The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1899-08-17
In 1904 they possessed proof OF Drey-

In 1894 they possessed proof OF Drey-
fuss guilt.
Much confusion will also be avoided
II 1t be kept in mind that the issue
relegated by the Court OF Cessation to
the Rennes Court martial for trial Is
narrowed down to the single question
whether or not Capt. Dreyfus communi
Gated to q foreign power tho precise
documents enumerated In the border.
eau. 1t will be recollected that the
bOrdcreau is the memorandum without
date or signature written on very pc.
cullar water marked tissue paper,
which upon the evidence OF the late
Col. Henry, tho forger, was discovered
In slips in the waste paper basket OF
Col. Won Schwartzkoppen, then mill
tary attacne at tho German embassy
in Paris. and, after beiug put tog ether
| by Col. Henry, formed the basis of tho
original charges against Capt. ORGY.
lus. There Ia nothing in the border
eau to show that Capt. Dreyfus had
been following reasonable practices,
or to connect him in any manner with
| it, beyond au alleged similarity be.
tween the handwriting Of Dreyfus and
that OF tho author OF the bordoreau.
The Court OF Cessation has decided
that the bordcrcau WAS written bv
E5torhazy, and not by Dreyfus.
The Court OF Cessation has already
passed judgment upon all tho other
evidence adducod against Dreyfus 10
1874, including the confession OF guilt
| falsely alleged to have been made by
Dreyfus In January, 1895, to Capt.
Lebrun. l%enaud and to Sergt. Depert,
as woll ns / Q famous secret dosier,
with its forgeries and criminully mani
pulatcd documents. All that is legally
left standing after tho elimination by
the Court Of Cassation OF tho irregular.
| tiles that vitlated the conviction OF
| 1904 10 the bordereau, which tho Court
OF Cessation on June ), declared was
not written by Dreytus. The functions
OF tho Rcnncs Cuurt-martial are now
| limited to hearing evidence and dc.
Gliding upon the subject OF tho alleged
communication by Capt. Dreyfus to a
| foreign power OF the documents onu-
meratcd in the borderenu, now known
to have been written by Estorhnzy, as
he himself has confessed. 1t should
| be remembered that Droyius was un.
acquainted with E.terhazy whom tho
| bordercau was written, and it may be
safe to predict that 1t will be practi-
cally impossible for the prosecution to
prove at the forthcoming trial at
ltenncs that Capt Drcfus handed over
TO Al or,ign power tho documents In
| question.
Much will doubtless be heard of
these documents at the Renncs trial
and 1T may bo worth while to mention
them. TEey are five In number.
First. A description OF the hydruuli,
brake OF tho field gun known In tn,
French service as the I" 120 court" ant
notes upon the construction Of its car
ringe. The "l20 court" !s I'll 6 hoavicp
gun used by the French field artillery
Its gun carriage Is ingenousy con
trivcd, SO as to travel over ploughct
fields and across country" The pro
jcctilcs were formerly loaded with
mclinitc, but dynamite is now used fol
this purpose, and recent experiments
made near Mcntone with dynamite
shells fired from tho )" l20 court" guns
are said to have pulvcriZed several
thousand cubic metres OF solid rock.
Second. A memorandum concerning
the trOupes dc couverture,n (troopt
in case Of mobilization to be thrown
toward the frontier 80 as to cover the
actual mobilization,) with notifications
according to the latest plan.
Third. A note describing the change,
adopted in the artillery formation
CIhis refers to the distribution OF bat
tCries st She commencement OF mOblli
| HhVloh oiioLS, viz VI WIG aFll
corps)
Fourth. A paper on the Madagascar
= campaign.
: Fifth. A draft OF tho manual OF tiel,
# artillery fire, dated March IA, 1894.
Il In the report OF President Ballot
o I}cauprc, tho conclusions OF whic
IS wore adopted by the Court OF Casst
If tion, portion OF the record OF tn
Il Courtmartial OF 1894 10 cited, fro,
G which 1t appears that on November 2
d 1894, Commandant d'Ormeschville (ti
y officer who framed the Indictment upC
l. which Dreyfus was cOnvicted) shove
/, Drey fus resolutely denied ever havir
J. seen the document before, and O.
o planned la detail why 1t was material
, Impossible that he could have write
r IT. When questioned about each
> the five documents enumerated In tn
borderoau the answers OF Dreyfus wer
as follows: Q Never at any PORTO
: OF my career have had In my posses
, sion any document relating to tn
hydraulic brake or tho carriage OF tn
, l2O. Tho last time that saw tho IL
gun was while | was At the Ecole d
r Guerre; | saw 1t on repos have neve
t scen the piece fred" (2) "Since Jan
t uary i, i8ol, until July Of the sam
Y year, was employed at the secont
. bureau. During that ontire time
n never had any work to do In relatio
e to tho couvorturo.' | have mover ha
t I'm my possession any document upol
G this question. 1t was not until July c
n the same year that | entered tho thlr
It bureau, and 1T was not until Septembe
8 that | wuB' charged with tho work G
l experimenting tho classification OF de-
r cuments relating TO tho cOuverture.'
q (3l (In regard to tho note relating t
, Il modification In tho artillery forms
. tlon.) "ln the month OF Juno I onl
, knew but one thing In this connecttC! !
r and that WAS tho suppression OF tw
: regiments OF artillery pontooners an
tho creation OF twenty eight now ba
n tories AS to tho campaign formation
z OF the artil lcry was ignorant OF thor