The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-08-26

prisoner. ''aftsx all, Ihave no right to
complain when I look at this unfcrtu-
nate man now before you" (Sfeat SEN
The court closely followed NJ. Goberes
exhaustive story of bis examination OF
the tordereau and bis interview with
Generals Mercier, De Boisdezre and
GCnse.
III. Colbert asserted that the hand writ
Ing Of the bordsreau was natural and flu
emit but that 10 was almost Illegibi e,
whereas, Dreyfus, even when writing
rapidly, always wrote more lelylbly. Ting
witness aeked Gen. G3nse II an envelope
accompanied the bordereao as be, N.
Colbert, wished TO see whas the writer ?
caligraphy was like, explaining that the
address OF . letter was always Ia = iiriuer
hand than Its contents.
General donse refused the request on
the ground that the witness must not
know the name If the ad dress. The gen.
eral also decided not TO allow the border
esu TO be photographed, alleging that II
the war office photographers were allowed
to photograph u all Paris would be no.
quainted with the bordereau the next
Thereupon the witness remarked I:
"General Gonse, this is a very interesting
confession"
NJ Colbert then suggested that the
work be entrusted TO the prefecture of
police, where Nj. Bertillon is the photo
grapher.
Until then, the witness also said he had
never heard Of NJ. Bertillon rs hand
writing expert, saying he became an ex-
pert for this special occasion when he was
called in the war office. (Laughter.)
General Gonse, it appears from the tes-
timuny was greatly enraRed when he
learned of the result Of NJ Gobert's exam
ination of the bordereau and visited the
expert repeatedly. The latter always in
sisted upon learning the name of the
suspect,
1T was not proper" said Nj. Colbert
"for me to accuse anyone without being
perfectly cognizant Of the facts, especially
in circumstances of SO grave nature.
(Sensation.) / would not accuse one
anonymously, for to do 80 would be con.
trary 20 the law"
described how from tbs amlnasion of
an official report on Dreyfus from which
Dreyfus'a name had been removed, NJ.
Colbert had the malicious satisfaction Of
telling General Gonse the name Of the
officer he wanted to arrtHk It was after
NJ. tiobert had refused TO incrininnte
Dreyfus that NJ. Bertillon was intrrsled
with the examination of the borderenu
and after a few hours study NJ. Dertillon
positively attributed the bordereau to
Dreyfus. From that time forward NJ.
Colbert heard no more Of the Dreyfus case
de WINS not asked to submit report but
described to the then minister Of justice
NJ. Guerin, the circumstances in the case
NJ. Guerin commended the switness inbi-
mated that "these were soldiers affairs"
which did not concern him as chief Of
the civil judiciary.
Colonel Jouaust asked NJ. Colbert for a
more definite criticism of tho bordereau
and the witnass replied that he noticed
certain similarities between the hand
writing of the bordcreau and that of
Al
Important differences which proved to
him that Dreyfus was not the author OF
the bordereau, and his opinion had since
been confirmed, because 1t was now
proved the bordereau WAS the work Of Es-
terhazy." (Sensation.)
Replying to the court NJ. Colbert sug-
gested that the judges compare the Dor
dsreau with letter admitted to be in
ksterhazy's handwriting, and dated from
Rouen, August IL, 1894, and which docu-
lnents were written by the prisoner.
"You Will then Enthusiastically recog-
nizs," II. Colbert added, that the bor-
dereau is in Esterhazy's handwriting and
not In the handwriting of Dreyfus ;"
(Great sensRtion.)
The witness at this juncture identified
the bordereau as the same which was
submitted to him and he proceeded to
with letters admittedly written by Ester
hazy saying that while the resen blance
was not apparent in Dreyfus's handwrit.
ing as marked peouliarities Of punctua-
tion aud manner of beginning fresh lines
which we're also noticeable In the Dor
dereau, but which wsre not found in the
prisoners caligraphy. Proceeding the
witness traverse1 the old ground of the
peoulIarities of the tracing paper which
1t Is known Esterhazy used, and said the
date OF the bordeFeau must be July
"a, 1884. 1he expert refused in reply to
question by the court to admit the hor-
dereau was written In a disguised hand.
he said 1t was written with great rapid
ity precluding all ides of tracing.
General Gonse asked permission to
question III. Colbert and said: "In what
army list did you look for the name
Dreyfusf'
NJ. Gobsrt--aI saw the list which il
generally kept in business houses"
The General pointed out that this list
did not give the Information claimed for
M Colbert. But the latter maintained
he had stated nothing but the pure and
simple truth.
General Gonse having alluded to eer-
tain undesirable aequalntanoes formed
by NJ Gohert the latter replied amid
sensation in court: 'I emphatically
protest against the insinuations of Gem
erai Gonse There is not single word
of truth in what he says"
There was further dispute between
General Gonss and NJ Colbert over some
Things COnuecteu Wl6n labteF'S eXamina-
ttOn of the borderenu. NJ. EGobert said Col.
Aberville was present but the Colonel
promptly advanced and said he had never
seen NJ, Colbert before today, adding
IF nj. Gobert's other reoolleotions are
as exact rs this the court will draw its
own conclusions.
Dreyfus here declared in the most posi-
live manner that he had never been at the
Bank of France where III. Colbert was
employed or had relations with any one
there. The prisoner reasserted that his
sole desire was to know the truth. He
admitted he had bsen engaged in various
financial operations but said he had
never asked either for written or verbal
Information from the Bank OF France
There was gentle movement of curl
osity when NJ. Bertillon WAS called and
the interest deepened when he advanced
to the witness bar. He was soon after
ward followed by four soldiers and nom
commissioned officer bearing portfolios,