The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-08-29

and began to read, whereupon Col
Jouaust said:
You cannot read newspaper"
1T is a newspaper, 1t is true" replied
M. Teysonnieres. But it is also the
report of M. Ballot-Beaupre.
Col. Jouaust-"We have no need tt
consider the reports of the Judge. The
incident is closed
After brief suspension of the SEES
sion, the Court resumed hearing testi-
mony of M. Charavay, the archivist
and expert in ancient manuscripts, was
called to the witness bar.
Expert Charavay Flops.
I'm 1884," said NJ. Charavay, II, with
two colleagues, though acting under sep
arate instructions, was commissioned to
examine the bordereau and number OF
documents for comparison unsigned,
and in different handWritings.
II examined, first, the latter docu-
ments, and by the process of elimina-
ton fixed upon one resembling the bor-
dereau l was then furnished with
specimens of the handwriting in ques-
ton, but was not told the name of
the writer | asked if the document
could be regarded as genuine, and was
told the place whence it emanated,
which could not be mentioned by me
and which could leave no doubt In re-
gard to it's value
81 make this remark because l think
it explaine my opinion, for L could not
consider that document of this nature
which was marked by a certain dissiln-
ulation of handwriting. l therefore
attributed to dissemination the differ
ences l was careful to note in my re-
port.
'NoW l 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 sub
mitted to me, / cannot maintain with
the same degree of certainty the conclu-
| sions of my former report, and can only
make one statement, namely, that these
two handwritings resemble the bor-
dereau
81 should, however, point out one OF
the typical dissmilarities, upon which
laid stress, between the writing OF
the bordereau and the documents sub
mitted for comparison, namely, that the
double S is not found between the bor-
dereau and the new handwriting. In
other words, the double of the bor-
dereau is found in Esterhazy's writ
ing"
After repeating the testimony he
gave before the court of casastion, nj.
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 Mr.. Charavay energet-
ically protested against General Mer-
cier's accusations, adding that what
convinced him that he had made
mistake in 1894 was the publication of
Esterhazy's letters, the discovery of the
Henry forgery, the inquiry of the court
of cessation, and Esterhazy's confess
sion.
The conscience of the witness COM
PEELED him to say that in 1894 he was
misled by similarity in handwriting.
tits a great relief to my conscience"
nj. Charavay added, ''to be able TO say
before you and before him who is the
victim of my mistake, that the borderau
is not the work of Dreyfus, but of Es-
terhazy."
A great sensation was caused in court
by this statement. Replying to Colonel
Jouaust, the witness said that the mere
examination of the bordereau and the
documents presented for comparison
We're sufficient to convince him that the
bordereau was not written by Dreyfus.
The prisoner, on being asked the GUS
tomary questions requested M. Chara
rs er;,y f,,pt nov NJ ,1orc To ba
reasons which led him to modify his
opinions in regard to the writer of the
bordereau, whereupon the witness en-
tered into a long technical detail. He
explained how he found unmistakable
resemblances between the bordereau
and Esterhazys writing.
M. Pelletier, another expert, prefaced |
his testimony by saying that he de-
sired to make a definite statement on a |
point upon which he was in entire dis
agreement wieth General MERCER. The |
latter had testified that the witness re- |
fused to use certain documents submit
ted to him for comparison in common |
with the other experts, and said that |
he had been led to regard M. Pelletier's
work with some suspicion, because M
L SilCtiCli pCiiiS Suiillliullcu " appear
simultaneously in two different courts. |
had written to both, excusing himself |
on the ground of attendance at the
other. General MERCER had declared
that this made him suspicious of M.
Pelletier's report in favor of Dreyfus,
that his failure to comply
with the summons of the examining
in November, 1894 was con-
nected with his report, whereas the re-
port, the witness pointed out, was hand
ed in on October rs.
Il have only to oppose facts to Gem
eral Mercier's differences" said M. Pei
letter "On October 92 I was intrusted
with the verification in question. I
handed in my report on October 26. and
it was in November that was sum-
moned to undergo cross-examnation on
complaint lodged by the military
General MERCER, In short.
had not the slightest reasons to sus-
pect the conclusions which l had reach
ed"
After replying to a question or two
from the court, NJ Pelletier continued:
After settling this personal r1atter