The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-08-31

u vs. again az
tocked-Bordereau Not Traced-Ap
parent Change in Gen. Mercier's Atti
tude - French Officers Defended by
Gen. ROget-A Secret Session To-day.
Rennes, Aug 30.-At the opening ir
the Lycee this morning of the trial by
court-martial of Capt Alfred Dreyfus
OF the Artillery, charged with treason
M. Paul Meyer, membed of the Institute
and Director of the School of Ancient
Manuscript, was the first witness called
He deposed in favor of Dreyfus.
After hearing NJ. Molinder, NJ Giry
and M. Picot, member of the Institute,
all of whom testified In favor of Drey-
fus, Gen. Deloye testified against the
prisoner on the artillery references in
the bordereau.
Secret Session Tomorrow.
Then the Court, on the application of
the Government Commissary, Major
Corriere, ordered that the opening part
of to-morrow's session be behind closed
doors for the purpose of discussing doc
uments relating to the artillery.
The evidence of NM. Meyer, Molinder
Bnd Giry all of whom are handwriting
experts of the first rank, was a strong
point for Dreyfus. They were most en-
phatic in declaring the bordereau was
written by Esterhazy, and created a
better impression than M. Bertillon by
mot introducing the fantastic diagrams
which the latter deemed necessary.
The action of Gen. Mercier in asking
10 be allowed to reply to M. Molinier,
and then getting up and confirming the
professors statement that Esterhazy
changed his handwriting since 1894,
puzzled the audience. That Esterhazy
should have deemed it advisable to
change his handwriting since the date
of the bordereau appears at first sight
to indicate that he wrote it, and that
Mercier should support Prof Molinier
aroused discussion as to the Generals
reasons for this uncalled-for interven-
ton.
MERCER May Be Weakening.
There are some people who see In
Mercier's unsolicited testimony yester-
day In support Of the honorable nature
of M. Matthew Dreyfus' visit to Col.
Sandherr In 1894 in behalf of his brother
and the Generals move to-day an indi-
cation of some change of attitude, per-
haps a prelude to a candid avowal of
his mistakes in 1894.
On the other hand many persons
think Gen. MERCER fearing that Sat-
urday's exposure will discredit him al
together with the judges, has conceived
the idea Of giving way on certain points,
which, moreover, are almost incontest-
able and thus, to some extent rein
state himself by an affectation of i'm
Partially.
M. Picot related an interesting con-
versation which he had with the Austro-
Hungarian Military Attache, Col. I
Schneider mention of whose name
evoked prompt protest from Major
Carriere in the name of the government
and state.
Col Schneider, according to this wit
ness, admitted that Esterhazy acted as
a spy and wrote the bordereau.
Slippery Roget
Gen. Roget, with his usual shrewd-
ness, seized upon M. Picot's statement
that Col. Schneider expressed aston
ishment that French officers should
have the bad taste to question the
word Of foreign officers, to mount the
platform and make a short speech in
defense of the attitude of the French
concluding with the remark:
1T interviewed because when French
officers are attacked they have the
right to defend themselves
These words will be published all over
France and will tend to make Gen.
Roget more popular with the army. {
Gen. Deloye repeated his testimony
before the Court of Cessation relating '
% the 100 short cannon hydro-pneu- S
matte brake and the Robin shell.
Dreyfus' Clear Statement. c
Dreyfus, in reply, made a really clear !
statement, explaining that he saw the
lydro- pneumatic brake once at Bourges,
,nce at the School of War, and that he n
lever saw it used, because while on the :
General Staff he was never present at 6
lring practice. v
The Trial in Detail. s
The first witness to-day, M. Paul i
Never. member of the Institute and d.
ector of the School of Ancient Manu- Z
cripts, described his researches in con- a
lection with the Dreyfus case, which t.
I'd to his conviction that the border ii
au was not only in Esterhazy's hand L
yriting. but was actually written by a
W
The witness explained that in his evil p
ence before the Asszes court he was b
nable to be so positive in regard to the
ritter because he had only seen fac
mile of the bordereau. But at the le
curt of Cessation he saw the original b
ordereau. 81
Esterhazy's Hand. u
| convinced myself" said M. Meyer, 81
bv a magnifying glass that the Dor II
sreau was written in a free hand and a.
ithout hesitation whereas it it precise ei
hesitation in the formation of the M
rokes which revealed the use of a +
ethod of tracing. 1 can affirm that 1t 81
in the writing and in the very hand te
Esterhazy. That is perfectly clear al
me-" (Commmotion.) III
At the conclusion of his testimony the
illness gave q demonstration of the pc
,Ioa,- &c tba T2erti1lop system he