The San Francisco call., 1899-08-25

and protests were far from astonishing
the witness. They seemed perfectly nat
ural. The only letter handed to Colonel
Maurel during the course of the trial
was not brought by Colonel P1cquart.
The letter, moreover, was returned the
same evening to the officer who
brought ii.
Replying to NJ. Labor, Maurel said he
did not know General MERCER and had
not seen him since the trial until June
last.
NJ Labori-Can Colonel Maurel tell us
to what he attributes the secret commu-
nication of the dossier?
Colonel Maurel-I have not the slightest
idea
NJ. Labori-Can you tell the name of
the officer who brought you the letter?
Colonel Maurel-1t was Du Patty de
NJ. Labori-Were there many documents
in this secret dossier? Can you state what
they were?
Colonel Maurel-I only saw one of them.
l did not look at the others, because my
mind was already made up.
NJ Labori-Had the other members of
the court also made up their minds!
Colonel Maurel-EeS.
NJ. Labori-Can you tell us how, know
ing as the Judge, that II was your duty
TO seek consCientiously for information
and to expect sincere COMMUNICATIONS
from the public prosecutor-that Is TO say,
communications setting forth all the
points in the case both for ana against
the DrlSOQeT-SOu COuIu Dc VI il4c OpllI4OAA
that your mind was wholly made up after
reading a single document? prolonged
SensatiOn.(
Colonel MaureI said he failed to clearly
grasp the question, and Nj. Labort repeat
ed his query, whereupOn the witness re-
piled that he could not answer, because II
he did so he would have to speak of the
first document in the dossier, which con-
yinced the court of the prisoners guilt.
At this point NJ. Labor said he would
like to confront Colonel Maurel with Cap
rot 1UdReS
at the court-martial of 1894. Freystmeter
was not present, and Colonel Maurel
promised TO wait a few days and give the
captain an opportunity of attending.
A lively incident followed. NJ. Labor.
having asked leave to interrogate General
Mercier the Government Commissary,
Major Carriere took occasion to remark
that while counsel had the right to ask
questions he had no business to draw de-
ductons, to which the lawyer deftly re-
piled that he had always acted with full
knowledge of the restrictions imposed
upon counsel and that he had no need OF
lessons from Major Carriere and would
General Mercier was then recalled, and
1t was noted that he had donned his uni
form for the first time. The impression
thereby created was that the general ex-
pecting a hot cross-eXa mination thought
that his uniform would perhaps protect
him. NJ. Labori said he desired to know
If General Mercier admitted ordering Col
onel Maurel to communicate secret docu-
ments to the court-martial of 1894.
General Mercier-I knew did not have
the right to give formal orders to that
effect, but 1 gave moral orders in a man
ner sufficiently clear. (Sensation)
Counsel proceeded to closely question
Gle in the Libre Parole. Mercier replied
that he was SO accustomed to violence
from the press that he paid no attention
to that article.
Replying to further questions, the gene
raj said that when Dreyfus was arrested,
be knew of no other proof against Drey-
fus Than the, bordereau. There were,
therefore. only suspicious. but it was
urgently necessary not to lose time in ar
resting him in order to stop the treason
able practices.
NJ. Labor here asked Colonel Jouaust
to secure the evidence of NJ. Papilland,
editor of the Libre Parole, in regard to
the ''dixi" letter. in which the name of
Dreyfus was disclosed as that of the Of
ficer arrested for espionage. AS Colonel
Jouaust hesitated, NJ. Labori insisted up.
on the necessity for an examination of
l am seeking for
1.-The whole responsibility for this case"
counsel added, Il believe really rests up
on the late Lieutenant Colonel Henry and
Major Du Patty de Clam"
Resuming his examination Of General
Mercier, NJ. Labori asked him severa!
of April General Mercier said that in
1894 ne was only acquainted with the
general reasons which existed for be-
lieving Dreyfus guilty and had not paid
much attention to the details
The general refused to reply to many
clined to say whether he had examined
the proofs against Dreyfus.
NJ. Labori-In short you consider it in
the nature of a sensational move to have
Dreyfus prosecuted and sentenced. Did
you examine previously the charges
against Dreyfus?
General Mercier-I only examined the
nature of the documents betrayed.
NJ. Labori-Was 1t not necessary for
that purpose to fix the date of the
bordereau?
Further. l declare that Labori is dis
cussing the whole trial of 1894. That may
have scme interest from an historical
point of view. But since the Court of
Cessation quashed the judgment it seems
to me that 1t is not for us now to revert
to the various features of that trial.
NJ Iabori pointed out the contra
dictions in the evidence of officers of the
headquarters staff regarding the i'm
portance of the contents of the bordereau
and asked General Mercier where Drey-
fus could have obtained particulars about
the automatic brake.
The general hotly objected to being
asked to repeat his evidence, and NJ. La
bori equally warmly said: "I am only
asking for definite statements
General Mercier then said he thought
Dreyfus might have had cognizance of the
he had a better chance to obtain such
knowledge. than Esterhazy could possibly
have had"
NJ Labori-General Mercier says Drey-
fus might have had cognizance 1 desire
TO emphasize that expression. We shall
now prove Dreyfus could not have cog
nizance of the brake.
Counsel proceeded to demonstrate how
vigorously the secret of the construction
of the brake was guarded and asked why
in 1894. the charges regarding the Robin
melenite shells were not dwelt upon.
General Mercier@That rises on the SIM
pie fact that 1t was not known in 1896 or
1897 that information on the subject was
being divulged.
The ages-at-arms between NJ. La
bori and General Mercier were followed