The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-08-19
w.s as applicable to Esserhazy as to ORGY


was as applicable to Esterhaxy as to Drey-
fus.
CorresponAenee Of Attaches.
Regarding the correspondence Of the mil
itAry- attaches. tke witness demonstrated
the fnsigniacance OF the information Ask
ed for. While De Clam regarded the cor
respondence as convincing and az clearly
indicating an officer OF the second nu-
reau, Piconart maintained that the terms
of the correspondence indicated that the
writer Intended TO. ask a friend and not
SPY for the information desired Many
headquarters officers. be pointed out. were
on cordial terms regarding absolutely ie-
climate matters with foreign attaches.
Picquart then took up the "Cette csnasile
de d. document. He called the attention
OF the cour, TO the fact that 1t was adj
dress by schwartxkoppen TO Panizzardi.
and not vice versa. as was long believed
After giving his reasons for believing that
Dreyfus was not the person referred to In
that document, Picquars showed how De
Clam ascribed the authorship Of the doci-
ment to Panfzzardi. with the view OF es-
tabiishfng q connection which In reality
did not exist, between the various docu-
ments in the indictment agasns, Dreyfus
The document referring 10 French
agents Journey TO Switzerland, OF which
ochwzrfxkoppen In said To have been In
formed, was only slightly commented up
on by the witness. as he did not attach
any Importance to II.
Makes strong Effort.
The minute detail with which the colonel
dealt with the evidence. the cIearness OF
his language and his deductions had great
effect upon the audience and ELECTED gem
ersl admiration. The former chief Of the
department concluded his ex-
animation Of the first portion Of the secret
dossier by saying:
Regrets DE CLAIMS Absence.
MAY I be allowed 20 express my deep
regret at the absence Of Maj. de Clam? 1t
heems 30 me indispensable that shis officer.
who wrote the commentaries on the secret
dossier. should be summoned TO give his
evidence here. He will give us his remi-
niscences. and would help him." U1augh-
teri
Doeumenfs stolen From Him.
I But" added picquart. permit me to
point out to you this document was not
the property Of any particular minister. II
was classified as belonging TO the in;elli-
gence department. and. as you zee. II
formed q part OF a welI-defned dossier.
which was shut up tn my desk and which
was abEtracted from IT. tSensation)
Police Reports Of No va1ne.
Turning to the second part OF the dossier
PicQnart said number OF documents in 1t
are forgeriae and said the police reports
therein contained showed nothing serious
against Dreyfus. He explained that they
the police spies in order 10 inpe the intel
ligence department and asserted their In
formation was mostly worthless. embrod-
cred or false. or prepared In order 10 make
interesting reading
Dreyfus displayed the keenest interest In
pfcquarts protracted analysis Of the dos
aier, to which the whole audience listened
with profound attention. The members OF
the court-martial and former ministers OF
war were equally interested or the latter
Biliot and Zurlinden were I'm full uniform
lGercier was attired In Civilian clothing
Near them sat Bertniius. the examining
magistrate. who gave such strong testi-
mony for Dreyfus yesterday.
How Esterhasy Became snAo~ct~a.
Concluding his examination OF the secret
dos<ier P!cquart explained how he had
acquired the conviction that the hordereaa
~
ceftained that the anfi-Dreyfus proofs were
worthless He began by detailing how he
I1rsr learned OF the existence of Es,erhaZy
and his efforts 10 discover something about
him.
The witness earnestly asserted that the
first occasion on which he saw Esterhaxv
waa when he read the address OF the petit
bleu." He said he was not acquainted with
Esterhazy and never had Esterhazy watch
~ .,sx ta.1
been made TO prove the contrary and 10
show that Picquart knew Esterhazy before
the discovery Of the petit hieu. The col
onel emphasized this point with a view as
explained. OF showing how a certain news
paper has sravestied the facts and he
created a mild sensation by adding: ''f
shalt have occasion 10 point out other and
similar examples"
why He Proceeded slowly.
The witness then rehusted the charses
against him Of unnecessarily delaying the
OF Esserhesv. He said his oh-
iect was 10 avoid arousing suspicion in re-
gard 20 an ofiicer who. perhaps, was entire
" innocent.
ssWrhst a mistake" he added. would
have been averted In 1904 had they acted
In thu same way in regard to preysus."
This remark caused niarmurs OF approval
In court.
Estephasy's Infa mons Character.
What the witness gathered about Ester
haxy's character. he continued. created TIE
worst impression upon him. hut he learn
I'd nothing to connect h.s;eshaxy with any
act Of espionage. Therefore he did not
his suspicious An agent. how
ever was ordered to watch Esterhszv who
had completely compromised himself
through his relations with an English com
pany Of which he had agreed to become 3
director
THAT coaii not he permitted In the case
81 a French officer said Ficuuart More
over, Esterhaxy gauhied, led a i;fe az de-
bsuchery and LIVED with Mile, Pays"
The Spy. Richard Cuers.
Turning 10 the leakage AZ headquarters,
the witness described the negotiations os
Mai. I4aoth with the SPY Richard Cuers. AT
Basic. showing how the spy promised in
formation about the ieskags ana has he,
l4cauars. WIS induced to allow Lieut. Cos.
Henry 10 accompany Mat. fsnta Ia Rassl
pixs,1narf also described the vague rfnffss