New-York tribune., 1899-06-11
BALLOT-BEAUPRE'S VIEWS
THE REPORTING JUDGE IN THE DHEi
FUs CASE GIVES HIS PER-
SONAL OPINION
Paris correspondence Of The London Times

sONAL OPINION.
! Paris correspondence Of The London Times.
/ Having given the pros and cons. Ballot BeauPre
%6cb We have %ppm been ns so
In the first place he asked d,1S the case before
another a2rS snOuu Ocuourmartia" Evidently None of
the conditions REQUIRED by the law Per, ibe 'ns nery ex
istence Of the bordereau, whosoever Its author
may renders 1t impossible TO say tnat 'nee nnSsh
Ing with fresh & IN avcuGd avcr Tl "n5Gn But
1S oaT nd M he
| NJ Ballot Beaupre now entered at great length
sioDs hD 'ar and proved as have already done in The
Times" that his utterances reported by captain
desared l. that Prsys 5OJ With eRT0dPPssS S PsS
General Mercers order sought to S SStah hs IRON
esta h toms Of Innocence Captain Lebrun-
by cutting the phrases let fall by Dreyfqs PREY onnr IN me
middle ors nSd en'e ReIo BesupTe proved after long
and detailed discussion of the documents that inc
quest for revision and the technical discussion OF
the bordereau is more decisive than the con con
In ~ Ballot-Beaupre's opinion it contains not a
single direct proof of Dreyfuss guilt but merely th
contested inductlons drawn ngenously from the ne
documents, which are often incomplete and az 10
the Interpretation of which disagreement is per-
no, Continued NJ Ballot Beaupre, from the strict
" judicial point Of view there Sa MAS Of 1ui the one bo1e
eau considered from the point OF view OF the manu-
ns a e of
tween his handwriting and that OF the pordere@au @
tested by three of five experts. so that for the
cause OF revision to succeed 1t must be successini
II IL was not he who wrote IL, 1t would be I'M
possible to affirm that 1t was by him TN tnat Cort ,ne
had not to consider the question OF secret docn- %
ments which were matters for the annuing OF the
| regularly In the trial Of 1894.
WHO WROTE THE BORDEREAU?
Is then the bordereau in Dreyfus's writing ting
Gentlemen after profound s1oy & OF convIeton .ne Sfe
that the bordereau was written, not BY Dreyfusi
but by Eserhazy Sensation In the c9uTt thrnc er
perts who in 1894 attributed II to Dreyfus but VINO
his mind hSs nSs se o NTH he
fessors of the Ecole des Charles appolnted IN = 1879
members % of the institute. and NJ Moliner who con-
clude unanimously in the same sense put i IL inay
| and that more than the most experienced ex-
perts have blundered. admit IT, and can under
stand also that September e. lS9s the eonsHa sne,
tive committee of revision expressed me OPINION ,o
that the fait nouveau cannot be found III oiyeI yer,
afterward a fait nouveau. which has nothing con-
o. DH %5 H. has oHe SseG of A and %
other OF August H. 1924. signed EsterhaIg, anu nn
WTeR % ter and Eee WErn prss
arrested in October 1894. an effort was netnras NY
50 see he nsd was nE his
nor at his father-in-law's who 1t was da}u tnG}uen,;
precious stones NJ Cochefert then inquired among
! the paper dealers, and nothing OF the sort @ was
GoSf 70 be procured in London
NJ. Ballot Beaupre went on to cite the opinion pdo %,
the paper experts that the paper of the 6ordereau
was Identical with that of the two Esterhazy iet-
iers Thus in august s Esiernazf nsa IN peecember
1891 he declared to Major Ravary that ne ,va never
er h %as oPed to
having written the two letters nt IN sS eRpres.ed
snis snprse that these letters had fallen
tuney into the hands Of the Court He wondered II
Esterhazy had not written them apres coup. BUT
this hypothesis was absolutely inadmissible. for
o. Of 1852 formed ps ba4e4 Of and IN an @
| NJ Provost. The letter to which Esterhazys s was
fSPy rep etter Was m Contained annotaos by Nine Reu in
1892 The date and origin OF the other letter were
| proofs.
PROOFS OF EsTERHAzY's DUPLICITY.
These letters from the point of view Of revision
were of great importance. They proved that Ester
ns 'S aS9f Mhc R 1884,
experts Belhomme Couard and Varinard think
1se SSer 'ne mrng s ae nsa om Estefsazs NJ
Baot-Beaupre. discussing this argument in detail
| pointed out that Il now worked against Esterhezy
| He pointed out numerous special resemblances be-
tween the writing of the letters and OF the border
between the bordereau and Dreyfuss hand. But
suppose there were Here was r document had ioi
been accused owing to the resemblances between
their handwritngs The experts not in agree
ment but it was discovered that in August, 1894,
one Esterhazy wrote on paper which was not
ordinary, and which he pretended in 1897 never to
have used Was there not In this double considera'
tion a fact-he would not say proving, but tending
to prove-that the bordereau was in the hand. not
! of Dreyfus but OF Esterhazy. and consequently a
fact tending to prove the Innocence Of the con.
| demned man? For II was not clear. thus far at
least how. Esterhazy having written the border
eau Dreyfus could have committed the crime of
3Gentiemen"-the voice Of the speaker trembled
yam am coEnced to- evyBOdy # this sm
entabe affair had been brought up IN normal
Whn now A'f for 4s Is an es has bee
made about 1T, the Passionate discussions TO which
the e indscretons. the revelations Of secret docu
ments, the whole discussion carried. as 1t were.
US that unfortunately, the affair Is not an or
dinary one. Moreover. the cause Of revision has
criminal attacks upon the army have profoundly
wounded and rritated to exasperation the national
have carried the excess Of their polemic to the
eGarsest violence of language This campaign: in
| cy on the other have been the objects OF abomna-
seeds of discord and hatred in our country among
honest men who were made to esteem one another,
among children Of the same fatherland. 1t has
had the ssG ssg sS of Rs and the ess
good many persons the question for Us to-day is
but whether we, are to give verdict in favor OK
the army or against t. It Is state of mind which
a. greater insult. No: the army before us is not
|
| The army, thank heaven. Is well above these dis
h ri and Of m
| innocent man In prison.
| Il do not ask you. gentlemen, 10 proclaim Drey-
| fuss innocence but say that fact unknown 10
| the Judges OF 1894 tends to prove 1t. This suf-
fees by the terms OF Clause 4i3 and conseouently ly
there Is occasion. in virtue of Clause 445 to ordan
the sending before n new court-martial to bring
IN defnitive verdict, with .ull knowledge of the
case This say with firm conviction. with q
very lively sentiment Of the duty incumbent upon
| mo and Of the responsibility 1 assume. should
| be false TO my conscience were / TO propose 10
you any other solution. Am mistaken in my es-
innate? You, gentlemen will decide. / bow re-
| be. My IS ended" N ~