The record-union., 1899-09-03
bordereau and that that officer was

had caught a tartar He did not sue
ceed in shaking the witness testimony,
While M. de Fond La Motto took the
unprecedented course Of actually ques-
tloning General Roget and getting the
better of him once or twice. The two
men stood exchanging heated argu-
ments, totally ignoring Colonel Jouaust,
who was twice obliged to ask them not
to speak at each other and to remain
calm.
General Roget's reply was excited,
particularly when he found he was
making no impression on his opponent,
who, on the contrary, scored off him.
Roget was unused to this treatment, as
hitherto he has had his own way, and
been allowed to bully witnesses.
Finally on Roget declaring that
Dreyfus might have written: 81 am
going to the maneuvers," because he
could have asked permission which he
invariably granted, M. Demange asked
him if there was any proof that Drey-
fus did ask special permission. To this
Roget replied: II don't know No
trace has been found of his applying .
This answer brought a chorus of
"ohs" from the audience, because had
Dreyfus asked, traces would easily
have been forthcoming.
Roget then said that Dreyfus might
have asked verbally, in which case no
trace of his application could be found.
quite So" rejoined M Demange,
but the head of the bureau could be
asked whether any such request was
made.'
This practically ended the session,
which was one of the most interesting
and undeniably the most favorable to
Dreyfus yet held The military wit
nesses followed the evidence with all
eyes and ears, exchanging condolences,
which, judging from the expressions on
their faces, were evidently far from
agreeable.
TESTIMONY IN DETAIL
RENNES, Sept. 2.-There was a
large attendance and many Generals
were present at the Lycee this morning
at the opening of the last session of the
fourth week of the second trial of Cap
tain Alfred Dreyfus, charged with trea-
son.
The interest centered in the testi-
mony of Major Hartmann, of the artil-
lery, who has done great service for
the defense. He resumed his deposition
regarding artillery matters, bringing
out points in the phraseology of the
bordereau, indicating that the writer
could not be Dreyfus. The witness
wished to enter into the question of the
Robin shell, but on General Deloye OBJ
Jecting to a statement in open court,
the President of the Court, Colonel Jou-
aust, decided to hear this part of the
witness testimony in camera at the
end of to-day's or at the beginning Of
Mondays session.
In response to questions from Maitre
Labori and NJ Demange, counsel for
the defense, Major Hartmann said any
officer attending the Chalons Camp
could have obtained sufficient informa-
ton to write notes on the covering of
troops and Madagascar matters.
NJ. Labori then recalled General Mer-
cier's attack on Captain Freystaetter,
on the latter's declaration that the Sc
cret dossier communicated to the Court
Of 1894 contained a document contain
ing she'll, for which General Mercier
called the Captain a liar.
Major Hartmann affirmed that it was
quite possible that particulars about a
certain shell should have leaked out in
1894
An interesting conformation between
General Deloye and Major Hartmann
followed, the General declaring he did
not believe the Major was keeping
to the truth. General Deloye
then proceeded to point to what he said
were inaccuracies in Major Hartmann's
testimony. He insisted that Dreyfus
in the course of conversations with ar
tillery officers, could have secured in
formation on the subjects mentioned in
the bordereau, TO which the Major re-
torted that if any artillery officer had
been questioned by Dreyfus he would
have already come forwardato say so,
as a matter of strict duty.
General Deloye, questioned by NJ La
bori and NJ. Demange, said the inven-
tor Of the Robin shell told him Drey-
fus never asked for particulars about,
his shells, except on a minor point
The General added that he came as
a technical witness to show Dreyfus
could be guilty. adding that it was not
his business to say whether he be-
lieved him innocent or guilty.
NJ Labori asked General Deloye if he
knew whether the documents which
could have been betrayed by a traitor,
by a writer of the bordereau,
We're important, whereupon the Cen
eral turned to counsel and excitedly
cried: Don't ask me; don't ask me- !"
These exclamations created a sensa-
ton, which was doubled when General
Deloye added that there was sufficient
in the bordereau to establish that the
traitor knew the Importance of the
documents he was giving up. The wit
ness added: when I read the border
eau l was dismayed."
Major Hartmann. in reply to General
Deloye, reiterated that the author of
the bordereau was ignorant of the ar
tillery matters, for if he meant the
100 hydraulic brake he gave particu-
lars of what was long known, while if
he meant the 120 short, he employed a
wrong expression"
General Mercier here mounted the
stage and remarked that the writer of
the bordereau might very we'll employ
the term hydraulic brake, because
that was the term used by the Ger
mans for such brakes.
Ihls ended the deposition of Major
who certainly was a very
witness for the defense
The next witness, NJ. Havel, a mem
ber of the Institute, took up the bor-
dereau from a grammatical point of
view. declaring it to be his conviction,
after studying closely the styles of
Dreyfus and Esterhazy, that the latter
wrote it. The witness entered into an
analysis of the phraseology
of the bordereau, pointing out that GER
tain phrases in it were met with in Es-