The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-09-03

neously with the bordereau and that the
general consequently was in a positioo
10 judge of the prohs bilities of the jnno-
cence of Dreyfus
NJ. Labor asked if Gen. Gonse knew ~
the plot Matched against Picquart and If
he knew that letters addressed to Pic.
quart at TuniS were opened at the W.
Office, and the general admitted that let
ter was opened in the intelligence depart
mnt in November. He added that sus
plc1ous letters were always handed to him
by Lieut.. Col. Henry, so that he, The wit
ness, might report TO the minister of war
on them.
NJ Labor: ITO whom was the letter.
addressed?"
Gen. Gonse: 81 do not know. No doubt
. to the chief of some department"
Col. Picquart; 1T was addressed to ma
personally"
NJ Labor: Does Gen Gonse know
that the words in the letter in question
were used for the purpose of fabricatins
a telegram intended to destroy the value
of the Petit Bleu?"
Gen. Gonse admitted that the express
sion seemed to him suspicious. II the let
ters were seized, it was because they were
addressed to Picquart as the head of the
department and it was thought they might
relate to official matters. He added that
Picquarts letters were only opened when
they looked suspicious.
Col. Picquart retorted that It was Curl
Gus his opened letters afterwards reached
him without a sign of having been tam
pered with.
"An Unfortunate Proceeding"
NJ. Labor pointed out that the first let
ter which was genuine was Forwarded to
Col. Picquart after having been opened
while the "Speranza" letter was retained
The latter could therefore, be regarded as
the work of forger. Great excitemenD.
NJ. Labor: Does Gen. Gonse think the
Henry forgery was the result of a plot
against PicQuart?"
Gen. Gonse said he thought the forgery
was 'an unfortunate proceeding"
Uaughter).
He would have prevented Il If he had
been consulted. But he did not believe
there was a plot against Picquart Henry
desired to have fresh proof against DTey-
fus though fresh proof was not ready re-
quired, as the diplomatic dossier contained
ample proof"
NJ. Labor protested against such a
statement, and asked which document OF
the dossier implicated Dreyfus.
Col. Jouaust refused to allow the ques-
ton. Here Gen. Roget reappeared on the
scene, and, amid the keenest attention OF
all. described the forgery proceedings
against Picquart as resulting from his
(the witness) discovery that erasures had
been made in the petit bleu."
Strong Case for Dreyfus.
M. Defond Lamotte, a former artl-
lery officer, and now an engineer, was
the next witness He testified that he
was probationer simultaneously with
Dreyfus. The witness said that in Aug
ust, 1894 he borrowed the firing manual
from Col Picquart and kept it as long
as he liked.
NJ. Defond Lamotte also stated that the
probationers were informed by circular
dated May 10, 1894, not to attend the ma
neuVers. The object of antedatng the
bordereau, the witness added, was to make
II a prior date TO that of the circular. lt
had since been attempted TO attain the
same object by post-dating the circular
witness also pointed out that for Drey-
fus to have bene able to write the border
eau it would have been necessary for him
TO have the right manual in his possession
before the maneuvers. which was impossl-
bic. The charge, therefore, collapsed.
That Dreyfus did not write the border
eau the witness was absolutely certain.
Gen. Roget finally asked NJ. Lamotte
from what time his belief in the prison.
er's innocence dated.
NJ. Lamotte: From the time of the
publication of the proceedings before the
Court Of Cessation. 1 was expecting PROOF
of my comrades guilt, and l was thuh-
der-struck when I saw the date of the bor-
dereau had been altered"
The court briefly retired and afterward
hear the remainder of Maj. Hsrtmann's
evidence in camera, on Monday.
The court then adjourned.