Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-30


called attention to the fact that in his tes-
timony before the court of cessation Prof.
Molinier said change was apparent in
Esterhazy's handwriting after 1894, and
asked that the professors former evidence
be read.
NJ Labor, leading counsel for the de-
Tense inquired If General MERCER inter-
vened with the object of verifying Prof.
Nolinier's evidence. Counsel added that
1t seemed to him General Mercier inter-
veneti less in the character of a witness
than as d reprssen tatiye of the government
commissioner. He, therefore. would be
grateful to the general if he would kindly
explain the bearing Of his remark.
Nercier replied that on this special point
he desired to confirm the evidence of Prof.
Molinier, which. he said. corroborated NJ.
Bertillon's statement that ESterhazy. the
man Of straw. changed his handwriting in
order to renlace DreyfuS.
In conclusion. General MERCER said:
Having emphasized the point in regard
to the change in Esterhazy's handwriting
in 1897. perhaps before. | am satisfied
(CcmmotiouD
Certainly Esterhazy's Work.
Prof CRY. also of the School of An
cient Manuscripts, traversed ground SINH
lar to that covered by Prof. Molinier He
said the bordereau only had superficial
likeness to Dreyfus' handwriting, and as
serted that it was certainly the work OF
Esterhazy.
The witness also said the bordereau was
not written with the aid of keywords-
NJ. Labor asked If the witness had no
ticed a change in Esterhazys cahgraphy,
and Prof. CRY replied that he had studied
the question. but did not think there had
been any marked change
Counsel then asked whether Gen. Mer-
ciar had meant to intimate that Esterhazys
handwriting had become more or less ike
that of Dreyfus since 1921. to which the
general replied that he had not wished to
h11t h,aJ ted
NJ Bertillon had shown that ESterhaZys
handwriting had become more like that OF
the bordereau.
NJ. Labor retorted that in that case Gen.
MERCER should not have repeated the evil
Gence of NJ Grenier before the court of
cessation. as NJ. Grenier showed that rs
terhazys calgraphy had become less and
less like the writing both of the bordereau
and of Dreyfus.
NJ Bertillon at this juncture said he de-
sired 10 speak. but the president OF the
court, Col. Jouaust, hastily rose and said,
amid laughter:
Tine sitting is suspended
Then NJ Bertilon resumed his seat in
high dudgeOn.
NJ Picot Cautioned.
On the resumption of the sitting NJ.
Georges Plcot, member of the institute,
was called FOR the defense. Maitre Demange.
of counsel for the prisoner. explaining that
Picot was summoned because i'll May last
he had an interview w h Il foreign military
attache. in the course Of which mention
was made of the document inserted in the
dcseer by Gen MERCER.
Col JouaUSt recommended the witness to
be cautious in his statements.
After promising to exercise care NJ. Iicot
started with saying that he had an inter-
View with the Austro-HungarIan military
atJache. Col. Jouaust stopped the witness,
saying:
You cannot continue like this
Mai. Carriere. the government commits
sary, also exclaimed sharply
Il PROBES in the name of the government
and the state against the inGiscretion com
mitted by the Witness.
NJ PicOt then recommended his testimony,
saying he mad an interview with "a certain
military attache," and that the CONVERSE
ton turned upon the Dreyfus case. The
attache expressed surprise at the 'incor-
rect attitude OF French officers in doubt
ing the word of the foreign officers
Anxious. to Assert Dreyfus' Innocence
My impression added the witness
was that he was anxious to assert firmly
and unequivocally the absolute innocence
of Dreyfus." (Sensation)
Regarding the bordereau.'' continued M.
PiCot. the attache said only three docu-
ments enumerated, Were referred to. the
fact being that the others were padding.
meant to swell the dossier.' Witness noted
that the attache employed the expression
hydraulic brakes, and never pneumatic
brake" In regard to Esterhazy the at
tache. NJ. Picot said declared that he con-
sidered him a swindier. The attache also
asserted that Esterhazy had relations with
COL Schwartzkoppen. who dismissed him
because ESt"rhazy only brought informa-
ton devoid OF interest.
When 1t Was Written.
1t was then continued NJ. Picot, that Es
terhazy tried TO enter the war office, and
almost succeeded and it then that he
wrote to Col. Schwartzkoppen the letter
since known as the boriereau In reply to
the writer of the bordereau. added NJ.
Picot. Col. Schwart8koppen wrote the tel
egram-cari. known as the petit bleu. but,
reflection. he crumpled il up and threw
it in the fireplace.
At this junCture Gen. Roget asked leave
TO speak. and. stationins himself beside the
witness. said he must strongly protest
against NJ Picot's evidence regarding the
military attaches surprise that French Off
GERS did not believe their foreign col
leagues.
What does the witness think contn-
ued Gen. Roget. of the foreign officer
who, having caused the publication in the
Figaro of an emphatic denial of a state
ment of Gen. MERCER, was afterward
obliged 10 acknowledge the authorship of
document the paternity Of which he at first
dened?''
NJ Picot retorted that he had only re-
peated the statements made to him, and
lie had. therefore. nothing to say in reply
to Gen. RogetS questions.
French Ofhcers' Rights.
NJ Demange, intervening, asked Gen. Ro-
get il he did not think the foreign Offices
mistake was excusable, since the word ere
port had been applied to a document not
possessing the character of the report.
1T is not for me to accuse or excuse"
replied the general. Il confine myself to
pointing out to the court that the CONVEX
sation repeated occurred in May-that is to
say, at the time the investigation of the
court of cessation was already known. For
my part, | only interviewed because French
officers have been arraigned, and when
being accused French officers have the
right to reply" tExcitement)
The general then returned to his seat
and Gen Deloye. director of artillery at
the W.T. office. called to the witness
bar.
Gen. DeiOye's Testimony.
He repeated his explanations given before
the court of cessation as to the various pc
culiarit!es of the artillery. particularly
with reference to the brake of the 100
short guns. The witness said that he con-
sldered that in 1894 it would have been i'm
possible for any officer serving with his
regiment to communicate anything in re-
n he hrnk e