The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1899-08-17

biography OF Dreyfus, said to have
been prepared in the War Office. and
to contain false details, as that the
German Government was in posses.
| sion of a course of secret lectures
which Drevfus had attended at the
School of War; whereas the lectures
| they possessed were some delivered
after Dreyfus had quilted the school
GROSS ACTS OF UNFAIRNESS
But, besides the illegalitv of COM
munication of documents, there were
in the conduct of the case by the Wal
I Office number of gross acts OF
| illegality or unfairncss: (2) The eN,
cul patory telegram of November ,.
1894, before alluded to. if not falsified
and in its falsitied form secretly com,
municated to the judges, was un-
doubtedly suppressed from the legal
| dOsSier and from Dreyfus. and that
by Mercier's order. (2) The evidence
of Henry, the head of the intelligence
department, that trustworthy agent
had denounced Drevfus by name as
the traitor was false. (3) At this
court-martial the date of the borde-
} reau, which it was essential for the
defense to know, but which was
known only to the War Office, who
| had received the document, was in
the course of the hearing shifted from
April to August and back from
August to April. (4) Dreyfus was
refused by the court the production of
an order of de Boisdetfre, which would
have shown that he could not have
attended the maneuvers of August,
and therefore could not have written
the bordereau, which ends with the
words, ''Je vais partir en- manoeu-
vres." (5) Yet again: The regular
police had sent to the War Office, the
prosecutors, a report not unfavorable
to Dreyfus. By some secret maniprt-
lation this was suppressed, and in
stead there was substituted a
calumnious report from Quenee, a
low private detective in Henrv's pay
Then, as to the injustice of the con
demnation. On the merits, Dreyfus
was completely innocent, but at the
time he was in an awkward position
to prove it. All that he knew of the
charges against him was that the
War Office accused him of having
written the bordereau, and that three
out of five so-called experts had
identified in it his handwriting
There was no other evidence against
him; none to connect him with the
| bordereau; none even to show where
the bordereau came from Git was as
sumed that it came from the Ger
man Embassy@ none to point to any
disloyal conduct on his part what
ever. That anybody should upon
such a case he so much as prosecuted
is, indeed, astonishing; but if the
court did consent to entertain it, how
was Dreyfus to defend himself? AL
he could do was to deny, deny, and
deny; and this he did, and his
prosecutors reproached him with it
afterward as proof that he was 6
| hardened traitor.
ESTERHAZY THE CULrRIT.
How, then, can Dreyfus be in Il
better position now to prove his
innocence? In this way: He is now
and for long time past has been, in
a position to prove D that the Ger
man and Italian Governments deny
having had anything to do with him
self, and (2D that another man
videlicet Esterhazy, is the culprit-is
the author of the bordereau. And he
proves this not only by the opinion
of experts, but by evidence connect.
ing EsterhaZy directly with the
bordereau itself, and other trea
sonable practices. This evidence
is overwhelming. Perhaps the mos
decisive proof comes from the quar-
ter where the bordereau is bes,
known-the Government to whom i
was addressed. The German Govern
ment have again and again declared
to their own Parliament, as well i:
to the French Foreign Office, tha
they have had nothing to do with
Dreyfus and they have communicated
Schwarzkoppen's word of honor that
he was stranger to Dreyfus. if not
also, as is asserted in the press an,
not officially denied. their own
authorization to Schwarzkoppen tC
produce his correspondence will
Esterhazv. The Italian Government
have made similar declarations deny
ing dealings with Drevfus. and. have
in vain pressed that their militar,
attache. Pannizardi, should be hearc
as witness. Now, these declara
tions cannot have been diplomatic
dement's. for the French Govern
ment are now in possession Of lette
from Panizzarei, dated November
1894 contemporary, therefore. with
the telegram which, as above narrat
ed. the French Government inter
cepted, and then suppressed from
Dreyfus and the court,) dispatched
to his own Government at Rome
announcing Dreyfus' arrest, anc
distinctly stating that neither he no
Schwarzkoppen knew anything abou
him. Then Count Tornielli. tn
Italian Ambassador. has made 4 com
munication to NJ. Trarleux (ex-Minis
ter Of Justice,) and authorized hir
to make use OF it, such commune,
ton being to the effect that Schwarz
koppen did actually receive tn
documents mentioned in the DO,
dereau, but not from Drevfus: further
that (as already narrated) Esterhazy
in October, 1897, made two visits t
the German Embassy, the first jus
after he had heard he was about t
/ be denounced as author of tn
: bordereau, when he adjured Schwarz
koppen to save him by silencin
Madame Dreyfus with false avowal
, that her husband had been in hi