The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-09-03

the Robin shell told him Dreyfus never
asked him for particulars about his
smell except on a minor point The
general added that he came as a tech
meal witness to show that Dreyfus
could be guilty, adding that it was NOT
his business to say whether he be-
neVed MIN innocent or guilty. He
could only say that Dreyfus' eonten-
ton that 1t was impossible for him to
Know certain matters referred to in the
bordereau was untrue
M Labor asked Gen. Deloye If he
knew whether the documents which
could have been betrayed by the, trait
or, especially by the writer of the nor
,dereau, were important, whereupon the
general turned to the counsel and ex-
cltediy cried: Don't ask me: don't
ask me-"
Maj Hartmann, in reply to Gen. De-
loye, reiterated that the author of the
oordereau was ignorant OF artillery
matters, for, the major pointed out. IL
ne meant the "l20" hydraulic brake he
gave particulars of what had been long
known, while if he meant the "l20
snort, he employed a wrong express
ion.
Gen. MERCER here mounted the stage
and remarked that the writer of the
bordereau might very we'll employ the
term hydraulic brake, because that was
che term used by the Germans for such
brakes. This eICad the deposition Of
Maj. HARTMANN who certainly was 4
very valuable witness for the defence.
although the effect of his testimony was
somewhat weakened by, Gen. Deloye's
theatrical statement in reply to NJ. La
bori.
The next witness, M. Havet, a men,
Der of the institute, took UP the borde-
reau from grammatical point of view.
i1,prf to 1Nn I,4er
studying closely the styles Of Dreyfus
ard Esterhazy. that the latter wrote it.
The witness entered into an interesting
analysis of the phraSeology of the bor-
dereau, pointing out that certain
phrases in it were met with in Ester
hays letters. He then traced the in
fuenee exercised on Esterhazy by his
linguistic acqGirem ents, notably traces
of German construction. The govern
ment commissIry, Maj. Carriere, who
is always laundering, asked M. Havet
If he had been present at sessions of
the court before he had testified NJ,
Havet said, Yes" at which the major,
with great severity, said: You have
been guilty of grave breach of judic-
larry discipline
M. Louis Havet, a member of the in
stitute and professor of the College of
France, furnished further expert evil
dence, He said the conclusion he had
reached, after an examination of the
bordereau from a standpoint of gram
mar Technology, vocabulary and syn
tax, enabled him to declare definitely
1t was absolutely impossible for the
bordereau to be the work of Dreyfus.
But, he added, it was certainly the
work of Esterhazy, who used tracing
paper.
A brief suspension of the session
followed, and after the resumption it
was noticed that M. Cavignac, former
minister of war. was in court, sitting
beside Gen. de Boisdeffre. The letters
exchanged between Gen. Gonse and
Col. Picquart relative to Esterhazy
were read, as already published. Gonse,
In these communications, urged caution
while Plcquart replied that unless he
acted quickly, they would be over
whelmed
M. Labor pointed out that during
Picquart's Investigations while urging
caution, Gen. GonSe never mentioned
the alleged confessions of Dreyfus
Gen. Gonse tried to explain this by say
ing he advised Picquart to separate
the two cases, Saying Dreyfus had been
convicted and did not reopen the ques-
ton of his guilt or innocence, but the
general said he told Picquart he ought
to investigate whether there were other
traitors. Referring to the correspon-
dence with Picquart, Gen. Gonse ex-
claimed, when one procures the hand
writing of man, one can get him
hanged" Gen. Gonse referred to a
well-known saying Of a French Judge.
Continuing. Gen. Gonse said: when
a man intends to publish enother's let
tiers, he asks what the writer's meaning
was. That is but fair. But without
doing so, Picquert handed my letters
to NJ. Scheurer-Kestner without NV
knowledge or consent. These letters
have been discussed everywhere, and
have been published in book which
can be found at every booksellers, en-
titled, Gonse's Plate"
M. Labori-"Was not the bordereau
in conjunction with the petit bleu the
basis Of Picquart's belief in Esterhazy's
guilt?"
Gonse-"I said to Picquart: Don't
let US tHouble about handwrit!hgs at
present.
NJ Labori-"How could the Dreyfus
and Esterha7y cases be separated when
both were based on a common docu-
ment?"
Cionse--' Because at that time Drey-
fus had been convicted and the Dor
dereau was ascribed to him"
NJ. Labori--"Was it not possible to
reconsider an error?'
Gonse-"There was nothing to prove
to me that the bordereau was written
by Esterhazy"
At M. Labori's request Col. Picquart
was recalled, and said: "In BRIEF let
ter which | wrote Gen. Gonse in regard
to NJ Bertillon's conclusions only re-
(Coatinued on Page T,wol