New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-20

"The first question / will ask here 49, sara
! the witness rs Dreyfus guilty?'' MY conVictIoh
: of his guilt is based on three grounds: W Hi'
| confession TO Captain Lebrun- Renault' " INC
| technical nature of the contents OF the DOT
! dereau, and g. the results of the examination
| OF the secret dossier.
ct will add to these three points the evidence OF
the expert Bertillon Qaughter), and. as indirecl
proof. the means employed by the Dreyfus ram
| lily to secure the prisoners rehabilitation.
protest that campaign has been under'ahe"
against Justice truth and our country
The Majors outburst of heroics evoked cynical
smiles and Indications OF dissent, coupled with
marks of assent from the assembled generals.
The witness next spoke of the secret dossier
OF the War Ministry. containing information re-
lating to the interview between NJ. TrarieuX, ex-
Minister OF Justice. and Count Tornielli. the
italian Ambassador. (which country SAID
Cuignet benefited by the treachery"
Regarding the confessions said to have been
made TO Captain Lebrun- Renault, witness SAID
he still believed they were authentic. adding:
IF people do not believe the confessions to
Captain Lebrun-Renault they will believe no
human testimony"
The witness reasserted that the bordereau
was written by Dreyfus at the end of August,
and. incidentally. he protested against Colonel
Clam. He then returned to the secret dossier
of the War Office, from which. he declared the
Court was sure to draw important deductions.
THE first portion of the dossier,' he said,
Shows that in 1893 there constant leak
age in the Ministry Of War. We have had
proofs Of the plans Of Notifications reaching the
hands OF a foreign Power. 1t is known TO a
certainty from the letter OF an agent Of the
foreign Power that the stolen plans emanated
from the Ministry Of War A vast network OF
espionage had, therefore been organized against
us headed by agents belonging to the same
Power as "A Colonel SchwartZkoppen, the Ger
man military attache. the agents Of other Pow
ers also collaborating" Witness then invited
the Courts special attention to this dossier, in
which, he said would be found ample proof Of
the prisoners guilt
CALLED LIAR BY DREYFUS.
At this stage of the proceedings Dreyfus
promptly arose and interrupted the witness.
shouting, That is a manifest lie.
After this witness recited in detail his reasons
for the belief that the agent supplying the in
formation was a French staff officer. He then
endeavored to show that traffic with foreign
military attaches could only have been carried
on by probationer in the Department occupied
the Panizzardi telegram Of November 2, 1894,
which he explained left an impression on him
that in 1894 Dreyfus was an old friend of the
Italian Government.
Another document Of the dossier, according to
Major Cuignet, showed beyond dispute that the
bordereau actually passed through the hands Of
Colonel Schwartzkoppen This to the witness,
established the authenticity Of the bordereau,
examination of which, he pointed out, proved
that Schwartzkoppen and Panizzardi had the
closest relations in all matters Of espionage.
Referring next to the dispatch Of Colonel
Schneider, ex-Austrian military attache at Paris.
denouncing a forgery a letter purporting to
have been written by the attache, in which he
was represented as referring to efforts being
made by Schwartzkoppen and Panzzardi to
conceal their relations with Dreyfus. witness
maintained that General Mercier's statements
on the subject were correct. and that the
authenticity of the letter had been proved
Cuignet said he noticed the Importance Of
Colonel Schneider's report had not escaped the
Court NOR those who fighting hard for
the rehabilitation of Dreyfus."
II heard 1t said" the witness continued, that
an emphatic denial has been addressed TO us
alleging that the report is a forgery I do not
know what truth there is in this denial. 1t is
said to be dated from Ems. and we. in France,
know that kilograms from Ems are not always
authentic But. II it is supposed to be authen-
tic. will simply point out to the Court that
the document in question was handed TO the
Court by NJ. Chanoine, representing the Minister
of War, and that the document is included in
a portion Of the secret dossier, the authenticity
of which has never been questioned, and that
it is, therefore, to the French Government to
which the denial is addressed.
HAVE OTHER DOCUMENTS.
IT beg to add that If this denial to the French
Government is maintained. we are in a position
to prove beyond dispute the authenticity of the
report in question. The author of this report
is, know. of very inferior position compared
With his friends. Perhaps he cannot do other
wise than deny. But he must know that this
document is not the only of his which
have in our hands. We have numerous docu-
ments, either from or to him. 1 cannot enumer-
ate them. but we have particularly a letter
from his Government, written official paper,
asking him TO obtain official information
garding vessel OF the French Navy. and
other letter in which he Is asked to request the
French Government officially for three cavalry
sabres Of certain pattern. These sabres were
asked for and granted through the intermediary
Of the Third Bureau.
Finally, we have a memorandum of the toast
promised by him at the farewell dinner to his
comrade and friend. Agent A 0Schwartzkop-
penn. The author of the report now alleged TO
be false referred to 1t several times in the
midst of his toast In order to recall to him
the terms Of his toast and to show that our
documents are authentic will recall only the
last phrase: After expressing regrets at the de-
parture of "A and telling him should have
the best recollections of him. he added. and
quote textually:
For long time to come. In all the armies
ne tba in nd Aaia will Iono