The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-09-03
TIDE TURNS TO
DREYFUS NOW
Continued from First Page)

May iith. iSgi. informing them that they
must not go 20 the manoeuvres. thus
showing that the man who wrote the
boredereau in August. and said, Il am
going 10 the manOcuvres cold not De
Dreyfus.
TIE witness then pointed out that none
Of the ministers. who be believed acted
I'm good faith were informed Of the eN-
istenCe OF this circular which. ne ue-
clarc1. 81 consider a vital point in the
case"
This circular" he continued, skaters
the prosecution. because after May lith
Dreyfus could not say i am going To- me
manoeuvrcs.' for then DIE knew he Woule
NOT go. while prior to May l1th he cou-u
not have known the five documents COM
priscd n the bordercau.
ANOTHER TELLING POINT
Ill Defend Lamoua then brought out
an,tber strone point AuCms 10 ih'
mad aoafl,ps of the disposition concern
Inc the troops. he said the write oi the
rorIareau us.d the term new plan
lyon, p. safd the wi ness. 'it has been
t,,,r,,4-ed upou YOU that on O'toDer I'l"
"a c'rc,i.ar was sent out by The War Sl,h.,-
IT,. containing those ve.y words, ana tA"D
therefore the writer of the cordcfea"
r,-,s- have been am n.er of the MINISTRY
nrt ore thing has struck me-~ho sen.
,,f ftat circular2 IL was ne tH'-N
ouerlu the chief VI whi was LIE .c.'-
an .Co.oue Du Patty de clam VIM '.nN
had the horderaau in mis- HANDS TOR inc
previous tw ny days ..-,.,
N refond lamoue. boy this' mtenoel
IN show that Du Patty de clam plil ose''
used the words new plan I'D tu5 on -
t.,. ,.,'isred n, what The witness desciloe-
s. .sr,-ifn,- i'm a Vicious circle 10 L"oA u''
his contention that an oln-'' o. 49,.
istrv wrote the bord al' --,-iu ''i~'
officer Yves Dreytus -..o AZ
General Roget then rose 10 reiNy " ~,
DefonI Iamote, put iouio TIC
caught a tartar. 49,. ,,.,.
ness testimony. while VI. Defond LtHlo' .s
took the unprece ented course Oh 80 49,, ~
oYestioning General Roget and getting 'he
better of him once or t"'ee' Inc
men stood exchanging heated arguments
totally ignoring Co.or!e souausl' WHO vs.
twice obliged TO ask them not 10 SPEAK d.
each oth-r and to remain calm.
Genera. r. get especially, was cxcit d.
r,rfir,la-iv when he found that he was
making no impression On his oQp1n
who. on tine contrary, scored of hi 70.
ROGET was unused 20 this treatment as
hitherto he had had his own way ana
been allowed TO bully vimesse'
FINALLY ON Roget declaring that Drey-
FMS might have Written u am going 90
he nanoeuvres' because he could have
asked spe,la permit sion which Is in-
varlsblv granted. NJ Demange asked him
If there was any proof that Dreyfus clI
ask such permission
To this Roget REPLIED: Il don't know.
No trace has been found of his aDg.ica-
ton"
This answer brought a chorus OF "oh's'
from the audience. because. had DroyfIs
asked. traces would easily have b en-
forthcoming
Roget said that Dreyfus misht have
asked verbally.
quite so" reioined VI. Demlnge. "blt
the head Of the bureau could be asked
whether such request was made"
This practically ended the session. which
was one Of the most interesting and un-
denab.y the most favorable FOR Dreyfus
yet held.
The military witnesses followed the evil
dence with an eyes and ears. exchanging
condolences. which. Judging from the ok
pressi0ns on their faces, were evidently
far from agreeable.
PROCEEDINGS ~ DETAIL.
When the Droyfus courtmartial reas-
sembled this morning. Major Hartman. OF
the artillery whose deposition was inter
rupted yesterday by the adjournment ot
the court. assembled the witness stand and
continued his testimony. referring 90 h.s
examination of the paragraphs of the
b0rdereau relating 10 notifications In ar
tiuery formations. He indicated that
Dreyfus could not have had the informa-
ton contained I'm the bprdereau.
Discussing the firing manual. Major
Hartmann showed that 10 was widely dis
tributcd I'm August, i,9i. and therefore.
could have been borrowed by an officer
OK any arm of the service attending the
gunuery school But the comments in the
bordereau, I'm the opinion of the witness,
could only be attributed 10 a nOn-aru.ery
officer.
Members Of the courtmartlaI then ques-
toned Major Hartmann. who differed
with them as regards the meaning of sem
fences I'm the b0rdereau and the witness
proceeded % show how Esterhazy could
have supplied the information indicated
I'm the bordereau
Replying TO further questions. the Major
said that while ne was connected with
the artillery techn cal department. he
never saw Dreyfus.
General De Love here advanced and re-
marked that Major Hartmann's evidence
did not give him the impression that it
wholly accorded with the real facts. (Sen-
sauOn.
Continuing the General proceeded TO re-
flute Major Hartmann's arguments. lie
asserted Dreyfus could have casually
abstractcd information from the CONVERSE
ton of officers acquainted with the details
Of the Gun and the brake The witness
dll not doubt that IL an artillery officer
had been asked for information by Drey-
fus he would have come forward TO say
so. las IL would have been his strict
conscientious duty" tCommouon)
At the conclusion of his testimony.
Major Hartmann askedff the artillery de-
partment OF the War Office had not iuves-
tigated the leakage at Bourges and Cen
eral DeI0ye replied: There have been
many inquiries into many leakages but
the artillery department has never in
quired into IT. In regard 10 Dreyfus, il
was asked 70 do so. and supplied iuforma-
ton. but that IS ALL"
Replying 10 Colonel JOuaust. General
DeLoye said DE had made an inquiry
az BOurges relative TO what Dreyfus
might have dlvulged concerning the
Robin shell. and Robin. az that time de-
clarod Dreyfus had never asked him for
such information.
QUESTIONED BY LABORL
At this stage of the proceedings there
was an animated discussion between Gen
eral DsLOye and VI. Labor who closely
questioned the Director OF ARTILLERY.
# Fahorf. ssgay, Cnr,raf M 80. 800