The record-union., 1899-08-29

specialist to leave the platform, which
he did, discounted.
M. Tessionere's testimony against
Dreyfus followed. Then NJ Charmvay,
the expert who had previously de-
clared Dreyfus was the author of the
bordereau, was called to the witness
bar His testimony proved to be of the
greatest interest, as he came to con-
fess he had made an error, and he was
now convinced that Esterhazy and not
Dreyfus wrote the bordereau This an
nouncenlent made a deep impression on
the court and was greeted with a gen.
eral murmur of satisfaction. The next
witness, M. Pellier, also testified fa-
VOrably to the prisoner
NJ. Cordier, another expert, then de-
posed that as a result of his examina-
tion he had become convinced that the
bordereau was not written by Ester
hazy, but he could not say it was writ
ten by Dreyfus, because he had not
seen the prisoners writing. This wit
ness kept the court in a continual roar
of laughter by the extraordinary modu-
lations of his voice, misplaced empha-
| Ses and gestures.
The final Witness NJ. Varinaud main
tanned then the relation he had made
before the Court of Cessation that the
bordereau was not written by Ester
hazy.
Colonel Jouaust then announced that
NJ. Defreycinet, who resigned the Min
istry of War on May 9Th, this year,
and who was succeeded by NJ Krantz
who in turn was succeeded by General
De Marquis de Gallifet on the downfall
of the Dupuy Ministry, would be one
of the witnesses tomorrow and the
session was closed with the request
that a commission be sent to take the
deposition of Colonel Patty de Clam
whose illness prevents his attendance
in court, to which Colonel Jouaust
agreed. This step does not satisfy the
defense, but they acquiesced to the
commission taking Du Patty de Clam a
testimony on the principle that half q
loaf is better than no bread
The following is the testimony in de-
tail:
NJ. Paray-Javal, draughtsman, re-
sumed his testimony at the opening of
the court this morning, and with the
assistance of a blackboard, proceeded
to show the faliacy of calculations Of
M. Bertillon and the latter's unfairness
in not submitting the handwriting Of
Esterhazy to the same tests as the pris-
oner's. He decalred, however, that
even if NJ. Bertillon had done so, the
tests would have proved nothing. The
witness insisted that NJ. Bertillon had
made a vicious method in only making
a partial experiment.
Continuing, N. Paray-Javal proceed
ed to show that the geometric regular
tiles alleged by NJ. Bertillon did not in
reality exist. He pointed out a num-
ber of irregularities in the handwriting
of the bordereau, and said the same ir-
regularities We're particularly noticea-
BILE in Esterhazy's caligraphy He con-
I tended that the alleged irregularity of
! the key word interest We're only ap-
proximate, and proceeded to illustrate
his arguments on the blackboard, show
! ing that all NJ. Bertillon's proofs ap-
+ piled as equally to Esterhazy as Drey-
1 fus.
Finally NJ. Panay-Java1 declared that
~. Bertiifon's measurement OF the
word interest" which served as the
basis for the whole system, was en-
tirely false, and therefore NJ. Bertillons
entire system falls to the ground and
no longer exists Great sensation.)
This witness, who had awakened the
interest of his hearers, maintained that
the bordereau could not have been
traced, adding that it was an utter i'm
possibility. He then proceeded to il
lustrate why this was the case and to
prove the falseness of NJ. Bertinon's
| deductions.
In conclusion, NJ. Paray-Javal said
he thought NJ. Bertillon was a very in
telligent man, but that his system was
false, and he Ghe witness) was con.
vinced that only self esteem prevented
NJ. Bertillon from admitting his error.
NJ. Bernard, an inspector of mines,
who took high honors at the polytech-
mic school, who followed NJ. Paray-
laval at the witness bar, said he ap-
| peared to refute a portion of NJ. Ber-
tillon's evidence, which was based on
false calculations. As a matter Of
fact, he added it was on such basis
that the whole system rested.
Witness said he was greatly surprised
that NJ. Bertillon thought fit to have re-
course to psychological arguments to
prove: First, that the bordereau was
fabricated; second, that the method
which might have been employed in
8
constitute proof against Dreyfus.
NJ Bernard also said he was aston
ished at the fact that NJ Bertillon had
undertaken to account for the shape
of letters and the space between words.
There was not / . millimetre, as al
legged by NJ. Bertillon, but 1.56 More
over, the writing of the bordereau was
natural and rythmic with it's charac-
ters and showed it was not written
either by a short-sighted or a long.
sighted person.
The witness then proceeded to illus
trate photographically his contention
that the bordereau was not a fabricated
document, and also pointed out impor-
| tant differences between M. Bertillons $
! photographs and the original
While pointing out a fault in the APP
| plication of the system, NJ Bernard
aroused merriment by remarking that
NJ. Bertillon's system could, neverthe-
| less. be useful, seeing that it enabled
the witness to show that the bordereau
was a natural and not a fabricated doc
ument.
In conclusion, NJ. Bernard exhibited
to the judges a plate representing a
| page of current handwriting, and said:
| IF it is examined by NJ Bertillon's
/ system, it will show certain peculiari-
ties which would not be found upon
the examination of fifty million other
documents. NJ. Bertillon would there
fore say the document was fabricated.
But he would be wrong, for ] borrowed
the page from a report written by NJ
Bertillon himself