The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-08-29
SCHOOLS.

comparison namely that the double IS
f. not found between the hordcrean anu
the new handwriting-in other Wofu7' VIC
double - OF the bordercau is iouH" 'H
Estorhazys Handwriting.
TWAS NEW EVIDENCE
After repeating the evidence ne
before the Court OF Cessation VI -,
vav declared f. was the new element-the
tsyI,vritinn OF Esterhazy- which led MIN
90 declare he did not adhere 70 MS
illusions IN 1894 ..,.i
I'm conclusion. NJ Charavay eneIheu-
c,n, protested AGAINST General Merri''
accusations adding that what o"liF ODD,
him that hc had made a mistake do .'.f
was the publication Of Estefnazy i'l-
,ers the discovery of the henry l"iE.Iy'
the inquiry of the court or Oasa'.''"'
and Esterhazys confession
The conscience of the witness com
pelled him 90 say that iu 1894 ne was HIS
! led by similarity $50 handwriting.
"It lis great relief 90 my conscience
NJ Ch4ravay added. $50 be able 10 say
before You and before him who Is Nlcllm
~ INV mistake. that the bOrdereau Is not
The work of Dreyfus. but Of Esterhaly.
An immense sensation was caused On
court by this statement
Replying t0 Colonel Jouaust me VII
ness said that the mere eNaminauo" "l
the b0rderoau and the documents pre-
scnted for comparison We're suihclent 10
/ convince him that the hordereau was not
written by Dreyfua.
The prisoner. on being asked The Gus
| tomary questions. requested ". Charo~ay
| 90 give further particulars as to tho tea-
sons which led him to modify bis opinions
t I'm regard TO the writer " the bordereau.
| whereupon the witness entered into a
| lengthy. technical DEAL. lie explained
! how no found unmistaksbie resemblance
| between the b9rdercau and Esterhazy
| writing.
NJ Tciiotier another expert. prefaced
! his evidence bv saying Doe desired 10 make
| q definite statement on the point upon
/ which he was iu entire Disagreement with
! General MERCER The latter had testified
| that the witness refused t0 use certain
! documents submitted OBJ him for courar-
! isOn in common with tne other experts.
| ard said De- had been led Oh regard M
| Polleuer's work with some suspicion be-
! cause of certain incidents Do which d.
! PeIetfer. being summoned to appear s.-
/ multaneously in different courts had
/ written 90 both eNcusIus himself ou Tine
/ ground of attendance at the other Ge1-
| eral Mercier had declared his made h.m
! suspicious of 81 Feletlers report in
| favor OF Dreyfus affirming that his fall
| ure to comply with the summons of the
! examining magistrate in November. ls+i,
was connected with his report whereas
/ the report the witness pointed out. Was
| handed BOD October %.
FACTS Us. INFERENCE.
/ Ut have only to oppose FACTS l' 'en'f'i
Me'c.ers Inference, si-d AI- fel'ele..
/ On OCTOBER "a, was enc. '-',1 W .n
inc FetHcali'n ln question. "iIi''' l'
| nay report oc,ol-I -3.h "H' B. was .''5
/ in November taat was summoned TOD
undergo cross-eN1minaii Oh q conn ..i.'-
lodged by the military authorities. Gene
| ra. Mercier. n Short had Dor the s.eht-
est reasons to suspect me CONCLUSIONS
WIG" ""r ...., .,..
| from the court. N. pele,er continued.
/ After settling this personal mater lnrie
+ remains nothing hut to mainiam in tnef
/ entirety my conclusions Co the ei-ct lla'
| there is BOO likeness between l-' "l-.'.7
/ w the borjcgeaU ana tnat oi iht PRISON.
err"
NONE OTHER THAN ta d l-i'liAN
{ Continuing. the witness said lHd' al''I
fresh. superficial examination vi 'D'
/ writing of Es.erhlzy and ORGY aus. .' 'N-
/ pressed the opinion tnal ih" ''''
! could only bee ascfi., '' ...
NJ. Couard. The official '''"'
per, in the Es-erhazy case ia ~" ,.'-
| testified that Dee was instructed '' ,'.'...,
| Rayary Old eXpeltlr exam ie l"'
! and specimens 0f Es.erhiAs "'''''
| ng Tho witness INSISTED -I .,
| mentng with the original n't'e..'" '..'
specimens Oh E'...'..,4' ..-e....s M
written boy Es,erhazy m me presence
! experts Beyond ms lIe .,,~
! Eserhazy had no relations. DID,.
! therefore could NOT have nee" ~
| and abe witness protested a-.-'. t'
| Z1a's accusations ana 't".' ,.,.
/ opinion OF lN', mat inc ",. -.t., ,...,oss,
the work OF hstefn'@l ii ~ ,,,.,5
would wager bis head o" '''.'
teri .t.
NJ. Couad said he was co".'..-' .I.,,.~
| caugraphy of the boriefe'' "'9 i,..
| frank nor natural. ana inc "I'.,. a,
opinion PROBABLY wished 'o .'''' ,....- ~
August 2Sth. the witness con. .......
/ though declared genuine 'y ',.-...-5
! himself. seemed doubtful i' M. 49,.
who added that Doe believer
( would Say anything me- -. h.risvoi
since 1891 the witness haH n,' .'.',.
q word Esterhazy had sd'd. a"u' ID. ,,.,.-
ed out. There was nothing 'o pi', .'.,,.,r,,
hazv would not "a year hence 7'S
| Inc oppos.te of what he sald pow
A WARY WITNESS.
Ropivlnr 20 a question. VI. coul''i.
-.....-+frrr chat the UurintttA "'''