The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-09-01

&A1N&
stoned to examine the bordereau and
a number Of documents. for compari-
son., unsigned and in different hand
writings / examined first the latter
documents n by the process of elimi-
mating. fixing upon one resembling the
bordereau- / was then furnished with
specimens OF the handwriting in Ques-
ton. but was not told the name OF the
writer. / asked IL the document could
be regarded as genuine and was told
h place from which IL emanated,
which could not be mentioned by me.
and which could leave no doubt in re-
gard TO its value.
Now, 1 must inform the court, that
in view Of the fact that handwriting.
which was not produced in 1894. and
which is evidently akin to the hand
writing OF the bordereau and the hand
writing OF Dreyfus. has since been
submitted to me, / cannot maintain
with the same degree OF certainty the
conclusions OF my former report. and
/ can only make n statement, that
these two handwriting resemble the
bordereau.
Il should, however, point out one or
the typical dissimilarities upon which
/ laid stress. between the writing OF
the bordereau and the documents sub
mitted for comparison. namely, that
the double IS is not found between the
OpA dA4 "a AIA " 81 LA
other words. the double IS OF the Dor
dereau is found in Esterhazey's writ
ing"
After repeating the evidence he gave
before the court Of cessation NJ. Char
away declared Ii was the new element.
the handwriting Of Es~terhazey. which
led him to declare he did not adhere TO
his conclusions in 1894.
In conclusion, NJ. Charavay energeti-
cally protested against General Merci-
er's accusations, adding that what con-
WINGED him that he had made a mis-
take in 1894, was the publication of Es-
terhazey's letters. the discovery Of the
Henry forgery, the inquiry of the court
of cessation, and EsterhaZey's confess
sion.
The conscience of the witness COM
PEELED him to say that in 1894 he was
Influenced by similarity in handwrit-
ing.
DREYFUS THE VICTIM OF MIS-
TAKE.
tits great relief to my conscience"
NJ. Charavay added, ito be able TO say
before you and before him who is the
victim Of my mistake, hat the borde-
reau is not the work of Dreyfus, but Of
E~sterhazey."
An immense sensation was caused in
court by this statement.
Replying to Colonel Jouaust, the wit
ness said hat the more examination
Of the bOrdereau and the documents
presented for comparison were suffi-
cient to convince him that the borde-
reau was not written by DreyfuS.
The prisoner, on being asked the Gus
tomary questions, requested M. Chara-
way to give further particulars as to
the reasons which led him TO modify
his opinions in regard to the writer of
the bordereau.
Whereupon the witness entered into
a lengthy, technical detail. He explain
ed how he found unmistakable resem-
blances between the bordereau and Es-
terhazey's writing.
MERCER CONTRADICTED.
NJ. Pelletier, another expert prefaced
his evidence by saying ne desired to
make a definite statement on the point
upon which he was in entire disagree
ment with General MERCER. The latter
had testified that the witness refused
to use certain documents submitted to
him for comparison in common with
the other experts and said he a been
led to regard NJ. Pelletier's work with
some suspicion because of certain Incl
dents in which M Pelletier, being sum-
moned to appear simultaneously in diff
ferent courts, had written, excusing
himself on the ground of attendance
at the other. General MERCER had de-
clared this made him suspicious Of NJ.
Pelletier's report in favor of Dreyfus,
inferring that his failure to comply
with the m of the examining
magistrate in November, 1894, was con-
nected with his report, whereas the re-
port, the witness pointed out, was
handed in October 26th.
Il have only to oppose facts to Gen
eral Mercier's Inference" said M. Pei
letter. lon October 22nd, l was en-
trusted with the verification in Ques-
tion. 1 landed in my report October
26th and it was only in November that
I was summoned to undergo cross-ex-
animation on a complaint lodged by
the military authorities. General Mer-
cier, in short, had not the slightest rea-
sons to suspect the conclusions which ]
had reached"
After replying to a question or two
from the court, M. Pelletier continued:
after settling this personal matter,
there remains nothing but to maintain
in their entirety my conclusions as tC
the effect that there is no likeness be-
tween the writing Of the bordereau and
that of the prisoner
! Continuing, the witness said that at
ter a fresh, superficial examination OF
the writing of Esterhazey and Dreyfus
he expressed the opinion that the Dor
dereau could only be aScribed to Ester
hazey.
COUARD TESTIFIES.
M. Couard, the official archivist and
expert in the Esterhazey case in 1897
then testified hat he was instructed by
Major Ravary to expertly examine the
bordereau and specimens of Esterha-
Zey's handwriting. The witness insist
ed upon experiment with the original
bordereau and specimens OF Ester
hazey's caligraphy, written by Ester.
haZey in the presence of experts. Be-
yond this the experts and Esterhazey
had no relations. The later, therefore
could not have been influenced and the
witness protested against NJ. Zola's &C.
cusations and adhered to his opinion
OF 1897 that the bordereau was not tbs
the work Of E~sterhazey. He, the wit.
ness, would wager his head on this
Naughter.)
ESTERHAZEY NOT WORTHY or
BELIEF.
NJ. Couard said he was convinced the
caligraphy of the bordereau was Meth
er frank nor natural, and the writer
in his opinion, probably wished to imi-
tate another persons handwriting. The