The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-08-26

| dHhtu NIeIlelc cI NbHSe II all 61lVGlODe dC- companied the bordereau, as he M. Co., bert, wished to see what the writer s } careful cilligraphy was like, explaining that the address of letter is always in ; a tirmer hand than it's contents. General Gonse refused the request on
 the ground that the witness must not know the name of the address. The general also decided not to allow the
 bordereau to be photographed, alleging
 that if the war office photographers were
 allowed to photograph it all Paris would
 be acquainted with the bordereau the
 next day. (Laughter.)
 Thereupon the witness remarked:
 General GOnse, this is very interest,"
 ing confession" M. Colbert then sug-
 gested that the work be intrusted to the
 prefecture of police, where M. Bertillon
 is the photographer. Until then the
 witness also said that he had never
 heard of M. Bertillon as handwriting
 expert, saying that he became an eX-
 pert for this special occasion, when he
 was called in the war office (Laugh-
 ter.)
 General Gonse, it appears from the
 testimony, was greatly enraged when
 he learned of the result of M. Gobert's
 examination of the bordereau and visit
 ed the expert repeatedly. The latter
 always insisted upon learning the name
 of the suspect.
 Tt was not proper" said M. Colbert,
 for me to accuse any one without be-
 ing perfectly cognizant of the facts, es- pecially in circumstances of so grave a
 nature. 1 would not accuse any one
 anonymously, for to do so would be con-
 trary to the law"
 Amidst laughter in the court the wit
 ness described how, from an examina-
 tion of an official report on Dreyfus,
 from which Dreyfus' name had been re- moved M. Colbert had the malicious sat
 isfaction of telling General Gonse the
 name of the officer they wanted to ar | rest.
 | It was after M. Colbert had refused tG incriminate Dreyfus that M. Bertillon was entrusted with the examination of the bordereau, and, after few hours study, M. Bertillon positively attribut
 ed the bordereau to Dreyfus. From that time forward M. Colbert heard no more of the Dreyfus case. He was not asked to submit report, but described to the then minister of justice, M. Guer in, the circumstances of the case. M. Guerin continued the witness, intimat- ed that "these were soldiers affairs" which did not concern him as chief of the civil judiciary
 Colonel Jouaust asked M. Colbert for more definite criticism of the border 1 eau, and the witness replied that he noticed certain similarities between the | handing of the bordereau and that of l Dreyfus But there were many impor- | tant differences which proved to him | that Dreyfus was not the author of the [ bordereau, and his opinion had since | been confirmed, because it was now | proved that the bordereau was the work of Esterhazy.
 Replying to the court, M. Colbert sug gested that the judges compare the bor- dereau with letter admitted to be in Esterhazy's handwriting and dated from Rouen on August IT, 1894, and with documents written by the prison CT. You will then unmistakably rec ognize," M. Colbert added. that the bordereau is in Esterhazy's handwrit- ing and not in the handwriting of Drey- fus."
 The witness, at this juncture, identi- fled the bordereau as the same which was submitted to him and he proceed ed to point out the identicality of letters therein with letters admittedly written by Esterhazy, saying that while the was not appearent in Drey- fus' handwriting, in Esterhazy's there were marked peculiarities of punctuation and the manner of beginning fresh lines, which were also noticeable in the bor- dereau, but which were not found in the prisoners chirography.
 Proceeding, the witness traversed the old ground of the peculiarities of the ] tracing paper which it is known Ester hazy used, and said the date of the bor- lereau must be July 24 1894. The eX { pert refused, in reply to q question by ] he court, to admit that the bordereau l was written in disguised hand. He said that it had been written with great ( 'apidity, precludng all idea of doctor ng or tracing. I General Gonse asked permission to question M Colbert. and said: Tn what , lrmy list did you look for the name of < oreyfus?"
 M Gobert-I used the list which is :. kept in business houses. The general pointed out that this list f lid not give the information claimed by a I Colbert. But the latter maintained 4 hat he had stated nothing but the pure nd simple truth General Gonse having alluded to cer- ain undesirable acquaintances formed Il y M. Colbert, the latter replied q enl- protest against the insinua- ' ions of General Gonse. There is not a T ingle word of truth in what he says"
 There was further dispute between Il ieneral Gonse and M Colbert over cir II in connection with the lat u CTS examination of the bordereau. M. st fobert said that Colonel dAbeville was ri resent but the colonel promptly ad- W anced, and said that he had never seen c, l. Colbert before to-day, adding: 'If si l. Gobert's other recollections are as n xact as this, the court will draw it's O. wn conclusions" (Murmurs of disap- n rovaD. R Dreyfus here declared in the most DOS u i've manner that he had never been W t the Bank of France where M. Colbert as employed or had relations with any m ne there. The prisoner reasserted that ce is sole desire was to know the truth. ia Le admitted that he had been engaged IT