The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-09-03
THE SUN, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1899.
good the very assertions which the Court

good the very assertions which the Court
OF Cessation set aside.
The prosecution has, manifestly, failed TO
prove that DRKYFUs was the only officer
capable OF obtaining the information out
lined in the bordereau. 1t is almost inn
possible to prove negative, and the at
tempt to do so In this instance was an
egreRious failure. Many witnesses have
testified that the information was access
sible to large number Of officers, and 1t
| has also been pointed out that the Ian
guage used In the bordereau was not such
as would naturally be employed by an
artillery officer. On the other hand, it can
not be denied that not only BERT1LLoN,
but some other professed experts In hand.
writing have reafflrmed their belief that
the bordereau was penned by DREYFUs.
We may think that much greater weight
should be attached to the expert testimony
against this theory, but the fact remains
that the evidence on the subject is con-
fiicting, and that the court-martial may
take different view Of the relative weight
thereof than Is taken by onlookers.
The same thing must be said Of the testi-
mony relating to the confession alleged to
have been made by DREYFUs to Capt.
LEBRUN RENAUD. DREYFUs says that what
he told LEBRUN RENAUD was that DU PATTY
DE CLAM had advised him to admit that
he had given unimportant documents to
a foreign power in the hope OF receiving
in exchange valuable information, but
that he had refused to make any such
qualified admission because there was no
foundation for 1t in fact. 1t Is hard for
onlookers to see how any tribunal can fail
TO concur with the Court of Cessation in
the opinion that DREYFUs's version OF what
he said on the occasion Is alone reconcilable
with his asseveration OF absolute inno-
cence which, as LEBRUN- RENAUD admits,
he also made. Nevertheless, here is
hitherto reputable officer who testifes that
what DREYFUs said made on his mind a
different impression, and there are other
officers who testify that he made known to
them his impression at the time that they
derived similar impression from Mai
ATTEL, now dead. who is said to have been
present during the interview between
DREYFUs and LKBRUN- RRNAUD.
Have these officers committed deliberate
perjury We cannot expect n military tri-
bunal to arrive at such a conclusion except
WIN tAbIcLlo IcluCbduCc- IL tutbt
are to BIO credited, however, how can DREY-
FUs be acquitted? The counsel for the
accused, when summing up, may seek to
extricate the court from the dilemma by
arguing that the officers who have testi-
fled to the alleged confession are honest.
but mistaken, having drawn an incorrect
inference from DREYFUss words.
What we would here point out is simply
that while the larger part OF the testimony
brought forward against DREYFUs is worth
less and while there is, in our judgment, a
great preponderance OF evidence in his
favor, there is at the same time, such a
conflict OF evidence touching the author
ship Of the bordereau, and such a conflict OF
opinion touching the meaning Of the words
uttered by DREYFus to LEBRUN-RENAUD,
as may afford pretext to a prCjudiced
court, determined at any cost touphold the
discipline OF the army, for prot tncing
sentence against the accused
We believe it would be IA fatal error, and
that events will prove that the discipline of
the army would be better subserved by an
act OF justice than by the sacrifice of man
who can point to a great preponderance of
evidence in favor of his innocence