du Chatelet re-
piled: ''What2 Here was a man ac-
cused of one of the most heinous crimes
his condolences in regard to women and
gambling. Nonsense!"
Dreyfus briefly corrected some of
Du Chatelet's statements and the M.
private gentleman, took the stand He
testified as TO how he was introduced
to Dreyfus by a certain NJ BOdsOn, at
whose house the witness afterwards
dined in company with Dreyfus and a
German attache, whose name he did not
remember.
Continuing NJ. Dubrieul said he was
greatly astonished at the suspicious
familiarity between the attache and
Dreyfus. and that perceiving they dis
approved OF his presence, NJ Dubrieul
ceased his visits to NJ BOdsOn.
The latter -asked-the- reason for this,
saying, according to the witness, that
Dreyfus was the friend and even lover
of his wife, and asking witness ad-
vice as to how to get rid of her.
Witness asked NJ. BOdSOn if he had
proofs and BOdson replied: "Proofs2
Yes, 1 have even proofs enough to drive
Dreyfus out of the French army"
Witness, however, was unable to
learn to what NJ. BOdson referred.
NJ. Labor. after questioning the
character of NJ. Dubrieul, asked the
government commissary if he had made
inquiries on the subject from the police
of COutances, to which Major Carriere
replied:
That is a strange request"
EVERYTHING IS STRANGE.
NJ. Labor-Everything is strange in
this case and the evidence of this Wit
ness is by no means the least strange.
When pressed to describe more clearly
the alleged German attache, M. Du-
brieul replied that he did not know his
name, but was told he was attached to
the German embassy
NJ. LabOri-Was he a military or civil
attache?
NJ Duhrieul-I do not remember. I do
not know Let Maitre LabOri put him
self in my place (Laughter) and he will
see the difficulty of remembering the
name of a stranger he met thirteen
years ago.
NJ Labori-If I was unable to give
his name, I should not come here to
testify. So here is another Baurepaire
witness who knows nothing, yet teSti-
fies against the prisoner without being
able to substantiate his allegations.
The court will draw its own -conclu-
sions.
Dreyfus protested excitedly against
the evidence of NJ. Dubrieul, who is
Partisan friend of NJ. de Beaurepaire,
but Col. Jouaust exhorted him to be
calm, promising the prisoner a chance
to reply. This arrived shortly after
wards and Drevfus numbered out: I
won't speak here of Monsieur or
Madame BOoson, except to say that
my relations with Madame Bodson
ceased in 1886 or 1887, since when l
have never seen her. I wish simply to
assert that the witness is lying.
never dined at NJ. BOdson's with any
civil or military attache. The matter
must be cleared up. He must produce
definite facts and not mere title tattle.
The name of the person with whom I
am alleged to have dined must be
aSCeEld4IAeu- II AuuSL De hhONH mere
who is lying and who is speaking the
truth. Great sensation).
LABORPS REQUEST REFUSED.
The government commissioners
must be understood that I must refuse
to undertake the inquiry Maitre Labori
suggests with reference to NJ DubrieuI.
NJ LabOri-The government commits
siOner must not think any one intends
to be disrespectful to him. But 1 have
received information that the criminal
authorities of COutanceS are able to
give interesting information in regard
to NJ. Dubrieul If I write to the public
prosecutor he will not reply to me. but
If the government commissioner re
fuses my request I will apply to
the president, who is here solely