The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-30
A Strange Trial.

1T is possible that the accounts of
the Dreyfus trial that are trans
mitted to this country are mora or
less biased in favor of the prisoners
it is natural, perhaps, that it should
be so. Whether guilty or inn 1ca it, it
is fact confessed that he was con-
victed upon perjured and fabricated
testimony, a course wholly with ut ex-
tenuation or excuse. When convic-
tions can be had upon the basis of
such testimony no man can be safe,
for it is as easy to swear falsely and
manufacture proofs in one case as in
another.
The outrage upon Dreyfus was so
glaring that it has led to an intensely
and the public looks with suspicion
or contempt, or both. upon everything
that the prosecution has to offer in
support of the charge. But, aside
from the grave wrongs involved in the
former trial, the conduct of the pres
ent one is not of character to inspire
confidence in the prosecution.
To one even casually acquainted with
court proceedings in this country this
proceeding at Rennes does not seem
like a trial at all. Here a man charged
with crime is presumed to be inno-
cent until his guilt is proven beyond
a reasonable doubt; and the proof
must consist of facts within the knowl-
edge of the witnesses. The opinions of
witnesses upon the direct question of
a prisoners guilt are utterly inadms-
sible. and justly so, for opinions are
frequently the result of bias or pref
udice, and even if absolutely false there
is no way of proving it, for the witness
giving the false opinion could always
defend himself upon the ground that
he was honestly mistaken.
The admission of mere opinions or
beliefs, except from experts upon sci
entfic questions. is one of the worst
abuses that could be allowed in any
court. whether civil or military. Moth
ing could more conclusively demon
strate the soundness of this view than
the proceedings in the now world-fa-
mouse hearing-we will not call it
trial-at Rennes. Officers of the high
est rank both military and civil, go
before the tribunal there in session,
and instead of making plain unvar-
nished statements of facts they pas
sionately proclaim their belief that the
prisoner is guilty, and that his ac-
quittal will be a stain upon the honor
of the army.
Such pleas are not testimony at all.
They are simply arguments of much
value or little, according to the basis
upon which they rest. But they are
well calculated to carry tremendous
weight with the judges, who must have
great strength, indeed. to discredt such
men, and at the same time render a
judgment that it is so earnestly con-
tended would dishonor the army
Suppose in the state of Montana a
member of the militia had been con-
victed of crime, confessedly upon the
false and perjured testimony of militia
officers high in rank, and a new trial
was being had. Suppose, further that
at such new trial several state Off
GERS. together with the leading MEM
bers of the military staff, were to APP
pear before the court and either ignor-
ant of or Indifferent to the real facts
should give it as their opinion that the
prisoner was guilty, and declare on
their solemn oaths that a failure to
sustain the former conviction would
dishonor the national guard. What
would the average American think of
such a trial? The question needs no
answer for the performance in this