The San Francisco call., 1899-08-25

with the keenest interest. Both men were
wary and mutually suspicious of each
other and there was considerable acer-
bity, Colonel Jouaust at times finding it
difficult to prevent the discussion from
wandering outside legal paths.
Continuing, NJ. Labori asked why Cen
pared regarding the confessions Dreyfus
IS alleged to have made to Captain Le-
brun-Renaud.
Mercier-The question of the confessions
was of no chance. as a revision of the case
seemed impossible.
NJ Labori-What does General Mercier
think of Esterhazy and the part he
played?
hazy and l do not think about him at all.
NJ Labori-Did he know you at his trial
in 1898?
General Mercier-No
Colonel Jouaust-General MERCER was
not Minister of War then.
NJ Labori-This is most interesting
General MERCER declares he knows moth
ing of the trial of 1898.
General Mercier-I know nothing of it.
/ leave that to the court-martial which
tried Esterhazy. ! have only to answer
in court for my acts and | refuse you the
right to question me about my thoughts.
(Sensation)
Colonel Jouaust. addressing NJ Labor,
sad: y ou are reYerting to the evidence
NJ. Labori-My object in interrogatine
the witness is to revert to his evidence
word interrogatory," for 1 am not
prisoner.
(Note-"I "Interrogatory" in French law
generally applies TO the examination of an
accused person by a magistrate)
NJ. Labori-It is not a question of inter-
rogatory-. L used the word in the most
say what he means by the charge pre-
ferred against the partisans of Dreyfus
of having spent 80 100000 francs? What
was the sum used for? The amount is SIM
ply ridiculous.
General Mercier-I might just as well
ask you. (Sensation.)
NJ. Labori-Do you mean to suggest that
1t was spent in advertising and in buying
consciences?
General Mercier-I say nothing what
ever
bordereau was communicated to the court
martial of 1894. when it was considered
impossible to show the other documents
Of the secret dossier.
General Mercier-Because the bordereau
was not dated nor signed and its place
of origin could be concealed.
NJ. Labori pointed out that the place of
origin had been mentioned in court, and
then asked for explanations in regard to
the preparation of the 1894 forgery.
The cross-examination of General Mer-
cier became more and more heated and
SO rapid that 1t was difficult TO follow
and many of the answers were confusing
AS the questions of counsel touched
upon the secret dossier and certain doc
ument in blue pencil, General Gonse Cen
eral Roget. NJ. Gribelin and Major Lauth
also participated in the discussion, which
at last degenerated into wrangle The
Government commissary, Major Carriere
protested against such discussion and
Colonel Jouaust ordered silence. The COM
missary said an attempt was being made
to show there was a fresh forgery which
was used for purposes of comparisons to
which NJ. Labori retorted that Major Car
riere was mistaken. The tendency of these
oss-examina tions, he added, was only to
demonstrate the truth.
Major Lauth said he believed clew to
the blue pencil document existed before
NJ. Labori asked why, In that case. it
was not produced at the trial. since it in
eliminated the prisoner?
General Mercier said he did not know of
this clew, and Major Lauth disclaimed all
responsibility in the matter as he was
not connected with the preliminary in
quiry. General Gonse said the document
had been in the possession of Colonel
Sandherr (Sensation), and it was by him
placed in the secret dossier for compari-
son with other papers.
NJ. Labori asked for explanations in re-
gard to the commentary on the secret
dossier, and General Mercier admitted he
destroyed it in 1894.
General Gonse, who was questioned on
the same subject, declared that it was bv
order of General de Boisdeffre that he re-
turned the commentary to General Mer-
cier.
After further questions Mercier said
the Panizzardi telegram was not commu-
nicated to the court-martial in 1894. He
was ordered by General de Boisdeffre not
to include it in the secret dossier. (Sen-
sation.)
document claiming that the false render
ing of the PaniZZardi telegram was TO
make it point directly to Dreyfus as the
traitor.
with General Chanoine before attempting
to explain General Chanoine thereupon
advanced and explained about the docu-
General Mercier He said he noticed in.
accuracies in 1t and resolved not to use It,
Witness however, had been carried aWay
in testifying and read page of the docu-
ment. and 1t was after a friendly CONVEX
sation with Maitre Iabori that he read
the entire document in court, at General
Mercier's request, and returned him the
General Mercier acknowledged the accu-
racy of General Chanoine'S statement
adding that ii was Colonel Du Paty de
Clam who gave him the document. (Sen-
sation.)
referred to the two versions of two tele-
grams of November. 2, one designating
Dreyfus as commnnicattlngf IN cat if documents to
Paleolog1ie of the Foreign Office denied
that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had
commgnicated Marcev TINS yerslod' ed and asked
through Du Patty de Clam.
At this juncture General Roget mounted
the platform and expressed surprise at
(Cries of "Ohi Oh1Q
The general asked that Major Nation,
who assisted in deciphering. the telegram,
be called. and counsel protested against
the application of the word idle to any
questions he thought proper to ask.
General Chanoine said ne communicat-
ed the document to General Roget. while
enioining absolute privacy on the subject.
When asked if he accepted responsibility
nIied in the affirmative, adding, however,
the admission that he had made mis-
take.
Colonel Jouaust intimated that the court