The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-08-17

To this the witness replied;
mo. He did not say that BE said:
you know very wen in whose interests
/ acted meaning that he acted In the
interests Of the country. he used to
say to me: For thirty-threo years I
have never acted except In the inter-
est Of my country"
Madame Henry then remarked:
you know his sentiments. gentle
men. He committed forgery on account
OF Colonel PicquaFt's proceedings, and
1t was in order to save the army. COM
promised by the dishonesty Of It's fell
lows" profound senSatlon.)
"Did you ever hear" Colonel Jouaust
asked the witness. "of a letter Colonel
Henry Is said to have addressed to
Major Esterhazy7"
Never" replied Madame Henry.
on leaving the witness box Madame
Henry looked sternly at the prisoner.
General Roget followed. He tray
ersed the old ground, giving his rea-
sons for his conviction Of the guilt OF
Dreyfps. He declared there was no
charge against EsterhaSy, with the ex-
ception Of the resemblance Of his hand
writing to the bOrdereau. Moreover,
the witness added, there had been a
new fact since the Judgment Of the
court Of cessation. namely. ESterhazy's
confession that he wrote the bordereau.
But, he added, EsteFhazy advanced and
withdrew his confession Internationally.
II Esterhazy had rendered services to
the intelligence department there
would have been traces OF them in the
cash book. But no money had been
paid Esterhazy, though even surprising
he worked out OF pure beneVolence, he
would have been paid. Yet, there was
no trace of such payments. Esterhazy
had said he wrote the bordereau under
orders Of Colonel sandherr.
But" declared General Roget, II
who know Colonel sandherr well de-
clare that is false. Colonel sandherr
was absolutely incapable Of such an
order. I add that It is inadmlssable
because Colonel sandherr was the last
person to know Of the existence OF
the bordereau, which was received in
the ordinary way. This bordereau
was handed to Colonel Henry and was
brought by him to the intelligence de-
partment. 1t was shown to others by
Colonel Henry after he had pIeced it
together. Colonel sandherr only saw
It later.
"Esterhazy has also said the dOcu-
ment from an embassy and brought By
q porter. 1t is false to say the In
tellIgence department ever had any
relations with porter Of that en-
bassy. 1t is said Major Esterhazy Is
preparing some surprises for US be-
tween now and the end Of the trial.
They won't disturb me any more than
other surprises"
Referring to the question of the com
plIcity of Henry and Esterhazy, the
witness said:
"If Henry had been the accomplice OF
Esterhazy, how can 1t be admitted that
he himself brought the bOrdereau,
which might have caused him to be
suspected, to the intelligence depart
ment?"
General Roget. while testifying, con-
stantly turned towards the prisoner to
see the Impression made by his deposit
ton. which was virtually a speech for
the prosecution.
The general dIscoursed on the fam
Gus scene with Colonel Henry In the
ONCE Of M.Bertulus. the examining
magistrate, and said M. Bertulus asked
Henry to inform the witness that he,
N. Bertulus, was friend Of the army,
and begged the witness to call and see
him, when he would communicate the
result of his Investigations into the
blanche" and "spernnza" forgerles.
"In reply" said General Roget ~
said: when you see N. Bertulus you
viii thank him In my behalf. Tell
him investigation does net interest me
in any way.
81 added that I was rather dIstrusttnl
Of this proposal. which pointed out
was perhaps a trap"
The general added that N. cavaig-
mac (then minister Of war; approved Of
his course towards NJ. Bertulus.
The general next dealt on the seizure
Of papers at the house OF Madame Pay
son, on which N. Bertulus largely
founded his conviction of the guilt Of
Henry, owing to the mention In them
OF the name OF a spy Richard" at
Cuers and Barle. where 1t was well
known spies were In the habit Of meet
ing.
Then the general tried to refuta N.
Bsrtulus' statements declaring Henry
brought three of those documents to
the war office, and that they did not
contain the mention Of Barrie or Cuers,
as stated by NJ. Bertulus.
The latter. however, has already
shown before the whole court Of cassa-
ton that, while he was mistaken in
saying the words appeared in these
documents, they did not appear In
those documents, they did not appear
In other papers seized ut Madame Pay
sons residence.
General Roget, who was becoming
more and more excited frequently
wiped the Precipitation from his brow,
and molstened his lips with water.