New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-29


Dreyfus said: Il beg to reply that one does not
raLo a fresh naragraph except when beginning
a new idea Every time l begin new ldea III
ANYTHING write make paragraph The prs
oner in conclusion asked the president OF 'ne
court to request the witness before ne IeuIe
10 produce the documents furnished 10 MN 'o'
comparison Of which the defence had no Kho"E
edge
Colonel Jouaust-Certainly.
NJ Tevssonieres thereupon added that on re-
ferrng to his report Of 1894 he found tha' "e
had concluded that the writer had Attempted
IN disguise his handwriting. but that to"atu
the end he had reapsed into his ordinary manu-
writing -.
The witness having begged leave 10 SPEAK
NJ p personal fact. addressing the judges sald
/ ..1,otoro ,,o,, am only witness. but turning
,o,,ard the defence before this other tribunal
am. perhaps an accused person.
! colonel Jouaust-Not at all. You are not ac-
cused
NJ Tevssonieres-I am an accused person
Here the witness picked up a newspaper which
he had brought with him and began 10 reau'
whereupon Colonel Jouaust said. You cannot
read a newspaper.
o1t Is newspaper. It is true" replied NJ
Tevssoniares but Il is also the report or M'
Ballot Beaupre'
Colonel Jouaust-We have no need to CON
slider the reports Of the Judge. The incident IS
closed.
CHARAVAY'S SENSATION
After a brief suspension Of the session the
Court resumed hearing testimony and NJ. omar
away. the expert in ancient manuscripts was
called TO the witness bar His deposition was
so inaudible that ne had to be requested 10
sneak up In 1884" said NJ. Charavay T.
rffp
orate instructions. was commissioned TO examine
the bordereau and a number Of documents. for
comparison. unsigned and in different hand
writings I examined first the latter documents.
and. bv the process OF elimination. fixed upon
one resembling the boriereau. ] was then fur-
nished with specimens of the handwriting IN
question but was not told the name OF the
writer I asked II the document could be re-
gardod as genuine. and was told the place
whence II emanated, which could not be men
toned by me and which could leave no doubt
IN regard to rs value. ! make this remark be-
cause think it explains my opinion. for could
not consider a document Of this nature which
was not marked by certain Discrimination OF
handwriting / therefore attributed TO dissimu-
lation the differences l was careful TO note IN
my report. sf&
Nov. I must inform the Court that in view
produced in 1891. and which IS evidently AKIN
10 the handwriting Of the bordereau and the
handwriting Of Dreyfus. has since been submit
ted to me. I cannot maintain with the same
degree Of certainty the conclusions Of my former
report. and ! can only make one statement.
namely that those two handwritlngs resemble
the bordefe6u.
81 should. however. point out one Of the typi-
cal dissimilarities. upon which laid stress be-
tween the writing Of the bordereau and the docu-
ments submitted for comparison. namely. that
the double s. is not found in the new hand
writing The double S Of the bordeTeau is
found in Esterhazy's writing"
After repeating the testimony he gave before
the Court Of Cessation. VI. Charavay declared
that it was the new element. the handwriting Of
Esterhazy, which led him to declare that he
did not adhere to his conclusions Of 1894. In
conclusion, ". Charayay theoretically protested
against General Mercers accusations. adding
/ that what convinced him that he had made a
mistake in 1884 the publication Of Ester
hays letters. the discovery Of the Henry
forgery. the inquiry Of the Court Of Cessation
and Esterhazys confession
The conscience Of the witness compelled him
/ to say that in 1894 he was misled by a similarity
/ in Handwriting ITS a great relief to my con-
before you and before him who is the victim Of
my mistake that the bordereau Is not the work
Of Dreyfus but Of Fsterhazy"
A great sensation was caused I'm court by
this statement. Replying to Colonel Jouaust.
the witness said that the mere examination
Of the bordereau and the documents presented
for comparison was sufficient 10 convince him
that the bordereau was not written by Dreyfus,
The prisoner on being asked the customary
questions requested VI. Charavay 10 give fur
Their particulars as 10 the reasons which led
him to modify his opinions in regard to the
writer Of the bordereau. whereupon the witness
entered into long technical detail He eX-
planned how he found unmistakabe resem-
blances between the bordereau and Esterhazy's
| writing
MERCER AGAIN COMPUTED.
T NJ. Peuctier. another expert prefaced his
testimony by saying that he desired to make
definite statement on point upon which he
vas in entire DISAGREEMENT with General
MERCER. The latter had testified that the Wit
ness refused TO use certain documents submitted
| 20 him for comparison in common with the
/ other experts. and said that he had been led 10
regard NJ Pelletier's work with some suspicion
| because NJ Pelleter being summoned TO ap-
pear simultaneously in two different courts had
! written 10 both eXcusng himself on the ground
Of attendance at the other General MERCER
had declared that this made him suspicious Of
I NJ Pelletier's report in favor Of Dreyfus in
| ferring that his failurd 10 comply with the
summons Of the examining magistrates in No
| vember 1894 connected with his report.
whereas the report the witness pointed out.
was handed in on October &c.
II have only TO oppose facts TO General Mer-
f,fa Da1
tober 80 was !ntrusted with the verlncatlon in
question. handed IN my report on October 2G.
and il in November that I summoned
10 undergo GROSS examination on q comnlalnt