New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-09-03
MADAME HENRY.

against Dreyfus and not against Pcquart
Henry desiring to furnish fresh proof against
Dreyfus. Of which there was really no need. the
witness added as the diplomatic dosser con-
tanned sufficient proofs
NJ. Labor at once asked what they were but
Colonel Jouaust refused 20 put the question.
Counsel thereupon declared that he would draw
up a formal application for the reading Of these
papers
FIRING MANUAL EASILY OBTAINED.
The next witness. NJ De Fond Lamotte. an ex-
officer Of the artillery. testified that I'm 1891
Colonel Picquart lent him A firing manual.
which he might have kept as long as he pleased.
"So" the witness added. there was little So
crecy at that time. Any officer could have OBJ
tanned one In August. 1891. Another point in
favor Of Dreyfus IS that no probatoner could
have believed IN 1894 that he would 20 to the
rnanpuvres"
The clerk Of tho court read circular dated
May II. 1894. announcing that the proba tloners
would not 20 10 the manUuvres.
NJ De Fond Lamotte declared that n the
prosecution would follow up the pieces Of evil
dence they would he absolutely convinced that
Dreyfus did not write the hordereau. This wit
ness who was a fellow probationer ~ Dreyfus
proved one Of the strongest witnesses for the
defence as he brought out I'm support Of his
contention that Droyfs could not have written
the bordereau tho following argument.
If as Al first asserted the bordereau was
dated May Dreyfus could not have written I
am going IN the manpuvres because Il circular
was issued IN May informing the probationers
that they would not 60 70 the manpuvres.
WI n the bordercau was dated IN April. as
now asserted. Drcyfus could not have spoken
Of the firing manual which was only printed
At the end Of May
Not one of the Generals to-day found = reply
70 the last argument General De Boisde1re
alone declared that although r. was true the
/ circular mentioned vas sent to The probation
ers they knew that they could. nevertheless. go
/ 10 the rnanouvres if they made special app'ica-
tion
Generals MERCER and get then went ON the
stage and confronted ne Fond Lamotte.
and heated discussion ensued. General Roget
asked when the witness had altered his con-
,iction in favor Of Dreyfus. and NJ De Fond
La,rotte replied AT the time was before the
Court Of Cessation expected proof ot my com
rade's guilt and / was thunders'ruok when !
found the date ~ the hordereau had been
changed
The prisoner then rose TO reply 70 General -"
poisdefre'e argument IL declared. he had
never asked permission 10 20 70 The manfuFres.
and recalled that when Colonel On Patty de
+ clam ayed the date ~ the horderean In August
he Dreyfus pointed ont that he coui0 nor
have written the phrase - am going 10 the
/ r-anoeuvres
General Roget here interpolated that requests
90 90 10 the manpuvres were. usually mad"
,.,r,slv so IT could not he proved whether
r.r.,fps had asked or had not asked TO go 10
49,. ,oaroeuvres The General. however. ad-
nitted that no inquiry had ever been maze on
.....or,,ot roint The court then Adjourned
for The day
[..,..,.i 2og.t vas greatly excited during the
<.,..,,., ecsne h,r # pe Fond Lamotte did
a, e,,ch He retorted quickly 10 all the Gen
.,.a ,.t.o,,ations The two men elared At one
,,har and once General Roget addressed N.