Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1899-09-05
to the alleged confession of Ureytus.

y
Gen, Gonse replied that it was be-
cause he always advised Col. Picquart
not to mix up the Esterhazy and Drey-
fus cases. Dreyfus. he added, had been
condemned and his case could not be
reopened, but they were bound to see
if there was not another traitor.
A Bitter Complaint.
The general made bitter complaint
at the fact that his letters had been
communicated to M. Scheurer-Kestner,
former vice president of the Senate.
who published them in book entitled:
"Pontius Plate
Replying to NJ. Labor, Gen. Gonse in
sisted that Dreyfus having been con-
demned it was not his duty to go back
to his case.
Scene Between Gonsc and Pic1uart.
A scene between Gen. Gonse and Col
Picouart followed. The latter being
called said he gave Gen. Gonse's letters
to his lawyer when he realized that
he was the object of abominable in
trigues, and when he received in Tunis
letter of threats from the late Lieut..
| SOl. Sellt WIFI tHS dsSSAe VI
Gems. Gonse and de Boisdeffre.
Col. Picquart added that he was not
responsible for the subsequent pub
LEGATION of the letters.
In reply Gen. Gonse said he had not
given his assent to Henry's letter and
that Col Picquart perceived machina-
tons against him everywhere.
n. ~, 1D,, hot ct No
same time he took the bordereau to
Gen. Gonse he showed him the secret
dossier. Therefore he claimed Gen.
Gonse could easily have acquainted
himself with the probability that Drey-
fus was innocent.
Labori Takes Gonse in Hand.
NJ. Labori then took Gen. Gonse in
hand on the subject of tampering with
Col. Picquart's correspondence, while
the colonel was in Tunis and Gonse adj
mitted that one letter was opened and
that the words of this letter were used
in forging the telegram which was in
tended to destroy the value of the petit
bleu. The general insisted, however,
that only suspected letters addressed to
Col. Picquart were opened. Picquart re-
piled emphatically that all his letters
were opened.
Discussing the "Sepranza" letters NJ.
Labor said the last letter, having been
preserved and not returned by Col.
Picquart might be considered to be a
forgery.
Col. Jouaust rebuked NJ. Labori for
raising the discussion and counsel re-
torted warmly that he intended, accord
ing to Article 319 of the code, to say
whatever he considered proper on
matter which could bring light.
The Henry Forgery.
Counsel then questioned Gen. Gonse
on the subject of the late Lieut.. Col.
Henry's forgery and the general replied
that he considered it an unfortunate
maneuver directed against Dreyfus and
| not against Picquart, Henry desiring to
furnish fresh proof against Dreyfus, of
which there was really no need, the
witness added, as the diplomatic dossier
contained sufficient proofs.
NJ. Labor at once asked what they
were, but Col. Jouaust refused to put
the question. Counsel thereupon de-
clared he would draw up formal ap-
| plication for the reading of these pa
pers.
Another Dreyfus Witness.
1 The nextwitness, M. de Fond-Lamotte,
a former officer of artillery, testified
that in 1894 Col. Picquart lent him a
firing manual which he might have kept
as long as he pleased.
49," the witness added, "there was
little secrecy at that time. Any officer
could have obtained one in August,
1894. Another point in favor of Drey-
fus is that no probationer could have
believed in 1894 that he would go to the
maneuvers."
Proves a Strong Witness.
The clerk read circular dated May
IS, 1894, announcing that the probation
ers would not go to the maneuvers.
NJ. de Fond-Lamotte concluded by
declaring that if the prosecution would
follow up the pieces of evidence they
would be absolutely convinced that
Dreyfus did not write the bordereau.
This witness, who is fellow proba-
toner of Dreyfus, proved one of the
| strongest witnesses for the defense, as
he brought out in support of his con-
tention that Dreyfus could not have
written the bordereau.
ST, as at first asserted, the bordereau
was dated May" the witness argued,
''Dreyfus could not have written L am
going to the maneuyers,' because cir
cular was issued in May informing the
probationers that they would not go
to the maneuvers, while if the border,
eau was dated in April, as now assert.
ed, Dreyfus could not have spoken OF
the firing manual, which was only
printed at the end of May"
Not one of the generals found re-
ply to the last argument which looked
like clincher, Gen. de Boisdetfre alone
declaring that although it was true the
circular mentioned was sent to the pro
bationers, they knew that they could
nevertheless, go to the maneuyers il
they made special application.
Heated Discussion.
Gems. MERCER and Roget then went
on the stage and confronted NJ. dc
Fond-Lamotte and heated discussion
ensued.
Gen. Roget asked when the witness
had altered his conviction In favor O.
Dreyfus and M. de Fond-Lamotte re
piled:
sat the time was before the court o
cessation expected proof of my com
| I la ret r ri