Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-11
AFRAID OF BEAuREPAIRE
Counsel for Drsyfus Wary of Evidence FL
Has Found.
Gen. Mercier Also Engaged In Col.
lectfng Evidence Against the
Accused Officer.

A special cable dispatch to the Philadel-
phia Press from Rennes, France, yesterday
says: The new evidence which will be
given against Dreyfus in the trial is the
result of the Industrious labors of MERCER
and De Beaurepaire.
From MERCER, such industry was to be
expected. If Dreyfus be acquitted MERCER
will be ruined financially and officially II he
escapes prosecution. But with De Beaure-
paire the case is different. Nothing in this
whole affair is more thoroughly French,
more truly extraordinary than to see an ex-
judge of the highest court In the land turn
himself into a malicious INSCRIPTIONS po-
lice court lawyer.
He resigned his place on the bench in a
fit of Mysteries, but as Mysteries are the
basis of the French system of judicial pre-
cedure, this act seemed perfectly natural in
the popular eye. Imagine, however, an eX-
judge of the Supreme Court at Washington
going about with his hat cooked jauntily
on one side, his clean-shaven, weakened lit
tie face sparkling with malice, his sarcastic,
Voitairean tongue splitting out ''vous YER
rez. vouS verrez, vous verrez, and you
will have the very actual prosecuting attor-
ney in the Dreyfus case.
MERCER has found four more officers,
Lieutenant Colonel Guerin, Controeur
Peyrolles Captain Antoine and Command
Dreyfus say, or were told that he had
said, or have every reason to believe upon
their honor as French officers tuat he was
about to say that he was guilty.
Labori Laughs in Derision.
1 asked Labori this evening who will
cross-examine these gentlemen. At the
mention of them he shrugged his shoulders
and laughed. But he did not laugh at ue
BeaureDaires witnesses. Their testimony
would amoUnt to nothing whatever in an
American or English court. But here it is
different The cloven foot of army inf1u-
ence has already shown itself unmiStaka-
bly, in this trial and if Beaureoaire's two
important witnesses hold firmly to their
stories they may suffice to turn the scale.
have seen them both and they are both
obstinate and determined in their state
ments. They are De Muller and ViIor.
De Muller Is a sharp lawyer. He will
swear that while in the German emperor's
palace at Potsdam on the day of the arrest
of Dreyfus he saw on the table of the bed
hours before memorandum from the Ger
man war office on which was written in
German: "Dreyfus is arrested"
This, of course, is no direct evidence but
it looks strange that the German war Of
fice before Dreyfus was known to fame,
should take such particular care to inform
the emperor of his arrest
In opposition to this evidence Labori will
offer statement of SchTarzkoppen on his
honor as a gentleman, that he never had
any dealings whatever, Of any kind, with
Dreyfus, but had dealings with Esterhazy
Labor will also offer the statement of
Richard Cuers, chief spy in the German
secret service, that Dreyfus was unknown
TO him; that when preyfus was arrested
he telegraphed all over Europe to find who
Dreyfus was working for and concluded it
must be Belgium. Cuers also said at the
same time that the only French officer
who was then feeding Germany was Henry
and he was not much good.
villon's Testimony.
The other witness is Vilon, a typical
heavy-built French manufacturer of fifty
five, who halls from Lyons. He will swear
that in 1904, six months before the arrest
of Dreyfus, he was taking supper at the
Central Hotel in Berlin. when two Ger
man officers a general and colonel, came
and took seats at the table next to his
He heard them discussing some news
which had just been received from Drey-
fus. They spoke French, but used the
name of Dreyfus 50 often in connection
with their information that it attracted
his eager attention and fixed the whole
dialogue in his memory.
Immediately upon his return to France
he told several friends and not at
all surprised when, several months after
Dreyfus was arrested. OF course, this
sort of stuff is absurd, considering that
Dreyfus was convicted upon the Dor
dereau, now known to have been copied
by EsterhaZy and the secret dossier whose
only vital particulars are now known to
have been forged by Henry. There Is now
no evidence whatever against Dreyfus, ex-
cept that of gossip, while there is full evil
dence In the war office that Esterhazy had
received 203,0G0 francs for reasonable in
formation when he and Henry, to escape
discovery by Sandherr, who was close on
the trail, threw the blame on Dreyfus.
Tried on Old Charges.
Nevertheless, Labor tells me that he will
be tried absolutely from the beginning, as
if nothing had been found out since -
For instance, last Monday, Jouaust brutal
ly questioned Dreyfus concerning his gam
bling losses, as originally alleged in the
original act of accusation Jouaust ignored
entirely the police report which forms part
of the report of the court of cessation, the
police saying there Is no truth whatever in
the allegation that Dreyfus lost heavily at
baccarat in the Press and Washington
Clubs. But three or four other men named
Dreyfus played at these two clubs and one
OF them, Max, was the actual hero of the
charge made against accused.
The rule of ignoring all the evidence
which has cleared Dreyfus which has been
adopted by the court is a military tech
nicaity which is used as ever against the
prisoner. In view of the various points in
Dreyfus favor established in the court of
cessation and elsewhere il is in the power
of Jouaust and his fellow judges to accent
these as maj and greatly to abridge the in
curry. But this trio of Bretons in red and
black uniforms, true to their historical OBJ
stinacy, are going into the case for them
selves, as II they aione had discovered and
unearthed the traitor of the bordereau.