Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-08-17


! is false. Col. Sandherr was absolute-
| ly incapable of such an order. | add
that it is inadmissable because Col
Sandherr was the last person to know
CT the existence of the Bordereau
which was received in the ordinary
way. This Bordereau
| WAS HANDED TO COL. HENRY
and was brought by him to the intelli-
sence department. It was shown to
others by Col. Henry after he had
pieced it together. Col. Sandnerr on
| ly saw it later.
"Esserhazy has also said the docu-
ment was stolen from the embassy
and brought by porter. It is, false to
say the intelligence department ever
had any relations with porter of that
embassy. 1t is possible Esterhazy is
preparing some surprises for us be-
tween now and the end of the trial.
They wont disturb me any more than
other surprises
Referring to the question of the COM
plicity of Henry and Esterhazy the
witness said:
If Henry had been the acccnplice
of Esterhazy, how can it be admitted
that he himself brought the Bordereau
which might have caused him to be
suspected, to the intelligence depart
ment?"
Gen. Roget, while testifying. con-
stantly turned towards the prisoner to
see the impression made by his depo-
sition which was virtually, speech
| fer the prosecution. The General dis
coursed on the famous scene with
! Col Henry in the Office of M. Bertulus,
the examining magistrate, and said
M. Bertulus asked Henry to inform
that he, M. Bertulus was friend OF
the army, and begged the witness to
call and see him when he would corn-
municate the result Of his finvestiga-
ticns to the Blanche" and "Speranze"
| forgeries
in reply" said Gen. Roget, 81 said:
when you see M. Bertulus you will
thank him in my behalf Tell him
the investigation
DOES NOT INTEREST ME-
in any way.
II added that I was rather distrust-
/ full CT this proposal. which I pointed
out was perhaps, a trap"
The general added that M Cavaignac
! (then minister Of war; approved of his
! course towards N. Bertlllus
| The general next detailed on the
seizure of papers at the house of Ma
dame Payson which NJ. BertIllus large
/ ly founded his conviction Of the guilt
OF Henry, owing to the motion in them
of the name of spy, Richard" at
cuers and Barlo. where, it was well
known spies were il the habit CT meet
ing.
| Then the general tried to refute NJ
| Bertulus's statements declaring Henry
brought three Of these documents to
! the war Office. and that they did net
contain the mention of Basic or Cuers,
! as stated by NJ Bertulus
| The latter, however, had already
show. before the whole court of cassa-
| ton that, while he was mistaken in
1 saying the words appeared in those
documents, they did not appear in 9TH
| CT papers seized at Madame Pays res
| idence.
| Gen. Roget, who was becoming more
and more excited, frequently wiped the
| perspiration from his brow and moist
! ened his lips with water.
| At this point the general thought 1t
desirable to make a declaration that he
did not desire to be said that he ques-
| toned the good faith of some Of the
witnesses who had been heard. He
added:
Il make this statement SO that there
| shall be no misunderstanding and in
order that my words be not misinter-
preted. Nevertheless, their testimony
is open to criticism, even as our utter
ances are criticised"
| Continuing, the witness said:
| NJ. Casimir-Perier deposed before
| the court of cessation that an ambassa-
| dor called to demand an official denial
| of the statement that important docu-
ments were
FOUND AT HIS EMBASSY.
| The ambassador. however, knew it was
| fact. But admitting that he did not
know there is nothing surprising in the
| occurrence, in view Of the facility with
which attache Il don't mention his
| name, as the minister has forbidden III
| allowed compromising letters to lie
around. | read one such letter which
| was very compromising, TO person
whose name l c2nnot mention. Why,
therefore, should not the bordereau
go astray?"
The general insisted upon the truth
of the statement that military attaches
"a" and "B" under which letters ne
referred to Col. SchwartZkoppen, OF
| the German embassy at Paris, and Ma
| ior Penizzardi, CT the Italian embassy,
| at the French capital at the time,
worked together almost daily; and he
quoted passage from letter ex-
| changed between them as follows:
m. Hanotaux, the sly fellow, IS glad
at the embassy denying. The embassy
must deny.
| In the same document, declared Gen.
| Roget. was a name written twice and
| the name. he asserted, was that or
Dreyfus. The name of Esterhazy. he
added, was not found in any of the doc
uments. none OF which could be a5crlb-
ed to him with the exception of the
Petit Bleu. which Col Picquart dis
covered in such an extraordinary man
ner"
The witness said he then felt great
uneasiness in regard to the document
containing the words "Cette Cannaille
! de D.
A certain military attache said the
general later on in his testimony, in
/ formed Col. Sandherr that there was
someone who