Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-09-06

eide. and urged Esterhazy to the utmost
endeavOr 10 reveal the truth and the part
he had played. Finally. while walking
I'm Piccadilly Major Esterhezy said 10
the witness pOint-blank: We'll, Ribon,
0he witnesses pseudonym), | am going
20 tell YOU what nobody knows. IL Is
who am the author OF the bordereau. l
wrote IL in 1894. at the request. Of my
friend. Sandhcrr. There was a traitor
al headquarters, Dreyfus. whom Sand
herr wanted 10 catch. l did not hesitate
20 do what l was asked
NJ Bassett proceeded that with Ester
Rays consent ne had each of Ester
hays statements verified. Esterha1y
saying he had decided to make tnC
ayowals, because he was disguised with
ms abandOnncHt the generals.
In conclusion. the witness referred 20
offers OF money 10 Esterhazy.
Lieutenant-ColOnel Broguiart Ga mem
Der OF the cOurt-martiaD: Did Esterhazy
tell YOU Drcyfus was guilty?
NJ Bassett: Yes.
Colonel Jouaust: The two statements
OF EsterhaZys are Incompatible.
NJ Bassett IL is not for me to reconcile
them.
LETTERS FROM ESTERHAZY.
NJ Labor. Does VI. Bassett know that
Major Esterhazy addressed letters 70
General Roget?
NJ. BassetI: / do not know.
NJ. Labor: General Roget perhaps VIII
'' General Roget did receive a letter
from Major Esterhazy, In August a.u
informed the president OF the cOurt-h1I
tial OF the fact ASKING MN 70 me-, n,',,,
what use he liked OF il. ] refused 10 open
further letters as soon as recoshl1cd
Esterhazy's handwriting.
on NJ Laborrs asking TO see the le'-
ter Colonel Jouaust said he would not PuO
the letter in evidence, because IL cOh-
tanned only abuse and recriminati2n.
As VI. Labor protested. General foset
said he had handed alb the letters 10 the
president Of the court-martial, because
he did not wish 10 be compromised ny
EsterhaZy, which was eVldehllE the l@'-
ter's intention. ,.s
Colonel Jouaust said he had not includ-
ed Fsterhazy's letters in the evidence as
he did not wish the proceedings 10 be uh-
duly protracted. but as the defence IN
sisted the letters would be prodIced.
Confessions OF ESTERHAIY'
Cererai .Roget offered 10 read the hrSt
Of Major Esterhazys letters, IN whllh
E.sterhazv offers 10 prove the existence
of a Dreyfus syndicate. The winter COM
planned that the general stan reiuSSu v
hear or accept Information ne hau oD-
nj. Tabori: Does General Roget consider
the confessions Of Esterhazy Vahu ,.-
General Roget: No; all the versions
given by EsterhaZy are quite lhcpIls go;
He is an llnDOSltis tnli'N i+ii'r
prefer TO express no opinion. .1. -.
NJ Labor: Does General Roget cohsluer
Esterhazy a man OF straw .. 20 .,,o
General Roget. ] have no PROOF Oh .HV
fact. but i am inclined 10 believe lla'
NJ Labori: Was he a straw man IN 1871!
General Roget: No. / DO not think So
Considerable discussion ensued between
Colonel Jouaust and NJ. Labor, the IoI-
mer attempting 10 protect OeheraI i'O50'
from too c.ose questioning. , o,,i,-
ii. Labori insisted, however anu gam
ROGET MADE TO ANSWER
,Fhe examination proceeded 49,. t,,+
NJ. Labor: How do you explain tllo ~ ~
that FsterhaZy made no cOIlleasloh NN
ring the Zola trial? ,.
General Roget: / do not know Co..
N Tabori: You have made speech TOT
the prosecution rather than deposltl3h .
I n Ne. therefore, the right TO question
and note the fact that you 90 not Iep!E .
N Iabori then expressed surprise lhat
+h1re VS. no mention OF a man OF straw
until so late a day. while all the acls VI
which Esterhazy is accused were IONS
known IT,, not understand
vybv il is alleged that the defence W
sired 10 compromise the headqudrteIS
staff and asked whence arose the sus
e@stion that Major Esterhazy was mere
General Roget replied that one reason
which induced the belief th4l - Il i no..
,vas a man of straw was that ms IoL-
feesion that ne had written me ouI
dereau was absolutely inadmlsslDle. zen.
oraI Pooet was perfectly convinced lhaI
Esterhazv was entirely innocent Oh u g"
son. (Murmursao9t "a ASSEM- S1l1-1 1ilT S'9'0
l,....,l pooet next attempted, but with
ont success to refute the evidence CIV
0n saturday by NJ des Ponds LamolHe
yelative 10 the sentence, Il am gong 10
the manoeuvres," saying the ciicVlaI 10
sued may have been indefinite .t..,,
Contofn Drevfus at this juncture pointer
o,t vim reference TO the sentence
am going TO the manoeuNre53, ~ ond
court could produce the ciICuiai e.
could judge whether II cohtdi al me bor-
distinctions. The sentence IN the poi >,
dereau Il am going 10 the manoeuNlrs,,
C,.rreesed "A positive idea. lie not oNlg
49, 80 Won't 20 the manoeuvres but never
could have attended them.
ANOTHER NEWSPAPER MAN
NJ Deffes. a correspondent OF the temps
deposed that Major Esterhazy told I'm I'm
in London that he (lIsteihdZy) "aS ''i0
writer of the borderedu. $500. a.. 49,,
A Judge: Did il not occur 10 you 10 Isn
the obvious question VINO oeiIEO .l"I.a en-,
documents mentioned IN the porueie eau
NJ Trarieux, formerly Minister Of Jus,
tice. was the next witness. lie i0ohcu
STRAIGHT at the Jadges while tesuiylhs'
When Dreyfus was convicted, me VIZ
rees said. he was convinced, IKE every
Lodv else of the prisoners quit Dut Nio-
lent diatribes on the tact that DIey1rII
was a jew awakened his suspicion. re
therefore consulted NJ. hahotduA llS i"'-
Priroa Minister OF France, and the latter
Informed the witness of the existence OF
the "Cette canaiile de D document
though Nj. HanOtauX failed TO INFORM
him OF that which had been impaired 70
the judges OF the hrst % Ia; oia
known to the prisoner This the Witness
learned later -
PLEA FOR THE PRISONER
Senior TrarieuX, whose statement was
practically an impassioned speech LOT lhe
defence proceeded 10 denOunce the secfe.
of the document as mon
strous nlegality and a violation or the
most sacred rights OF the defence.
Nj. Trarieux pointed out that II amy
rrcof whatsoever OF the guilt OF Dreylus
existed i'm 1896 General GOnse would nave
shown LAoutenant-Colonei Plcquart an
order 10 stop the investigation.
After an Interview with NJ. Scheurer-
Kestner. the witness said ne became COZ
uncCd of the guilt OF Esfe'n n,,1,gor, ~ ~
revision, NJ. TrarieuX mentioned an IN
teryiew he had with foreign alnDassa
dor. who, IN tones OF the most pIoiuuAI
and affecting sincerity, ueeialfI nc
Drevfus never had relations with MN,
nor with any military attache or ONCE
Of tho array of his country.
INNOCENCE REAFFlRM-
ED.
NJ. Trarieux asserted the importance ,..S OI
This statement OF the Ambassador. VINO
'1.,,,,.lSrgeticalIv reaffirmed the absolute IN
cH EMO Of Dreyfus The Ambassador add,
ed that he had investigated ana I IoSiC
go bing 10 implicate Dreyius. .Furthtr,
he Ambassador said, he had seen IN lne
hands of Colonel Pani1zaral ,et ~ c,1iIt
- Tsterbazv. who, his Excellency added,
o 'l.,--,sliy communicated information OF