The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-08-15

Esterahzy, whom he suspected bu
General Billot forbade this. He added
that Colonel Picquart always acted
without authorization. The ex-ministel
next referred to the eminent services
which Colonel Picquart rendered to the
army, leading to his being intrustet
with confidential mission to the east
and afterwards to Tunis. He energeti-
cally protested against the allegation
that he had desired to send Colone
Picquart to a place from which he
would never return. He explained his
devotion to the country and army, ano
said that anxiety respecting the secrets
of the national defense often entailed
exceptional measures, like resignation
and going to distant points whence II
| was possible to return with a superior
rank and where heroism certainly WHIP
ed out everything except treason. FMS
remark caused sensation.
After justifying his course towards
Colonel Picquart, General Billot ex-
planned what he had done in connection
with Esterhazy, and then renewed his
protests against the attack OF the de
tenders of Dreyfus, made upon him dur
ing the trial of M Zola, and concluded
with expressing a regret that while in
power he was obliged to devote most of
his time to the Dreyfus affair." which
time, he added, ought to have been CIV
en- to the guardianship of the national
defense.
M. Demange then invited General Bill
lot to explain the statements OF NM
Barthou and Poincare, eX-minlsters,
that the general was once so doubtful
of the guilt of Dreyfus that he did not
sleep for several nights General Blllot
acknowledged that the statements We're
true. Colonel Picquart's revelations
produced doubts in his mind, but, all
the same, his conviction of the guilt OF
Dreyfus remained unchanged.
There was a great sensation when nj,
Demange mentioned the opinion eX
pressed by M Barthou that General
Bllot had been forewarned in regard
to the forgery of Lieutenant Colonel
Henry. The general acknowledged that
the Henry forgery was among the rae
tors arousing his doubts, He was i'm
mensely surprised and deeply affected
by the revelation of the forgery. He
said: Il never could have believed
gerry"
WHY M. CAVAIGNAC BELIEVES
DREYFUS GUILTY.
M. Cavaignac, ex-minlster OF war, was
the next witness called. Replying to
the president of the court, he SAID that
he was the first cabinet minister to as
sumo responsibility as to Dreyfus. He
had closely followed the inquiry of the
court of cessation, and, he continued,
still desired to associate himself with
the responsibility of those who, in 1894.
protected the country and the army
against treason. (Sensation)
Among the principal points upon
which She based his convictions was the
confession to Captain Lebrun- Renault,
in support of which contention he quot
ed a passage from an alleged letter of
Dreyfus, but which in reality was part
of General Gonses report Of the minis
ter of war on Colonel Du Patty de
CLAIMS report of the alleged confession
M. Cavaignac admitted the possibility
of mistakes in human testimony, and
said they ought to be taken into ac-
count when condemning a fellow man.
But, he asserted, he was convinced OF
the guilt of Dreyfus, because his ac-
cusers were so entirely in agreement in
their testimony. He found additional
proofs of the prisoners guilt in the
technical character of the bordereau,
and thought the bordereau alone es-
the fact that treason had en-
anated from the bureau of the general |
staff, and from an officer who was |
able to secure all the information de-
sired.
According to M. Cavaignac, even In |
1is attempts to hide his crime the ac-
FUSED had allowed words to escape him
which indisputab bly, established his guilt.
Everything, according to this witness,
condemned Dreyfus, and, he claimed,
n spite of the prisoners denials, it
vas established that he had been every
where where it was necessary to pro-
ure the information in question. 1t
vas established, the witness asserted,
hat the prisoner had copied plans of
he proposed concentration of the army.
he claimed, would testify in
upport of his assertion.
M. Cavagnac next discussed the de-
ials of Dreyfus, and said that his ex-
uses of lapse of memory We're mad
nissible. Dreyfus he claimed was
ware of the changes in the bridge
orps belonging to the artillery and also
f the details of concentration. Why,
hen, the witness asked had he denied j
his knowledge?
1t was impossible according to M. !
avagnac to credit the assertion that ]
,sterhazy was a traitor, even admit
ng that the bordereau was written by
i'm. Esterhazy, he insisted, could only
ave acted as the Intermediary of an
ccomplice. The inquiry of the court
{ cessation proved that treason was
oaly committed, and he ON. Cavaig
ac) had not based his conviction of
lie culpability of Dreyfus solely on the
of the bordereau. In the c
,cret dossier, he pointed out, there I
ere many elements for conviction. He I
id he proposed to discuss all the allie a
atoms made by foreigners with the I
ew of exculpating Dreyfus. J
During M. Cavaignac's arraignment a
reyfus was nervous and agitated. |
With the view of exculpating Drey- I
Is, for instance, he said, there would
official denials, which would have |
enty of room for the truth to escape. S
ssides, it was quite possible the ac- u
sed was guilty of treason without
wing had direct latiOnS with the C