Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-09-03

u
He did not succeed in shaking the wit
ness's testimony. while u. de Fond-l4a-
motto took the unprecedented course or
actually questioning General Roget. ana
getting the better or him once or twice.
The two men stood exchanging heated
arguments, totally ignoring Colonel Jou-
aust. VINO was twice oDnged 10 0sk them
not 10 speak at each other. and 10 re-
main calm.
General Roget. especially was excited,
particularly wnen ne IOunO tnat ne was
making no impression on his opponent,
who. on the contrary, scored OF him.
Roget was unused 10 this treatment. as
hitherto he has had his own way. and
been allowed TO bully witnesses.
Finally on ROgets declaring that Drey-
fus might have written Il am going TO
the manoeuvres." because he could have
asked speclal PERMISSION 10 go. which is
invariably granted. NJ. Demange asked
him II there was any proof that Drey rus
did ask such permission.
To his Roget replied: ~ don't know.
NO trace mas peen Tound OF ms appnca-
ton
This answer brought n chorus OF "Ohs
from the audience. because. had Dreytus
asked. traces would easily have been
forthcoming
Roget said that Dreyfus might have
asked verDauy.
quite 500 reioined W. Demange, "but
tho head OF the bureau could be asked
whether such request was made"
AN INTERESTING SESSION.
This practically ended e. session
and undeniably the most favorable for
Dreyfus. yet held.
The military witnesses followed the evil
dence with all eyes and ears. exchanging
condolences. which. judging from the eX-
pressions on their faces. were evidently
far from agreeable
The following are the proceedings In de-
tail:
HARTMANN ON THE STAND.
When the court-martial reassembled
this morning, Major Hartmann, of the
artillery, whose deposition was interrupt
ed yesterday by the adjournment Of the
court, assembled the witness-stand and
continued his testimony, referring 10 his
examination of the paragraphs of the
bordereau relating 70 notifications in ar
tilery formations. He indicated that
Dreyfus could not have had the Informal
ton contained i'm the bordereau.
Discussing the firing manual, Major
Hartmann showed that 1t was widely dis
tributed i'm August. 1894. and. therefore,
could have been borrowed by an officer
Of any arm Of the service, attending the
gunnery school. But the comments in
the bordereau, in the opinion Of the wit
ness, could only be attributed to nom
artillery officer.
Members Of the court-martial then ques-
III 4
with them as regards the meaning of sen
fences in the bordereau, and the witness
proceeded to show how Esterhazy could
have supplied the information indicated
in the bordereau.
Replying to further questions the Ma
jor said that while he was connected with
the artillery technical department he
never saw Dreyfus.
REPLY TO HARTMANN.
General Deloye here advanced, and re-
marked that Major Hartmann's evidence
did not give him the impression that 1t
wholly accorded with the real facts. lSen-
satiOn)
Continuing the General proceeded 70
refute Major Hartmonn's arguments. He
asserted that Dreytus could have casually
distracted information from the CONVEX
satiOn Of officers acquainted with the de-
tails Of the gun and the brake. The Wit
ness did not doubt that II an artillery
officer had been asked for information boy
Dreyfus he would have come forward TO
say so. las it would have been his strict
conscientious duty TO do So" (COmmo-
tom
At the conclusion Of his testimony, Ma
jor Hartmann asked II the artillery &c
partment Of the War Office had not IN
vestigated the leakage at b0urges, ana
General Deloye replied: There nave peen
many inquiries into many leakages, bu'
the artillery department has never IN
quired into it. In regard TO Dreyfus II
was asked to do So and supplied intor'
nation, but that is all"
Replying to Colonel Jouaust General
Deloye said he had made an inquiry al
Bourges relative 70 what Dreyfus might
have diyulged concerning the Robin shell
and Robin, at thai time, declared that
Dreyfus had never asked him for such
information.
GENERAL DEIOYE EXCITED.
At this stage Of the proceedings there
was an animated discussion between Gen
eral Deloye and NJ. Laborir who closely
questioned the director Of artillery.
81. Labor: Can General Deloye say
anything in regard TO the Importance OF
the documents the traitors, particularly
the writer of the bordereau, may nave
delivered?
General Deloye, speaking with great
emotion, and extending his arm towards
counsel for the defence. said: Don't ask
me; don't ask me. There IL sufficient IN
the b0rdereau that the traitor Is mas
ter banda segneur He knows the i'm
portance of the documents he Is deliver
ing. The information has the value OF
official documents. Ii is ike notes Of the
Bank of France. The Information wa
accepted as pure gold. When l read th'
bordereau / was shocked ProlongeI
excitement In eourt)
NJ. Labor: How does General Delove
explain the words in the bOrdereau:
Some interesting Information
General DelOye: Great Heaven, yes, IT
was interesting observation-disclosures
affecting the conveying OF troops. Why
it was Of the greatest possible value.
Counsel asked Major Hartclann TO give
an opinion on this point CID the Major
pointed out that even II the writer OF the
bordereau was a master Mnd, and was Q
seigneur. he was ignorant Of artillery
matters.
General MERCER then appeared on the
witness-stand and attempted TO reiure
Major Hartmann's assertions. He point
ed out that the use Of the expression,
hydraulic brake" in the bordereau,
might be explained By the fact lnat the
Germans use the expression To designate
similar brakes. Therefore. he added, ii
was natural that the correspondent OF
the Germans should employ that term.
HAVETS EVIDENCE.
Louis Hayet, a member OF the Insti-
tute. and a professor I'm the College Of
France, furnished further expert evil
dence. He said the conclusions which
he had reached. after an examination OF
the bordereau. from standpoint or