Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-08-29

quire three days TO give an opinion on It.
| lie could not conclude his examination
on the spot lie must have time.
Here. a member OF the court-martial.
giving the result OF his examination OF
The bordereau. remarked: THE letter Il
IS always Isolated. even al the beginning
of words" To this NJ. Teyssonieres re-
piled that this' regularity was also found
in the prisoners handwriting.
DREYFUs IN REPLY.
When he was invited to reply 10 the
| witness. Dreyfus said that TcyssoniCre s
remarks seemed TO him quite incorrect
land in order 10 reply properly he One
| prisoner must have the documents under
| his eyes. AS regards the criticism ON
! the subject Of paragraphlns, Dreyfds
added: II beg TO reply that one does not
make a fresh paragraph except when De-
| ginning a new idea. Every time | begin
new idea In anything l write. make a
| paragraph"
The prisoner, in conclusion. asked the
! president of the court 20 request the wit
ness, before ne retired, TO produce the
| documents furnished TO him for com
parison. Of which the defence had no
| knowledge.
Colonel Jouaust: Certainly
NJ. Teyssoneres thereupon added that
! upon referring TO his report Of 1891, he
found ne had concluded that the writer
had attempted TO disguise MS hand
writing. but that towards the end he
had relapsed into his ordinary hand
writing.
TEYSSONIERES ACCUSED?
The witness, having begged leave to
speak OF a personal fact, and addressing
the judges. said: Before you, | am only
a witness but, turning towards the de-
! fence. before this other tribunal i am,
! perhaps. an accused person"
Colonel Jouaust Not at all; you are not
accused.
NJ. Teyssonieres, continuing: II am an
accused person"
Here the witness picked up a news
paper which he had brought with him,
| and began to read, whereupon Colonel
Jouaust said: you cannot read a news
paper
1T is a newspaper, # is true" re
| piled NJ. TeyssOnieres, but it is also the
report Of NJ. Ballot de Beaurepaire."
Colonel Jouaust: We have no need TO
consider the reports Of the Judge. The
incident is closed
After brief suspension of the session
the court resumed hearing testimony and
NJ. Charavay, the archivist and expert in
ancient manuscripts. was called to the
witness bar. His deposition was so in
sDsns nn that he had to berequested to
CHARAVAY on THE STAND.
'Tn 1894" said M. Charavay, 81, with
two colleagues, though acting under sepa-
! rate instructions, were commissioned to
| examine the bordereau and a number Of
! documents for comparison, unsigned and
in different handwritings l examined.
first, the latter documents, and by the
process OF elimination fixed upon one re-
! sembling the bordereau. i was then fur
! nished with specimens of the handwrit-
ing in question. but was not told the
| name of the writer. i asked If the docu-
ment could be regarded as genuine. and
| was told the place whence 1t emanated,
| which could not be mentioned by me, and
which could leave no doubt in regard 20
| its value.
Now, ] must inform the court that in
view Of the fact that handwriting which
was not produced i'm 1894 and which is
| evidently akin TO the handwriting of the
bordereau and the handwriting of Drey-
I fus. has since been submitted TO me, /
cannot maintain with the same degree of
certainty the conclusions of my former
| report and / can only make one state
ment-namely. that these two handwrit-
ings resemble the bordereau.
Il should however, point out one of the
typical dissimilarities upon which ] laid
stress. between the writing Of the borde-
reau and the documents submitted for
oomparison-namely, that the double 5
IS not found between the bordereau and
the new handwriting. In other words.
the double S of the bordereau is found in
| Esterhazys writing"
After repeating the evidence he gave
| before the Court of Cessation, NJ. Chara-
| way declared IL was the new element,
the handwriting of Esterhazy. which led
him TO declare he did not adhere TO his
| conclusions in 1894
MADE MISTAKE IN 1894.
In conclusion, NJ. Charavay energeti-
| cally protested against General MERCER s
accusations. adding that what convinced
him that he had made q mistake In 1894
was the publication of Esterhazy's letters,
the discovery of the Henry forgery. tine
inquiry Of the Court Of Cessation, and
EsterhaZy's confession.
The conscience of the witness compelled
him to say that In 1894 he was misled by
similarity in handwriting.
1T Is a great relief TO my conscience
NJ Charayay added, ito be able to say
before you and before him VINO Is the
victim of my mistake, that the bordereau
is not the work of Dreyfus, but Of Ester
haZy."
IMMENSE SENSATION.
|
An immense sensation was caused In
court by this statement. Replying TO
Colonel Jouaust, the witness said that
the mere examination OF the bordereau
and the documents presented for COM
Darison were sufficient to convince him
that the bordereau was not written by
| Dreyfus.
The prisoner. on being asked the GUS
tomary questions, requested NJ. Cheravay
to give further particulars as to the rea-
sons which led him to modify his
opinions in regard to the writer OF the
bOrdereau, whereupon the witness en-
tered into lengthy technical detail He
explained how he found unmistakable re-
semblance between the bordereau and
| Esterhazys writing.
FACTS AGAINST. MERCER INFER
ENCES.
M. Pelletier. another expert, prefacod
his evidence by saying he desired 10
| make a definite statement on point upon
| q hich he was In entire disagreement with
| General MERCER. The latter had testi-
| fed that the witness refused TO use GER
| lain documents submitted TO MIN Tor
| conparison. in common with the other
| e1perts. and said he had been led TO re-
gard NJ. Pelletier's work with some suspi-
cion. because of certain incidents IN
which NJ Pelletier. being summoned 70
appear simultaneously In different
courts. had written 10 both, excusing him.
self on the ground of attendance at the
other.
General MERCER declared this made him
suspicious of NJ Pelleter's report in favor
OF Dreyfus. inferring that his failure u