The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-08-15

eral was once 20 doubtful Of the gum Q.
Dreyfus that he did not sleep for seSefai
nights.
Gen Billet acknowledged the statements
were true.
Answering question sof counsel. the gen.
eral said Col PicQuafts revelations pro
duced doubts In his mind.
But. be added. al the same his eonvsc-
ton Of the guilt Of Dreyfus remained un-
changed
Menry Forgery HAD No Eject.
There vas a great sensation when n.
Demange mentioned the opinion expfeseed
by NJ. Barthou that Gen. Bi.ios had been
forewarned In regard TO the forgery OF
Lieut. Col. Henry The general acknowi-
edged that the Henry forgery was among
the factors arousing his doubts.
Continuing, Gen. Biliot said he was IN
sensely surprised and deeply affected by
the revelation Of the. forgery. He said:
- never could have believed q superior
officer could be guilty Of forgery.
CavaiEnac Bitter Against Dreyfus.
Gen Cavaignac former minister OF war.
vas the next witness called. Replying 70
the president OF the court he SAID ne was
the first cabinet minister to assume re-
sponsibiity to Dreyfus. He had closely
followed the inquiry OF the court OF cassa-
ton, and still he desired to associate him.
self with the responsibility OF those In
1894 who protected the honor OF the army
against treason. (Sensation.)
Believes the Alleged Confession.
Continuing, the witness said that among
the principal points upon which he based
his convictions was the confession TO Capt
lie Brun-Renault. in support OF which con-
,ention he quoted passage from an al
legged letter OF Dreyfus. but which In real
ity was part Of Gen. Comes report TO the
minister of war on Col Du Patty de CLAIMS
report Of the alleged confession.
NJ. Cavaignac admitted the possibility or
mistakes in human testimony. and said
they ought to be taken into account when
condemn.ng a fellow man. but he asserted
he was convinced of the guilt OF Drsyfus
because his accusers were so entirely In
agreement In their testimony.
still Banks on the BOFdereau.
The witness also said he found additional
proofs of the prisoners guilt In the tech
meal character OF the bordereau. and
thought the bordereau alone established
the fact that the treason had ernanated
from the bureau Of the general stan and
from an officer who was able to secure all
the information desired. According to NJ.
Cavagnac, even in his attempts to hide
his crime, the accused had allowed words
to escape him which indlsputably estab-
lshed his guilt Everything. according to
this witness. condemned Dreyfus. and he
claimed. in spite of the prisoners denials
1t was established that he had been every
where necessary to procure the informa-
ton in question. 1t was established the
witness asserted. that the prisoner had
copied plans OF the proposed concentra-
tion OF the army. Witnesses. he claimed.
would testify In support OF this assertion
NJ. Cava.gnac next discussed the denials
NJ Trav nd All hie
OF memory were inadmssible. Dreyfus
he claimed. was aware OF the changes In
the bridge corps belonging to the artillery.
and also OF the details Of concentration.
Why, then, the witness asked. had he de-
MED this knowledge?
Esterhaxy Not the Traitor.
1t was impossible, according to NJ. Cav
aignac, to credit that Esterhaxy was a
traitor. even admitting the bordereau was
written by him. Esterhaxy he insisted,
could only have acted as the intermediary
OF an accomplice. The inquiry OF the court
of cessation proved treason was really COM
mi,ted, and ne. NJ Cavaignac had not bas-
ed his conviction Of the culpabilty Of Drey-
fus solely on the handwriting Of the Dor
dereau.
In the secret dossier. he said. there were
many elements for conviction, and he pro-
posed to discuss oil the allegations made
by Foreigners with a view 10 excuIpating
Dreyfus. For instance. he said. there
would he Official dement's (denials). which
would leave plenty OF room for the truth
to escape. Besides. II was quite possible
the accused was guilty Of treason without
having had direct relations with the agents
OF foreign government and certain
ambassador had admitted that his military
attache had spie6 under the immunity
granted TO diplomats.
NJ Cavaignae also found in the contra
dictory statements Of foreign diplomatists
that preyfus was we'll known at various
chancellories.
Col Jouaust asked NJ. Cavaignac: How
do you explain the Henry forgery" and
the witness repeated the statements he had
already made on the subject. He dwelt
at length on NJ. Cu.gnets long investiga-
ton. Col Jouaust then asked:
What do you think of the Henry for
gerry. In relation TO the facts now occupy
ing our attention.
1.-The Henry forgery" replied NJ Cav
aignac "as alleged. was In order 10 secure
revision OF the case by the court OF cas-
sation. and was not even alluded TO- This
forgery. therefore. should remain outside