Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-28


was succeeded by NJ. krantz, who in
turn was succeeded by General de Marquis
de Gallifet on the downfall of the Dupuy
ministry, would be among the witnesses
tomorrow. ami the session was closed with
the request that rogatory commission be
sent to Colonel du Patty de Clam, whose
illness prevents his attendance in court,
TO which Colonel Jouaust agreed.
This step does not satisfy the defense.
but they acquiesce to the commission TAX
Ing du Patty de CLAIMS testimony on the
principle that half loaf Is better than no
bread
Testimony in Detail.
The following Is the testimony in detail:
NJ. Paray-Jsval, the draughtsman called
by the defense Saturday to refute the tes-
timony of NJ. BertiIlon, the famous anthro-
pometer resumed his testimony at the
opening of the court this morning, and with
the assistance OF a blackboard proceeded
to show the fallacy Of the calculations OF
NJ. Bertillon and the latter's unfairness in
not submitting the handwriting of Ester
hazy to the same tests as the prisoner S.
He declared. however, that even If M Ber-
tlion had done the results would not
have proved anything. The witness. how
ever insisted NJ. BortllOn had adopted a
vicious method In only making a parNal
experiment.
Continuing. NJ. ParayJaval proceeded to
show that tho geomstric regularlties al
legged by NJ Bertillon did not in reality ex-
list. He pointed out a number OF irreSulafi-
ties in the handwriting of the bordereau,
and said the same Irregularities were par
ticuIarly noticeable in Esterhazys cali
graphy. He also contended that the a.,
legged regularity of the key word interest
was only approximate. and proceeded 20
Illustrate his arguments on the blackboard
showing that all NJ. Bertillons proofs APP
piled as equally to ESterhazy as to Drey-
fuS FINALLY NJ Parav-Jayal declared WAT
NJ Bertiilon's measures to the word IN
terest," which served as the basis Tor the
whole system. was entirely false. and there
fore NJ. Bertillons entire system fals 10
the ground and no longer exists. tGreat
sensation.)
This witness who had awakened the in
terest of his hearers, maintained that Ine
bordereau could not have been traced aau-
ing that it was an utter impossibilfty. He
then proceeded to illustrate why TINS was
the case and to prove the falseness OF NJ.
Bertilion's deductions. .
In conclusion Nj. Paray-Javal said. amid
laughter, that he thought NJ. Bertillon was
a very intelligent man, but that ms system
was false. and he (the witnesso was s., con N
WINGED that only self-esteem prevented NJ.
Rertillon from admitting his error.
Nj. Bernard, an inspector of mines, VINO
took high honors at the polytechnic school,
who followed M. Paray-Javal at the VIII
ness bar said he appeared to refute por-
ton of NJ Rertillon's evidence Which was
based on false calculations AS a mater
of fact he added, Il was on Such pdsiS
that the whole system rested
Witness said he was greatly SURPRISED
that NJ Bertllon thought fit to have re-
course to psychological arguments TO
prove:
First. that the bordereau was fabricated.
Second that the methods which might
have been employed in writing certain
words were such as to constitute proof
against DreyfuS.
NJ Bernard also said he astonished
al the fact that NJ Bertiion had under
taken to account for the shape Of letters
and the space between words. There was
not p millmeters. as alleged by NJ Ber-
tillon but Los. Moreover the writing of
the bordereau was natural and rhythmic.
while its character and size showed it was
not written by either a short-sighted or
long-sighted person. The witness then pro-
Ceeded to illustrate photographically his
contention that the bordereau was not a
fabricated document and also pointed ont
important differences between NJ. Bertll-
Ions photographs and the original. While
pointing out a fault in the application of
the system NJ. Bernard aroused merrment
by remarking that NJ. Bertillon's system
could nevertheless, be useful. seeing that
it enabled the witness to show the bcr-
dereau was natural and fabricated doc
ument.
In conclusion. NJ. Bernard exhibited to
the judges plate representing a page of
current handwriting. and SAIL: "lf it is ex-
amined by NJ. Bertillon's system it will
show certain peculiarities when would not
lion other documents N. Bertllon would,
therefore. say the document was fabri-
Gated. But he would be wrong. Tor | Dor
ruwed the page from a report written by
NJ. Bertillon himself
BertiiIon Wished to Reply
NJ. Bertillon demanded permission to re-
ply to the witness, and Col. Jouaust re-
piled:
Il cannot grant your request, and l will
not grant such permission to any of the
fourteen experts, except in the case of a
personal explanation"
NJ. Bertillon-"I wish to speak of the
manner in which l reconstructed the Dor
dereau.
Col. Jouaust-''Why you are discussing
the case l cannot allow you to speak ex-
eept in regard to a personal fact
NJ. Tey,sunieres followed He said he
adhered in all respects to his report dated
October -. 1S.4 in which he expressed the
opinion that the bordereau was the work
OF the writer of the documents seized at the
prisoners residence. For purposes of com
parison. the witness lengthily criticised the
bordereau letter by letter pointing out re-
semblances To the prisoners handwriting.
Replying to the court, NJ. TeySsonieres
said he mad noticed the prisoners hand
writing was illegible. and he had never
seen the document dictated to Dreyfus.
The copy of the bordereau made by Drey-
fus was then handed to the Witness who
declared it had never been given to him for
the purposes of comparison. (SensationD
lie WltieSS ADDED tndt ne would require
three days to give an opinion upon it. He
could not conclude his examination on the
spot. He must have time.
Here member of the court-martial Civ
ing the result OF his examination of the
bOrdereau remarked:
THE letter i is always isolated even at
the beginning of the words?''
To this NJ TeyssoniereS replied that this
pecuilarity was also found in the prisoners
handwriting.
When he was invited to reply to the wit
nt.G[ a
marks seemed to him quite Incorrect and
tLal in order to reply properly he the
PRISONER. must have the documents under
his eyes.
AS regards the criticism on the subject
of paragraDhing, Dreyrus added:
Il beg 10 reply that one does not make
a fresh paragraph except when beginning
Al new idea. Every time | begin a new idea
In anything write make a paragraph
The prisoner. in conclusion. asked the
president OF the court to request the wit
ness before he retired TO produce the docu-
ments furnished to him for comparison of
which the defense had no knowledge
Col JouauSt-Certainly.
NJ Teyssenferes thereupon added that on
referring to his report of 1854 he found he
had concluded the writer had attempted to
disguise his handwriting, but that toward
the end he had relapsed into his ordinary
handwriting
The witness having begged leave to speak