Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1899-09-01
IN FAVOR Of DR[YFUS
Weight Of Today's Testimony At the
Court Martial With the
Accused.
Shown That Information Contained
In the Bordereau Was Accessi.
BILE to Many.
Wsll-Informed Witness Says Con-
Wsll-Informed Witness Says Con.
struction Showed a Lack Of
Military knowledge.

Rennes, Sept. 1.-At the opening Of
the Dreyfus trial this morning a groom
named Germain testified that he saw
Dreyfus at the German army maneuv-
ers in Alsace and said he saddled a
horse for him to follow the maneuvers
| with Maj. Infreville, @ho told witness
Dreyfus' name. Dreyfus made rather
lame reply to the effect that he had not
recollection of the matter. However,
Germans employer, Kuhlman, came
forward and declared all Germain said
was untrue, and Infreville followed, as
serting he never knew Dreyfus.
| Germain said these 1naneuvers were in
Mulhausen in 1886. Witness admitted
he had been convicted Of embezzlement
| in 1893 and it was shown he was con-
lvicted of the same crime in 1898. Wit
ness admitted he wrote his story in
letter to Beaurepaire, which the latter
published. In answer to witness Drey-
fus admitted he was in the habit of
| spending month or two every year at
Mulhausen, but positively affirmed he
was never present in either an official
or semi-official capacity at the German
maneuvers nor dined or lunched with
any German officers. He declared the
place mentioned was merely a small
drill ground. clearing IN Hartz forest,
where it was impossible to execute
maneuyers. He might have seen reg
iment drilling. While at Mulhausen he
rode his brothers horse, but remern-
bered nothing about the horse men
| toned by Germain.
Capt. Lemmonnier, a probationer on
quarters staff at the same time as
Dreyfus, deposed that the prisoner told
him he was we'll acquainted with a
certain German position. because he
fus replied that Lemmannier must have
mixed UP his remarks. The prisoner
said he was acquainted with that part
of Alsace because he spent his youth
there, not because he followed the Ger
man maneuvers.
a man named villon then told how he
overheard conversation in a Berlin
cafe between two German officers in
which the remark was made that mob
| ilization plans We're expected from
Dreyfus. The cafe, however, has since
disappeared, and there is no means of
verifying Villon's story.
Commissary Fischer testified that he
had charge of the investigation OF leak
age of documents at the gunnery school
at Bourges. He found nothing to in
criminate Dreyfus.
Lieut.. Bernheim testified that he lent
Esterhazy documents dealing with the
artillery and was unable to get them
back.
| Artillery Lieut.. Brugere testified that
1T would be easy for an outsider to OBJ
tain particulars about guns.
Roget tried to discredit witness by
declaring that he wrote violent letter
of resignation to the minister of war
declaring that 1t was a dishonor to
serve in the French army; but Brugere
Indignantly denied it and Roget backed
down, saying that was the general
sense Of it,
Artillery Capt. Carvalho emphatically
declared there was no special precau-
| ton to keep the mechanism of the .'120',
| short gun secret. From April. 1894, ar
tillery officers had description of the
| hydro-p pneumatic brake.
Labori had read a letter he received
yesterday signed "Corningue,' setting
forth that the firing manual had been
! copied by men referred to as "A" and
"B.' Col. Picquart confirmed the state
ment in the letter
Gen. Sebert declared the wording of
the bordereau revealed professional ig-
norance. The man who wrote it was
not an artillery officer. Dreyfus could
not have made the mistakes he referred
to. Sebert entered into lengthy expla-
nations of his statements, creating de-
cided impression.
| Maj. Ducros deposed that he had COM
mand of field battery. He knew Drey-
but Dreyfus never asked him ques-
ton. although he knew witness pos
sessed most interesting information,
notably particulars about hydro-pneu-
matte brake.
Mercier interviewed and said that at
the time Ducros was speaking of the
Ducros field piece had been rejected;
Dreyfus, therefore, could have no OBJ
ject in procuring particulars of the Du-
eros gun.
Maj. Hartman, of the artillery, ex-
pressed the opinion that the author of
the bordereau did not know what he
was writing about. since he spoke of
the 1920 short" gun, when he meant "l2o
long" gun.
The remainder of the testimony was
directed entirely to show Dreyfus was
not the author Of the bordereau: that
the artillery information mentioned in
it was accessible to many officers of all
arms in the spring of 1894. Dreyfus GER
tainly had every reason to be pleased
with the days proceedings.
Maj. Hartman was still on the stand
when court adjourned and will com
plete his testimony tomorrow. At chat
time the court will decide whether 1t
win cit In secret session 70 hear Hart