The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-06-14

Victim of Plot. ~
Sir Godfrey Lushington, In National,
Il 4 Revlew:T The court-martial on Dfeyf,,s
Z was pronounced by Col. sandherr, the
head OF the intelligence. department, to
he the chef d'oeuvrc OF the Etat Major,
Among the. various persons holding high
4 rank In the state who have madt, them
Y selves responsible. for declaring Dreyf,is
4 TO have been regularly and Justly con-
demned Is Nj. Charles Dupuy, the pres
ent prime minister. Before long how
ever. he, like everybody else, will have
TO- say that the condemnation was nell
4 Their regular nor Just. X! 49, S.
The monster illegality was tina. nj
2 the 5court-mnrtinl, documents were &C.
+ cretly communicated by the war office
4 10 the judges In the absence OF Dreyfus
and his counsel. Such an &c, would
mot only invalidate the decision. but
would constitute o grave criminal Of
4 tense In those who were guilty of It, the
Z officers who gave and the Judges who
received the documents, and this what
lever the nature of the documents That
< some such communication did in fact
take place has been notorious ever since
the first disclosure to the public by the
r Eclair on the 18th OF September, 1896,
aud 1t has been made the subject Of In
Vulnerable protests. But no minister
tsof war has been honest enough or brave
Z enough to tell the truth about 1t. Mer-
+cler. who was responsible for the court
4 II initial. when asked by the president
s OF the highest criminal court OF the
land declines 70 ,aRswer. Blllot pleads
that he has never been able to in
K quire into the Natter Cayaig-
4 mas has never turned his attention in
that direction" Zurllnden declares
that In spite Of his researches he has
never been able to ascertain whether
the charge Ia a true one or n mere fa-
\ Die. All he can say Is that there is
no trace In the War Office Of any such
communica ton having been made. The
Court of Cessation has abstained from
summoning any ]ofothe officers who
s served on the -court-martial; hut one Of
them. Captain Freystaetter, has come
A forward and made statement which
has not yet come to hand. but which
certainly Is nat contradiction of the
4 charge OF communication.
A HcinOus Crime.
The court, however, had before 1t
]. Some evidence upon the point. NJ. Cast
mer-Perier, who was president of the
i republic at the time. dcposed that Mer-
4 c!er at the time informed him that the
document. "Ce camille dc De-" which
Is certainly not In the legal dossier had
been shown to the Judges. Mercter
however. did not tell him that the same
z document had been withheld from
Dreyfus; so the president was left I'M
L der a false impression. Then Picq-
& p~fa shN haI \
the Scourt-martlal, though not the de-
s alterations OF the judges, swears that,
from discussions with Sandherr and de
Boisdettre. at the time, he was aware
that q secret dossier had been commu-
n!cated: and he also swcars that Sand
herr. when on retiring. had handed the
Z. Office over tojPicquart. told him where
ne would find the secret tlossier. which
had been shown to the judges; and that,
when In 1896, he examined the dossler.
he found 1t to contain four pieces. to-
gether with a commentary upon each
OF them by lu Patty de, Clam. and that
one OF the four pieces was this very doc
ument, Zee. canaille de D." spoken
OF by MercIer by Casimer-Perier That
is enough to show that that document,
at all events. was communicated to the
; Judges. and that the crime was COM
mittad. But were there any Others?
1t would be rash to take 1t for granted
that all those which Picquart found
We're shown. In our present state OF
knowledge which Is so limited. the
question Is Of Importance chiefly with
! respect, to telegram OF November .,
1894. from PariZzardl to the Italian
Z headquarters staff ut Rome. which ut
the. time was Intercepted by the French
government. The history of this tele-
m will hn fvivnn Int ~ T
will only say that II, as the Figaro as
serts, q falsifed version OF this tele-
4 gram, version which incrimnated
Dreyfus. instead OF the true version.
Z which e1culpatcd him. was among the
documents secretly communicated 10 the
judges behind the back of Dreyfus. then
indeed, the crime wns most he!nous. and
/. the anxiety OF Mercler and others to
r conceal the facts would be more intel
ligiblc even than It is now. The Figaro
Is In possession of n copy of the evidence
= taken by the court. and processes to
speak on the authority Of that evidence.
Whether. as Is further asserted in that
Journal, there were also communicated
to the judges. behind the back of Drey-
fils, and TO his prejudice, other docu-
ments, some of them forged or mcndn-
cious. l Will not undertake to say But
umong' the documents so alledged to
have been communicated are: ~
4 Forged letters from the emperor of
4 Germany to Drnyfus. (2) Du Patty de
CLAIMS commentary, or. rather. Il copy
tsof the original commentary. which is
4 said to have referred 10 the cmpcror's
letters (9) A sort or biography OF
Dreyfus. said to have been prepared In
the War Office and to contain false de-
tails, as that the German government
a was In possession Of n course Of secret
lectures which Dreyfus had attended
at the school OF war. whereas az the
lectures they possessed were some de-
livered after Drcyfus had quilted the
school.
y Gross Acts of Untnirncss.
But, besides the illegality Of commu-
! nication Of documents. there was in the
conduct OF the case by the War Office
u number OF gross acts OF illeGal!ty or
unfaIrness "a The cxculpatory telc-
gram Of November 9, 1894. before al
ludcd to, II not falslleG. and In Its falsi-
fed form secretly communicated to the
Judges, was undoubtedly suppressed
from the legal dossier and from Drey-
f,is. and that by Mercler's order. (2)
The evidence OF Henry. the head OF the
Intelligence department. that trust
worthy agent had denounced Drcyfus
by name as the traitor was false. (3)
At the court-martlal. the date or the
bordcreau. which II was essential for
{ the defense TO know, but which was
known only to the War Of!lcc. who had
received the document, was In the
course OF the argument shifted from
April to August. W Drcyfus was re-
fused by the cour, Of production of an
order OF de Boisdeffre, which would
have shown that he could not have at
:. fcttfind the nihnenXcra Of AnGIAt. nnut