The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-14

with Jewish funds without accepting
NJ. De F'reycinet's estimate of 100000
francs. The sums subscribed by En-
glish and German Jews must be enOr-
nous, but, like wealthy Gentiles, rich
Jews, are fond Of the pomps and vani-
ties of life, the titles of aristOcratic So
ciety. Many of them are frightened al
ready at the onward pace OF the Drey-
fusites-
General Mercier's deposition was in
audible unless to the judges and short
hand reporters. It fell fiat, his voice
and delivery being bad. But we have
it now in print. It has qualities for
which we did not give it credit during
delivery. They are easy, flowing state
ments, plausibility and the art of lull-
ing suspicion being their distinguishing
features. AS the deposition appears in
full in the reports, it will everywhere
be read with delight by those already
persuaded that Dreyfus is a traitor.
The deposition, which was really a
speech for the prosecution, shows Mer-
cier to be a fautist of the highest order.
He never loses his way in the most in
tricate variations and keeps in view
that Dreyfus is a cool, calculating, well
informed traitor.
the freedom of Dreyfus, but Saturdays
incidents and episodes are the begin
ming of a struggle of a far-reaching
consequence.
must give the Nationalist credit for
having, from the very beginning, fore
seen what revision would lead to. They,
in many things, showed blindness. They
accepted the mailman QueSnay de
Beaurepaire as their spokesman. But
they had a keen Instinct for the Ulti-
mate trend of the revisiOnist movement.
Dreyfus is generally unfortunate In
the use Of the pen. He lacks artistic
sensibilities and cannot dtsassOctate
himself from his ego to enter the feel
ings of others. One sees this harsh ego
tism in his correspondence with his wife.
He was never more unfortunate than in
the letter complaining that NJ. CaSimir-
Perier did not keep a promise to him.
1t eXasperated Casimir- Perier, who
treated as a foul libel the assertion that
he. as president Of the republic, entered
into a pact with an officer accused of
treason. Casimir-Perier has a habit of
thinking mOrbidly. He has taken deep
offense at several assertions of MERCER
and will try conclusions with him. We
expect fur to fy-in Casimir-Perier's
case canine, in Mercier's feline.
Some of Countess Marie Won Mum
ster's letters in the secret dossier were
to Mile. Lucie Faure. They may be
forgeries. I cannot agine that she
gave them to the minister of war as
proof that the family of the German
ambassador took an interest in Drey-
fus.
The Schwartzkoppen letter. speaking
of the impetuous Intervention in the af-
fair of the German emperor for reasons
unknown even to HOhenlOhe, is believed
to be genuine. In this connection, it is
said in military circles that a lady in
interest had hshed out for him Dreyfus
as a person competent to inform his
majesty on French military questions.
This lady, it is said, was a relative of
the late Jacques Saint Cere, of the Fl
CARO-, who was condemned to thirteen
months imprisonment for blackmail-
ing the late millionaire, Max Lebaudy.
He came to Paris as a pictorial artist,
as the story goes, and exhibited in the
salon. There was such a lady, but /
should be sorry to declare her the mis-
tress of the German emperor and the
temptress of Dreyfus. What the officers
say about her may be another lie, which
should be nailed to the counter. Mill
tary credulity is boundless.
EMILY CRAWFORD.