New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-19

| of a family bereavement, was apie 10 p"s 'ei'
| little attention to my oficial duties. In my Ao-
sence. Colonel Henry acted for me- moreover
| I devoted most OF the month of July 70 Jou'he.
OF the headquarters staff. which also preveh'eu
! me from attending to my ordinary duties.
WAS therefore able to give only very iii'e
tent attention 20 the Quenell case. bes'oes 'l''
Ouenelli was a returned convict WHO ""a
| travened a decree of expulsion. and had peeh
caught red handed in another criminal ACT nc
was at first sight a not particularly interesting
parsonage" =.
At this point General Roget sAiu'
allowed 10 reply.
you shall" said Colonel JouausI
co,orel Picouart. continuing. said i protes'
absolutely against the allegation that CUM
.erted 70 the communication OF secret oocu-
,rerts IN the members Of the Dreyfus court mar
,,o, without the prisoners knowledge. never
oraored s,,ch communication. and IL II was oohe
:, yas not with my cognizance. / hasten 10 auu
that In my opinion It would have peeh ai' "'u'.
IN the Court to believe that Its members "oui'
lend themselves TO such machinatlohs
"1 am ready. I repeat. to reply to every oues-
ton. I will only point out that all "ehei"' We
has recounted in detail was published IN genera
terms In the 'Gauois on January I. having
,.rs exnIained certain matters. Will continue
my deposition
THE SECRET DOSSIER
r,., The Colonel proceeded to discuss the
r,ro.s occurring in the bordereau. Il am going
90 81. uannuvres" He said there was no ques-
,,or ~ probationers going to the manGuvres IN
sentember This, he pointed out, would nave
orrtaiIed their period Of probation In an entirey
unusual manner
After dealing with the testimony OF the eh-
nar,s AZ the court martial Of 1894, Picquart pro-
ceeded to examine the secret dossier' cioSe
ANALYSIS Of which, he asserted, was particularly
necessary, lowing to the weight the document
had with the members Of the court maruai IN
1894
"rb,s aossier." continued the witness. may
be divided into two parts the nrst CONTAINS
three documents-1) document known as inc
DAvignon document. the terms OF which arc
about as follows: Doubt the PROOFS sef'ioe
letters; situation dangerous tor me WI
French officer no information from an o"ioe
of the line: important only as coFhihs iio"' ~
Ministry; already somewhere else' CZ) 'he ooc-
ument containing the words 'Cette canaii'e uo
~. (3) a document which is nothing but the
report of a Journey to Switzerland MADE IN De-
half Of a foreign Power.
1.-THE second part Of the dossler' -coh''hueoa
Picouart, consisted partly OF supplementary
review of the first 1t contained the sist Oh
seven or eight documents. one OF winch. Ce''e
canaille de D. will serve for the purposes Oh
comparison. 1t also contained the cofreSpo
ence of attaches "A and B.
These initials It should be borne IN mlno' repre-
sent Colonel Schwartzkoppen. formerly German
Military Attache at Paris and Major ann
zord, the former Military Attache of Italy at
the French capital.
A. this iuncture the Colonel said It would
facilitate his explanations II ne We're perii'''eu
70 see the secret dosser adding: Il have al
ready had 1t in my hands but rear my '''e"'
ory may fail me on some points
what YOU ask" replied the president OF the
conrt martial. SIS impossible. The Ministers
orders are absolute The secret dossier can only
he examined under certain conditions"
II regret IT," answered Picquart. But Will
try to refresh my memory.
APPLIED TO EsTERHAzY ALSO.
The witness next explained why Major Du
Patty de CLAIMS translation or the - A'isiioi
document was open TO doubt. and why the docu-
,nent. If II had any meaning whatever was DIS
applicable to Esterhazy as to Drey1us'
pegardine the correspondence Of the military
attaches the witness demonstrated the insig-
r,Ncance of the information asked for. Whiie
,,r patv de Clam regarded the correspondence
90 convincing and as clearly indicating an OF
Ncer of the Second Bureau, Picquart maintained
| that the terms Of the correspondence Indicated
| that the writer intended to ask friend ana
| not a SOY. for the information desired Many
| headquarters officers, he pointed out were on
| cordial and absolutely legitimate terms with the
foreign military attaches.
| Colonel Picquart then took UP the Cet'e
| canaille de D" document He called the at
| tention Of the court to the fact that 1t was au-
dressed by Schwartzkoppen TO Panizzardi' anu
not vice versa, long believed. After eVihe
his reasons for believing that Dreyfus was not
| the person referred TO in that document III
| quart showed how Du Patty de Clam endea'oreu
J 10 ascribe the authorship OF the document W
! parizzardi with the view Of establishing con-
| nection. which. in reality. did not exist. be-
| tween the various documents In the indictment
against Dreyfus. ,.- -.--.
The document referring to the French agents
| tourney TO Switzerland. OF which SchwartzKop-
| pen is said to have been informed was only
slightly commented upon by the witness as ne
| did not attach importance to It,
| The minute detail with which the Colonei
dealt with the evidence. the clearness Oh ho
| language and his deductions had great erect
| upon the audience, and elected general adnra-
ton. He concluded his examination of the nrst
| portion OF the secret dossier by saying
| May | be allowed to express deep regret al
| the absence Of Major du Patty de Gam! II
| seems to me indispensable that this ofhcer, VINO
wrote the commentaries on the secret dosslel'
should be summoned to give evidence here he
would give us his "reminiscences. and 1 would
help him." Laughter)
STOLEN FROM PICQUARTS DESK.
But" added Colonel Picquart. since am
dealing with this question OF the commentaries
Of Major du Patty de Clam. permit me to point
out to you, gentlemen, that this document was
not the property of any particular Minister