New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-31

the Court Of Cessation ne saw the o''e'"" "
| dereau. .
"I convinced myself" said NJ. Meyer oy
! magnifying glass that the bordereau was wiz
ten in a free hand and without he',"'
whereas it is precisely hesitation in the forma-
,,or y, tho strokes which revealed the use OF
method of tracing can affirm that IL Is IN 'iie
| wiring and in the very hand Of Esterhazy
! That is perfectly clear to me-" At the concur
sion of his testimony the witness gave ue"'-
onstration Of the fallacy Of tho Bertiiion ey'
Professor Auguste Molinier, also OF the schoo'
of Ancient Manuscripts. gave similar 'es''''o'
He said that each fresh examination oi '''o
| bordereau only served further TO convince MN
| that II was the work of Esterhazy. Aihiu ueep
| attention the witness demonstrated how the
conclusions OF the experts VINO attrlpu,eo '"'
| bordereau to Dreyfus were mutually oes"
| tive and dwelt on the defects or NJ ber'''o"
| arguments. pointing out the s'rihi"e 80.
h,orce ~ the alleged doctored handwriting with
| Esterhazys writing. Who ne auoeu' u"
hodv.s on,n,on. had relations with Colonei
schwartzkoppen, the former German d'a''
Attache at Paris. and the dissimilarltes De-
- 49,. whiting NJ the bordereau and that OF
,ba prisoner. The members Of the court mar''Ai
uere anparently much interested, ana asNe"
Professor Molinier a number Of questions 10
which he replied. upholding his conclusion tnat
Esterhazy was the writer Of the bordereau'
MERCER TO THE FRONT AGAIN.
General Mercier requested to speak. and called
attention to the fact that In his testimony
fore the Court of Cessation Professor Molinier
said that a change was apparent In Esterha%y
handwriting after 1894 He asked tha' ING
professors former testimony be read
NJ Iabori leading counsel for the defence.
with the object Of verifying Professor MOL
rier.s testimony Counsel said that II seemed
% him that General MERCER interviewed less III
tho character of a witness than as represent
tatve of the Government Commissioner he
therefore would be grateful to the General IL
no would kindly explain the bearing OF HIS
remark.
General Mercier replied that on this special
pojnt he desired to confirm the testimony ol
Professor Molinier. which, he said' corroooia'eu
NJ Bertillon's statement that Esterhazy' inc
man Of straw. changed his handwriting IN order
to replace Dreyfus. In conclusion Hehela'
,1arc,er said: Having emphasized the point IN
regard TO the change In Esterhazys handwrlt-
ing in 1897. perhaps before. am satisfied
professor CRY. also Of the School OF Ancient
Manuscripts. traversed ground similar 10 that
covered by Professor Molinier. He SAID the
bordereau only had a superficial likeness u
Dreyfus's handwriting. and asserted that IL
was certainly the work Of Esterhazy. The Wit
ness also said that the bordereau was not WIFI
ten with the aid Of key words
NJ Labor asked II the witness had noticed
change in Esterhazys handwriting, ana FRO
lessor CRY replied that he had studied the
question, but did not think there had been any
marked change. Counsel then asked whether
nod
Esterhazy's handwriting had become more or
loss like that of Dreyfus since 1894, to which
the General replied that he had not wished 10
exnress an opinion but ne reiterated that M
Partition had shown that Esterhazy's hand
writing had become more like that OF the Dor
dereau
Thereupon NJ Labori retorted that In that
case General MERCER should not have repeated
the evidence Of NJ. Grenier before the Court OF
Cessation, as NJ. Grenier showed that Ester
hazys handwriting had become less and less
like the writing both OF the bordereau and OF
Dreyfus.
RERTILLON CRUSHED BY JOUAUST.
N. Berti,on at this juncture said he desired
To sneak. but the president of the court. Colo
mel Jouaust hastily rose and said. amid laugh
ter: 1.-THE sitting Ia suspended" Then NJ. Ber-
tulon reseated himself In a state Of high dud-
geon.
On the resumption Of the sitting, NJ. Georges
Picot. q member Of the Institute. was caied LOT
the defence Maitre Demange. OF counsel lot
the prisoner explaining that NJ. Pcot was sum-
moned because in May last he had an interview
with foreign military attache during the
course Of which mention was made OF the
document inserted in the dossier by General
MERCER,
Colonel Jouaust recommended the witness TO
be very cautious In his statements.
After promising to exercise care, NJ. Picot said
that he had an interview with the Austro- Hun
garian Military Attache. which caused Colonel
Jouaust to intervene. saying:
But you cannot continue like this
Major Carriere the Government Commissary.
also exclaimed sharply: Il protest In the name
of the Government and the State against the
| indiscretion committed by the witness"
NJ. Picot then began again his testimony,
eliminating the Observation-Disclosures" He said
ne had an interview with certain military at
| tache" and that the conversation turned upon
the Dreyfus case The attache expressed sur
prise at the incorrect attitude OF French offi-
GERS" IN doubling the word OF foreign officers
my impression" said the witness. was that
he was anxious to assert firmly and unequvo-
cally the absolute innocence Of Dreyfus
Regarding the bordereau." continued NJ
Picot 1.-THE attache said that only three docu-
ments enumerated were referred to, the real fact
being that the others were padding meant to
swell the dosser" The witness noticed that the
| attache employed the expression hydraulic
| brake" and never pneumatic brake"
! In regard to Esterhazy. the attache. M. Picot
said declared that he considered him swnder
The attache also asserted that Esterhazy had
| relations with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, who dis
missed him because Esterhazy only brought in
| formation devoid Of interest
| 1t was then. continued NJ. Pcot. that Ester
| hazy tried to enter the War ONCE, and almost