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

fences in the bordereau, and the witness
proceeded to show how Esterhazy could
have supplied the information indicated
in the bordereau.
Replying to further questions, the major
said that while he was connected with the
artillery technical department, he never
saw Dreyfus.
De Loye in Rebuttnl.
Gen. De Loye here advanced again and
remarked that Maj. Hartmann's evidence
did not give him the impression that it
wholly accorded with the real facts. Sen
sation)
Continuing, the general proceeded to re-
flute Maj Hartmann's arguments. lie
asserted Dreyfus could have casually ao-
stracted information from the converse
ton of officers acquainted with the de-
tails of the gun and the brake. The wit
ness did not doubt that if an artillery Of
ficer had been asked for Information by
Drevfus. he would have come forward TO
say so. las it would have been his strict
conscientious duty" (Sensation).
Al The conclusion of his testimony, Maj.
Hartmann asked if the artillery de2art-
nent of the war office had not 'nvesti-
gated the leakage at Bourges and Gen.
De Loye replied:
"There have been many inquiries into
many leakages but the artillery depart
ment has never inquired into them. In re-
gard to Dreyfus il was asked TO do so and
supplied information, but thai is all
Replying to Col. Jouaust, Gen. De Loye
said he had made an inquiry at Bourges
relative to what Dreyfus might have di-
vufged concerning the Robin she'll and
Robin, at that tine, declared Dreyfus had
never asked him for such information.
Somewhat stirred Him Up.
At this stage of the proceedings there
was an animated discussion between Gen.
De Loye and NJ. Labor. who closely ques-
toned the director of artillery.
M. Labor: Can Gen. De Loye soy
ANYTHING in regard to the Importance Of
the documents the traitors, particularly
the writer of the bordereau, may have de-
livered?'
Gen. De Loye speaking with great emo
ton and extending his arm towards coun-
sci for the defense, said:
Don't ask me! Don't ask me! There
is sufficient evidence in the bordereau that
the traitor is a mesterhand-a seigneur.
He knows the Importance of documents
he is delivering. Information has the
value of official documents. 1t is like
notes of the Bank of France. The infor-
nation was accepted as pure gold. When
1 read the bordereau l was shocked. ="
prolonged excitement in court.)
M Labor: How does Gen. De Loye
explain the words in the bordereau some
interesting informatlon| "
Gen. De Loye: Great heavens! Yes It
was interesting information, information
affecting the covering of troops Why, it
was of the grea test possible value"
Counsel asked Maj. Hartmann to give
an opinion on this point, and the major
pointed out that even If the writer of the
bordereau was a master hand and a
"seigneur," he was ignorant of artillery
matters.
MERCER Again On Deck.
Gen. MERCER then reappeared in the
witness box and attempted to refute Maj.
Hartmann's arguments. He accounted for
the use of the expression hydraulic
brake" in the bordereau by the fact that
the Germans used the expression to desig-
nate similar brakes. Therefore, he added,
it was natural that the correspondent of
the Germans should employ the term.
Not the Work of Dreyfus.
Louis Havet, a member of the institute.
and the professor of the College of France,
furnished further expert evidence. He
said the conclusions which he had reach
ed after an examination of the bordereau
from a standpoint of grammar, terminolo-
gy. vocabulary and syntax enabled him
to definitely declare that it was absolute
" impossible for the bordereau to be the
work of Dreyfus, but that ii was GER
tainly the, work OF EsterhaZy, who used
tracing Paper.
The letters exchanged between Gen.
Gonse and Col. Picquart relative to Es-
terhazy were read as already published.
Gen Gouse, in these communications ure-
ed caution, while Picquart replied that
unless he acted quickly they would be
overwhelmed.
NJ. Labor pointed out that during Pic
quarts investigations, while urging eau
ton, Gen. Gonse never mentioned the al
legged confession of Dreyfus.
Gen. Gonse tried to explain this by saw
ing he advised Picquart to separate the
two cases, saying Dreyfus had been con-
victed and they could not reopen the
question of his guilt or innocence, but the
general said he told Pcquart he ought TO
investigate whether there were other trail
tors.
Continuing, Gen. Gonse said: "when n
man intends to publish another's letters
he asks what the writer's meaning was
That Is but fair. But without doing so
Plcquart handed my letters to NJ. Scherer-
Kestner without my knowledge or consent.
These letters have been discussed everv-
where and have been published In a book
which can be found at every booksellers
store, entitled "Gonse-Pilate. Excite
ment)
Gonse VS.. Picquart Again,
Gen. Gonse and Col. Picquart then had
an exchange of words concerning NJ. Ber-
tillon's conclusions.
Col Jouaust: In what form did NJ
Bertillon communicate the result of his
examination?"
Col. Picquart: Verbally, on two occa-
sions. As regards Gen. Gonse's letter 7
handed them to a LAWYER when l under
stood that was the obJect Of abominabIe
intrgues, and when I received from INV
former subordinate, Henry, while in tn
mis-. threatening letter which had been
forwarded with the assent Of Gems. Gonse
and De Bolsdeffre IL this letter was
it."
Col. Picquart remarked that he brought
the secret dossier to Gen Gonse simulta-