The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-18

military attaches the witness demon
strated the insignificance of the infOr
nation asked for. While Du Patty de
Clam regarded the correspondence as
convincing and as clearly indicating an
officer of the second bureau, P1cquart
maintained that the terms OF the cor
respOndence indicated that the writer
intended to ask friend and not spy
for the information demanded. Many
headquarters officers, he pointed out,
were on cordial and absolutely legiti-
mate terms with the foreign military
attaches.
THE CETTE CANAILLE DE D.
Col. Pfcquart then took up the Cette
Canaille de D document He called
the attention of the court to the fact
that it was addressed by Schwartzkop-
pen to Panizzardi and not vice versa,
as long believed.
After giving his reasons for believ-
ing Dreyfus was not the person re-
ferred to in that document P1cquart
showed how Du Patty de Clam endeav-
ored to ascribe the authorship of the
document to Panizzardi with the view
of establishing a correction which in
reality did not exist between the var
iOuS documents in the indictment against
DreyfuS. The document referring to
the French agents journey to Switzer-
land. of which SchwartzkOppen is said
to have been informed was only Slight
ly commented upon by the witness, as
he did not attach Importance to it. The
minute detail with which the colonel
dealt with the evidence, the clearneSS
of his language and his deductions had
great effect on the audience and elected
general admiration The former chief
of the intelligence department con-
cluded his examination OF the nrSt pOr-
tion of the secret dossier by saying:
May be allowed to express deep re-
gret at the absence of Major Du Patty
de Clam. It seems to me Indispensable
that this officer, who wrote the com
mentaries on the secret doSsier, should
be summoned to give evidence here.
He would give US his "reminiscences and
Il Ir.1T7, I7f, IT
But" added Picquart, "since I am
dealing with this question of the COM
mentaries of Major Du Patty de Clam,
permit me to point out to YOU, gentle
men, that this document was not the
property of any particular minister 1t
was classified as belonging to the intel
ligence department and as you see, 1t
formed part of a we'll defined dossier-
a dOssier which was shut up in one of
the drawers of my desk and which was
abstracted from it. This commentary,
therefore. is upon a secret dossier doc
ument which was improperly removed
from my department" (Sensauon)
Continuing. the witness said: Men
tiOn was made yesterday of the disap-
pearance of documents. That is the
case in point"
Turning to the second portion of the
dOssier, Picquart described a number
of documents in it as fOrgeries and said
the police reports therein showed moth
ing serious against Dreyfus. He ex-
planned that they embodied the theme
mostly uJli1ZeO Dy ponce spies IN OTQeT
to dupe the intelligence department and
asserted that their information was
mostly worthless, embroidered, false, or
prepared to make interesting reading.
AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE.
In the inquiry made by n. Quesnay
de Beaurepair. (fOrmer president OF the
civil section of the court of cassation),"
continued Picquart, you have an ex-
cellent example of the sort of people
who can present in the speciOus guise
what amounts absolutely to nothing.
You can not imagine, gentlemen
what people, in order to get money, If
only a modest 20-franc piece, have
brought to the intelligence department
in the shape of SO-called information
which examination has proved to be
worthless" Dreyfus displayed the
keeneSt interest iE PicQuartS pro-
tracted analysis of the dOssier, dur
ing which the whole audience listened
with profound attention. The members
of the court martial and the former
ministers of war were equally inter-
ested.
OF the latter. Generals BiIlot and
Zurlinden We're in full uniform.
Gen. Mercier was attired in civilian
clothes Near them sat NJ. Bertullus,
the examining magistrate who gave
such strong testimony for Dreyfus yes
Madame Henry, widow of Lieutenant
Colonel Henry, who yesterday taxed NJ
Bertullus with being Judas, was not
present.
Concluding his examination of the
secret dossier, Col. Picquart explained
how he had acquired the conviction
that the bordereau was written by
EsterhaZy and how he aScertained that
the anti-Dreyfus proofs were worthless.
He began by detailing how he first
learned of the existence of ESterhazy
and his efforts to discover something
about him.
DIDN'T KNOW ESTERHAZY.
The witness earnestly asserted that
the first occasion on which he saw Es-
far g yKrh1 ha 10
address of the Petit Bleu He said he
was not acquainted with Esterhazy
and never had Esterhazy watched.
Previous to this the utmost efforts
had been made to prove the contrary
and to show Picquart knew Esterhazy
before the discovery of the Petit Bleu.
The colonel emphasized this point,
with the view as explained. of showing
how certain newspapers had travestied
the facts and he created a mild sensa-
tiOn by adding:
I shall have occasion to point out
other and similar examples.
The witness then rebutted the charges
against him Of unnecessarily delaying
the prosecution OF Esterhazy- He said
his object was to avoid arOusing sus-
piciOn in regard to an officer who per-
haps was entirely innocent
What a mistake" he added, would
have been averted in 1894 had they act
ed in the same way in regard to Drey-
fus"
This remark caused murmurs of ap-
proval in court.
What the witness gathered about Es-
terhazy's character, he continued, Gre
ated the worst impression upon him,
but he learned nothing to connect Es-
terhazy with any act of espionage.
Therefore he did not mention his sus-
piciOn. An agent, however, was or
dered to watch Esterhazy who had
completely compromised himself
through his relations with an English
company. of which he had agreed to
become a director.
THAT could not be permitted in the
case of a French officer said Picquart.
Moreover, Esterhazy gam bled, led a
life of debauchery and lived with Nile
Pals
Turning to the leakage at headouar-