The record-union., 1899-08-18

Colonel Picquart was then called to
the witness stand. He protested most
firmly against all suspicion Of having
caused the disappearance of any docu-
ment relating to Dreyfus. Documents
had disappeared, but he was not con-
nected with 'ttefrd isappearance He
alses repelled with seorn the assertion
that he had endeavored to put: another
officer in the place OF the real author
of the bordereau.
1T is true" the witness continued
that the name of Captain Dorval being
mentioned to me as a dangerous man,
had him watched, and do you know,
gentlemen, by whom Doryal was de-
.nounced? BY his. own cousin" con-
tinued PicQuart, Major Du Patty de
Clam" (Sensation)
Colonel Picquart then next proceed
ed to reply to the various attacks made
upon him. These tactics,' he said,
''are evidently pursued with the object
| of lessening the value of my testi-
! mony.''
The Colonel next outlined his con-
nection with Dreyfus at the military
college, and afterward at the Ministry
of War, where owing to the anti Semitic
prejudice of the general staff, he first
appointed Dreyfus to a department
where probationers4 had no direct cog
nizance of the documents. He then
described the CONSERVATION in the War
Office when the treason was discover
! ed, and the relief experienced when it
was thought the guilty person had
been discovered. 1t was then the wit
ness discovered the similarity between
- of
the bordereau, and he had recourse to
Du Patty de Clam, who was supposed
to have graphological knowledge
Iaughter)
Then the witness described what he
characterized as the irregular steps
taken by General Mercier to accom-
plish the arrest of Dreyfus.
Referring to the dictation test, the
| witness earnestly and emphatically af-
| firmed that he saw no signs Of pertur-
baton in the handwriting of Dreyfus
on that occasion, and. moreover, Short
| ly afterward Du Patty de Clam admit
ted he had not found a fresh charge
against Dreyfus. Beyond the border
eau said the witness. there was
nothing against Dreyfus = absolutely
nothing"
His impression during the investiga-
ton continued Colonel Picquart, was
that the acquittal of the accused was
probable as the evidence was INSULT
cient Witness believed he had even
told the Minister of War that the con-
demnation of the accused could not be
secured unless the court martial had
been shown the secret documents which
it had been agreed to submit to the
court.
The Colonel next declared that in
1894 he did not know the contents of
the secret dossier. but he believed, like
all other officers. that it contained
frightful proofs against the prisoner.
When he became acquainted with it's
contents, however. he found that his
earlier impressions were entirely
wrong" prolonged sensation.)
Colonel PicQuart then recalled the We
hement protests of innocence which the
prisoner had not ceased to make dur
ing all phases of the degradation. The
witness declared he was quite ignorant
Of the confessions Dreyfus is alleged
to have made to Captain Lebrun-Re-
nault.
Continuing, Colonel Picquart defend
ed himself against the charge that he
had always directed his efforts toward
the rehabilitation of Dreyfus. He said
he had only directed the Investigations
made to that end when he became
aware that the writings of Esterhazy
and the bordereau were identical, and
that, consequently. the charges against
Dreyfus no longer existed.
During the course of his testimony,
Colonel Picquart asked to be confront
ed with Major Du Patty de Clam, and
to be permitted to deal with some of
his peculiarities when Patty de Clam is
in the witness box"
Next the Colonel examined the bor-
dereau, and declared Dreyfus could not
have disclosed part of it.
Regarding the Madagascar note, the
witness disputed its value, and said he
did not believe it was a confidential
note He added that if DPeyfus in his
capacity of probationer had asked the
witness for the note. he would have
handed it to him Immediately. There
fore he (PicquarD was unable to un-
derstand the sentence in the bordereau
reading: This document was very
difficult to obtain"
Colonel Picquart then declared that
he had never seen Dreyfus copy the
smallest document in the War Depart
ment In the opinion of the witness,
the department where the bordereau
was dug out ought to have been search
ed when the discovery was made This,
he explained, was the department in
which Du Patty de Clam worked and
that was the department which was
working on the plan of the concentra-
ton of the troops and the Madagascar
expedition.
He added: cit was in Major Du Patty
de CLAIMS department that the search
should have been made. or, rather, in
his private room. where he worked
quite alone" (Sensation.)
Du Patty de Clam had been guilty of
grave imprudence in having, contrary
to the regulations. had. confidential doc
uments copied by single secretaries,
non commissioned officers and even
private soldiers. whereas the custom
was that such work was done solely by
officers
Later on the witness said he Won
dered if it was not to avoid the risk
Of punishment that Du Patty de Clam
advanced the date of the reception of
the bordereau at the Intelligence De-
partment, so as to make it prior to the
date of his (Paty de Clam9 arrival in
the third department, (Sensation.)
At IL: 40 a. M. the court adjourned for
the day.
Colonel Picquart was magnificent to-
day as he marched into court, tall and
excellently built dressed in a frock
coat and wearing the ribbon of the
Legion of Honor in his buttonhole. His