The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-26
" nevspapsrg ana ehatted in low

ard, openly showed his impatience, but
was not rebuked for so doing.
NJ Bertillon at one point advanced
alleged fresh proofs against the pris-
Oner, namely in the Dreyfus papers
seized at the war office and in which
the specialist said he found two words
had been traced. AS he proceeded the
witness became imbedded in parapher-
MALTA. His lecture, delivered in funeral
tones, began to pail on the judges, who
finally only paid the most curSOry at
tention to the examples submitted.
One of M. Bertillons demonstrations
was handed to Dreyfus. who closely
scrutinized it and returned the paper
with a disdainful shrug of his shoulders
and without uttering a word.
In summing up the results of his test,
NJ. Bertillon said: Fully understand
ing the responsibility of so positive
statements, on my soul and conscience,
declare today, as did in 1894, on my
oath, that the bOrdereau is the work
of the prisoner here" (SensatiOn.)
Dreyfus heard this assertion unnov-
ed. The witness was asked by the
court how he explained the similarity
of the handwriting of the bOrdereau and
that of ESterhaZy to which he replied
that since 1894 EsterhaZy may have
practiced initiating the writing of the
bOrdereau in order to render possible
the substitution of himself for the pris-
oner. In support OF this theory NJ. Ber-
tillOn produced a fresh array of plates
which he alleged proved his hypothesis
in regard to Esterhazy. There were
-
witness pointed out that in E1sterhazy'S
writing there We're certain caligraphic
blunders which, he asserted, did not ex-
iSt in the original bOrdereau, but We're
found in reproductions of the document
in consequence of imperfectiOns in the
methods employed to reproduce them.
This he continued, tended to prove that
Esterhazy had appropriated the writing
of these productions.
A MAN OF STRAW
f'EsterhaZy," exclaimed NJ. Bertillon,
is a man of straw and a scoundrel.
have said this ever since the COM
mencement of the ZOla trial"
There was a sensation in court at
this remark, which was turned to
laughter as the witness in his excite
ment knocked his portfolios to the
ground.
NJ. Demange asked NJ. BertiIIon if he
had submitted Esterhazy's handwrit-
ing to the same tests as the bordereau.
The witness replied in the aff1rma-
tive, explaining, however, that the
tests were less complete than in the
case of the prisoner.
Counsel reminded the witness that he
said in 1894 that he found in a bor-
dereau photographic signature, AL
fred Dreyfus."
NJ BertiIon replied that he was not
now positive on this point, to which he
added, he attached no Importance
whatever"
Referring to NJ. Bertillon's statement
that he found in the bOrdereau words
Dreyfus was in the habit of using IN
documents of the war Office, NJ. Dem
ange asked how the witness accounted
for this and the specialist explained
with some confusion, that it was nee
essary counterpart of the precautions
taken by the prisoner when he wrote
the bordereau, in order to make out
that he was the victim of a plot"
(Sensation).
Asked his opinion of the letter from
Matthew Dreyfus called the blotting
pad letter. from which the specialist
al he he lxay oy-1
for his work on the bOrdereau, NJ. Ber-
tilIon replied that he had no opinion on
the subject but he maintained the let
ter had been written by the same sys-
tenn as the bOrdereau.
This is my hypothesis, said the wit
ness. Many similar ones can De
found" (Murmurs of disapprOvaD.
NJ. Labori asked how NJ. Bertillon
recOnciued the results of the present
experiment, namely that the bOrdereau
was written by Dreyfus tracing Ester
Hays handwriting with his opinion in
1894 that the bOrdereau was written by
Dreyfus unless it had been most care
fully forged.
QUESTIONED BY LABORL
To this N. Bertillon replied that it
was only a hypothesis, Whereupon NJ.
LabOri remarked that the forgery then
was OF such a nature as to constitute
proof in favor of Dreyfus. Yet today
it is made proof against him.
Continuing counsel said:
Since the witness admits ESterhazy
mathematical
methods as Dreyfus why has he attri-
buUed the bordereau to Dreyfus, rather
than to Esterhazy?"
NJ Bertillon-It was on Dreyfus' pad
that the key word interest was found
and Esterhazy might have had access
to this word.
NJ. Labori-Does NJ. Bertillon admit
that Esterhazy is a traitor?
Col. JOuaust refused to put the queS-
tiOn to the witness. (SensatiOn).
NJ. LabOri continuing his questions
asked NJ. BertillOn'S opinion as to what
system of defense might have been en-
plOyed by the writer of the bOrdereau
if the document had not been found on
him The witness in a confused and
inaudible tone declared that the pris-
Oner would have then maintained the
document was a forgery and would
have adduced it as proof of a plot.
NJ. LabOri-Iu that case the prisoner
must have fOreseen the appearance on
the scene of a man so eminent as NJ.
BertillOn, capable of imagining a sys-
TEN so ingenious as the one he exposed
today (Laughter).
NJ. BertillOn retOrted that in his Opin-
ion man of the ability of the accused
could have made a model line in a
quarter of an hour, every time he had
occasion to write.
Replying to further questions NJ. Ber-
tillOn admitted he had discovered in
Esterhazy's 5 writing peculiarities SINH
lar to those in the bordereau.
Counsel pointed out that it was i'm
possible to maintain the hypothesis
that Esterhazy was a man of straw.
since in 1897, when he might very well
have admitted writing the bordereau
he had confessed nothing.
The reasoning of NJ. BertillOn counsel
asserted, therefore fell to the ground.
DREYFUS REPLIES
After a short incidental discussion of
the Weyl forgery which it was believed
was perpetrated by order of the pre-
feet of police, Col Jouaust asked the
prisoner if he had anything to say in
reply to the witness, and the attention
OF all present was Immediately riveted
cIamation, "Oh, the wretch escaped
his lips Yesterday