The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-15

the appeal already made to the mayors OF the
principal cities OF the country by more gem
etai appeal, and beg you to ask the people
>ON-NO~ WV
! thought the hordereau alone established
/ the fact that treason had emanated from
I the bureau of the general staff and from an
officer who was able to secure all the in
/ formation desired
! According TO NJ. Cavaignac, even IN his
attempts to hide his crime, the accused
had allowed words to escape him which
undisputedly established his guilt. Every
/ thing. according to this. condemned Drey-
/ fus. and he claimed in spite of the prison
er's denials it was established that he had
/ been everywhere 1t was necessary to pro-
! cure the evidence in question. 1t was es-
| tahlished the witness asserted, that the
prisoner had copied plans OF the proposed
concentration of the army. Witnesses
he claimed, would testify in support of
/ this assertion.
/ NJ. Cayaignac next discussed the denals
! of Dreyfus and said his excuses of lapse
OF memory We're inadmissable.
/ Dreytus, he claims. was aware of this
changes in the bridge corps belonging to
the artillery and also of the details of
concentration. Why. then, the witness
I asked. had he denied this knowledge? 1t
was impossible. according to NJ Cavaig-
VI
because the bordereau was written by
him. Esterha2y, he insisted. had only
/ acted as the Intermediary of an accom-
I plice.
/ The inquiry of the court of cessation
/ proved treason was really committed
and he, NJ. Cavaiguac. had not based his
! conviction of the culpability of Dreyfus
solely on the handwriting OF the Dor
dereau. In the secret dossier, he pointed
out. there were many elements for con-
viction and he proposes to discuss all the
allegations made by foreigners with the
| view OF exculpating Dreyfus
! For instance, he said, there would be
oihcial IDENTITIES, (denals) which would
leave plenty of room for the truth to IS.
/ cape. Besides 1t was quite possible the az
| cused was guilty Of treason without hav-
ing had direct relations with the agents
! OF foreign government and a certain am
passador had admitted that his military
attaches had spled under the immunity
granted to diplomatists. NJ. Cavalgnac
also found in the contradictory statements
OF foreign diplomats that nreyfus was well
known at various chancellories
/ Colonel Jouaust asked chat Cayaignac
explain the discovery OF the Henry for
gerry ana the witness repeated the state
! hehts he mad already made. He dwelt at
| iehSth ON NJ, Cuignet's long investiga ZION.
colonel Jouaust then asked: What do
/ you think OF the Henry forgery in rela-
ton to the facts now occupying our at
! tention?"
The Henry forgery" replied NJ. Ca,
Valgnac, 'as alleged, was in order to Sc
cure revision OF the case by the court
o I cessation and was not even alluded to-
rms forgery, therefore, should remain
outside the scope OF the questions submit
/ opinion" '
Replying to another question, CayalgnaS
SAID his statement that Dreyfus went 10
brussels IN the middle OF 1894 rested on
| hearsay.
NJ. Cavaignac introduced during The
course OIL his evidence a memorandum
written in German asking for various In
I formation wanted by the embassy. which
appears TO have been unearthed from the
urcniVes OF the bureau of information OF
the war office. He said he believed 1t was
! written by military nttache
NJ. De Mango asked why NJ Cayaignae
who was so anxious 10 incrminate Drey-
nus, had not produced this document in
the chamber of deputies. The witness re-
Piled that he had other means of reaching
the ends.
Counsel for the prisoner then oues-
toned NJ. Cayagnac In regard to his
statement that General De Boisdeffre was
absent from Paris November g. when
General Mercier declares he was there
/ The witness replied that General De Bois-
de1re was certainly absent ON that day.
Colonel Jouaust remarked that this point
would be elucldated when General De
Bolsdeilre was on the stand.
I Dreyfus was then asked IL he had any
remarks to make upon the evidence. The
prisoner, who during NJ. Cavalgnac's ar
raignment of him had seemed nervous and
agltated, replied In low tone, II am
astonnded that the man who produced In
the tribunal OF tho chamber the Henry
forgery can come here and base his con-
vlctions OF my culpabllity on matters
which the court OF cessation has already
disposed Of" (Great sensation)
General Zurlinden, also former min
lister of war, was the next witness He
began by pointing out the obligation rest
| ing upon those directing espionage TO do
everything possible to save those serving
them when the latter were discovered
| Then he declared that he still regarded tho
bordereau as being direct proof OF the
guilt of Dreyfus. General Xurlinden then
traversed the old ground and declared
that nothing, not even Esterhazys con-
LESSONS, had occurred to change his con-
victions, The prosecution OF Dreyfus. the
witness asserted, was quite unforeseen and
therefore the idea of machinations was
untenable.
| The reiteration by General Zurlinden OF
his firm belief that Dreyfus wrote the
bordereau created lively excitement,
NJ. DE Mango suggested that II Colonel
Fabre had not thought OF examining the
handwriting of the probatoners the bor-
dereau would have been eternally buried
IN the archives OF the ministry OF war,
"and.' he remarked, III this is the case
II must be evident there was nothing in
the bordereau which indicated Dreyfus."
General zurlinden, in troubled voice,
acknowledged this fact concusiyely and
tried to explain. NJ De Mango, however,
got General zurlinden to admit that II
was not until after the condemnation that
the study of the bordereau seemed TO in
dictate that II was the work of a proba-
toner.
In reply to further questions. General
zurlinden said that In order to know the
whole truth In regard to the bordereau