The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-09-04
and undenlably the most fsvorabls tc
Drsyfus yet held.
PERSECUTION OF PICQUART.


interesting episode was supplied by ref
erence to letters exchanged between Gen.
Gonee and Col. Picquart relative to Ester
hazy which wers read as already pub.
llshed. Gonse, In these communication
urged caution, which Picquart replied
that unless he acted they would be over
whelined.
NJ. Labori pointed OUT that during
Picquart's Investigations, while urving
caution, Gen. Gonss never ment,onad
the alleged confessions OF Dreyfus. Gen.
Gonse tried to explain this by spyina no
advised Picquart to separate the two
cases, saying Dreyfus had been convicted
and they could not reopen the question
OF his guilt or innocence. But the Gen.
eral said that he told picquart no ought
to investigate whether there were other
traitors.
Referring to the correspondence with
Picquart, Gen. Gonse exclaimed: "When
one prooures the handwriting Of a man
one can get him hanged. daughter
Continuing. Gen. Gonse said; "when
a man Intends to publish another's let
tiers he asked what the writer's meaning
was. That is but fair. But without
doing so Picquart handed my letters to
M. Scheurerer- Kestner without my
knowledge or consent. These letters have
been discussed everywhers and have been
published In book which can he found
at every booksellers, entitled 'Gonse
PLATE. /" Excitement
NJ. isabori---.+was not the bordereau
in conjunction with the Petit Bieu the
basis of Picquart's belief In Estsrhazy's
guiltf'' '~ -'st "-
Gen. Gonse--"I said to P,cquart,
Don't LET us trouble about handwritings
at present.
M. I.abori---s How could the Dreyfus
and Esterhazy case be separated when
both were based on n common docu-
mentP" -'' - --~ -''-"
Gen. Gonse-" Because, at that time,
Dreyfus had been convicted and the
bordereau was ascribed to him.
III. Labori--''Was 1t mot possible to re-
consider an errorS'
Gen. Gonse-" There was nothing to
prove to me that the bordereau was writ
ten by Esterhazy. "e-..., --.--- -,-.-
| AT NJ. Labori's request Col. Pioquart
was recalled and said: "In brief let
ter which L wrote Gen. Gonse in regard to
M. Bertillon's e. conclusions, only re-
| ferred to part of his observations and the
best proof that did not wish to exag-
gerate them Is the fact that asked Gen.
Gonse to order supplementary inquiry"
Col. Picquart remarked that he
| brought the secret dossier to Gen Gonse
L Of MN ia xuft ha how a
that the General, consequently, was in a
position to Judge of the probabilities of
the innocence Of Dreyfus.
| NJ. Labori asked If Gen. Gcnse knew
of the plot Matched against Picquart and
II he knew that letters addressed to
Picquart at Tunis were opened at the
war Office and the General admitted that
a letter was opened in the intelligence
department in November. He added that
suspicious letters were also handed to
him, Gonse, by Lieut.. Col. HenryHso that
lister of war on them.
NJ. Lnbori-"Who was the letter ad-
dressed tos''
Gen. Gonse--"I do not know. No
doubt to the chief of some department"
| Col. Picquart-''It was addressed to me
personally"
NJ. Labori-Does Gen. Gonse know that
the words in the letter In question were
used for the purpose Of fabricating a
telegram intended to destroy the Petit
| Bleu."
Gen. Gonss admitted that the express
sions seemed to him suspicious. If these
letters were seized 1t YVES because they
were addressed to Pioquart as head of
the department and 1t was thought they
might relate to official matters He
added that Picquart's letters were only
opened when they looked suspicious.
Col. Picquart retoretd that IL was curious
his opened letters afterwards reached him
without a sign of having been tempered
with.
Gen. Gonse, replying further, dwelt up
on the fact that 1t was necessary that the
Intelligence department should know the
acts OF Col. Picquart, who had been re-
moved ON account Of his conduct.
III. Labor" Does the General think
the Henry forgery was the result Of a
plot against Col Picquartf''
Gen. Gonse said he thought the forgery
Was IAN unfortunate proceeding. -
(Laughter.) He would have prevented it
If he had been consulted. But he did
not believe that there was a plot against
Picquart. Henry desired 20 have fresh
proof against Dreyfus. 'Though fresh
} proof was not really required as the diplo-
matio dossier contained ample proof.
| nj. Labor protested against such a
statement and asked which document Of
the dossier implicated Dreyfus-
Col. Jouaust refused TO allow the ques-
ion and counsel thsreuponN remarked
that he reserved the right to form what
conclusions he thought proper on this
point.
Col. Jouaust-"Form as many conolu-
sions as you like
Nj. De Fond-Lsmotte followed, testify
} Ing as already outlined.
, The court then adjourned.