The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-26

\ ers aud made many arrests. Z
!
Esterhazy c500 for certain documents and
confession that he wrote the bordereau.
as published April 90.
Replying to the court, Mr.. Strong said
Esterha2y, while admitting the authority
OF the bordereau, said the docrvunnts
enumerated In II had been betrayed by
Dreyfus 10 Germany.
NJ Henry Well. former officer OF the
headquarters staff, was then called. but
he was absent and his deposition was read,
The facts in the case were published April
20. NJ. Wells statement in substance
was that Esterhazy told him in 1894 that
Dreyfus was innocent, but that this would
not prevent his conviction. because he was
a Jew. (Sensaticn.j
A brief discussion ensued regarding The
character Of Colonel Picquart's former or
derry Savignaud. The evidence of the
handwriting expert followed.
NJ Colbert, after testifying to the facts
published April % and April "a. vehement
ly protested against the insinuation that
he was an interested witness. He referred
to his thirty years OF service. during which
he had reported on thousands of docu-
ments, and added, visibly affected Il pro-
test against the term interested expert. y
and. turning toward the prisoner, re-
marked: Ate. all ! have no right to
complain when | look at this unfortunate
man now before vou." tGreat applauseD
The cour, closely followed NJ. Goberts
exhaustive story of his examination OF the
bordereau and his Interview with General
Mercier, General De Boisdeffre and Cen
eral Gonse.
NJ Colbert asserted that the handwriting
of the bordereau was fluent but 1t was
almost Ineligible, whereas Dreyfus. even
when writing rapidly, always wrote most
legibly. The witness asked General Gonse
il an envelope accompanied the bordereau
as lie IN. GoberD wished to see what the
writer's careful caligraphy was like. ex-
planning that the address OF letter is
always In firmor hand than its contents.
General Gonse refused the request on the
ground that the witness must not know
the name of the addressed.
The general said he refused to allow
the bordereau to be photographed. aleg
ing that II the war office photographers
were allowed 10 photograph II all Paris
would be acquainted with the bordereau
the next day. (LaughterO Thereupon
the witness replied General Gonse,
this is a very interesting confession.
NJ Colbert then suggested that the work
be iutrusted to the prefecture of police,
where NJ. Bertillon is the photographer
Until then the witness said he mad never
heard of NJ, Bert!llon as handwriting
expert saying he became an expert for
this special occasion. when he was called
in the war office (Laughterl General
Gonse, it appears from the testimony, was
g.eatly enraged when he learned Of ihe
results of NJ, Gobert's examination of the
bordercau and visited the expert repeated
ly. The latter always insisted ON learning
the name of the suspect.
1T was not proper said NJ. Colbert
for me to accuse any one without being
perfectly cognlzant of the facts, especially
\ nNFh ~
(sonsation.) | would not accuse any one
anonymously for to do so would be con-
trary 10 the law"
Amidst laughter OF the court the wit
ness described how from an examination
of the reports OF Dreyfus from which
Ore yfus' name had been revealed that
Colbert had the malicious satisfaction of
telling General Gonse the name OF the
officer they wanted to arrest.
Ii was after NJ. Colbert had refused 10
incrminate Dreyfus that NJ. Bertilon was
instructed with the examinations OF the
bordereau and after a few hours study NJ.
Bertillon positively attributed the bor-
| dereau to Dreyfus. From that day forward
| NJ. Colbert heard no more of the Dreyfus
case. He was not asked to submit re-
mort. but was desired TO describe to the
minister. NJ Guerin, the circumstances IN
| the case.
! m. Guerin," continued the witness,
| Eliminated that these were soldier aHalFs
which did not concern him as chief OF che
civil judiciary
Colonel Jouaust asked NJ Colbert for
more definite criticism of the bordereau
| and the witness replied that he noticed
| certain slmilarities between the hand
writing of the bordereau and that OF Drey-
fus. hut he added there were many I'M
| portant differences which proved 10 MN
| that Dreyfus was not the author OF Inc
| ,tntah had
confirmed, because is was now proved
| tho hordereau was the work of Esterhazy."
| (Sensation)
Replving to the court, NJ. Colbert sug-
| rested that the judges compare the TOR
| dereau with letter admitted TO DC lh
Esterhazy-5 handwriting and dated from
Rouen, August II, 1884 ana WIN tne
documents written by the prisoner on
will Enthusiastically recognize, NJ Goperl
| added. "that the bordereau Is an Ester
| bazv's handwriting and not in the mana
writing of Dreyfus." (Great sensatlon'
The witness at this juncture 'dentihen
| the bordercau as the same whlcn wac
submitted to him and hn proceeoeu 70
point out the identity oil letters ano.e -,
which docun ents. admittedly written by
Esterbazy, saying that WINE tne 'ss.n i
bIance was moi apparent in Dreyius mann
| writing in Esterhazy's that were fnarkeu
| pec,Iliarities of punctuation ana lhe man
| ner of beginning the lines, whlch were
also noticeable in the bordefcan put "ni VIM,
were not found in the prisoner can
| graphy. ~.
Proceeding. the witness trayersed lne
old ground of peculiarltles OF traclps pa
rer. which it is known Esterhazy usen,
and said the date of the bordereau mus
be July "a, 1894 The expert refused, ~
reply TO a question in court. 70 ADMIT tnas
the bordereau was written In DISCUSSES
hand. He said It had been written Win
great rapidity. precluding all idea oil uo'-
toring or tracing IN
General Gonse asked permission 10
question M. Colbert and said
I'm what army list did you look ior 'pe
name of Dreyfus?"
NJ. Gobert--I used the list which ID ee"
/ orally kept In business houses, IT..
/ The general pointed out thar tniS n h..
did not give the information claimed py
NJ. Colbert, but the latter maintained 'nas
he had stated nothing but the pure an'
simple truth
General Gonse here alluded TO nhaeslra-
BILE acouaintances formed by NJ. Gonert
The latter replied. amid sensation III
court: II cmphatically protest against tn J,
insinuations OF General Gonse There ~
not single word OF truth In what nc
| saws"
There was further dispute between
! General Gonse and NJ Colbert over circunn-