Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-09-02
himself with the probability that Drey-
fus WIS innocent

himself with the probability that Drey-
fus was innocent
PGcouART's LETTERS OPENED.
NJ. Labor then took Con. Gonse In
mana on the subject of tampcrng with
~ NJ rloqnafts cprrespondenco, while
he colonel was ln Tunia. Gunse add
united that one letter was opened and
thaf the words o. this letter were used
~ forging the telegram which was In
tended 70 destroy the value o. the petit
bleu The general insisted. however.
that only suspected letters addressed TO
Vol. llcquart were opened. plcquart
replied cmphaticaiiy that all his letters
were opened. Discussing the Zcpranza
letters NJ. Labor said the last letter.
having been preserved and not returned
ny Col Plcquart might be considered
to be forgery.
Col 1ouaust rohukcd NJ. Labor for
raising the discussion aud counsel re-
tortcd warmly that h. intended accord
ing TO article 3ip 81 the code TO say
Whatever he considered proper on a
matter which could bring light. Coun-
sci then questioned Gen. Gunso on the
subject Of the late Lieut.. Col iionfy'H
tofEery and the general replied that he
considered II an unfortunate monouuvcr
directed against Dryfua ana not
nEninst Picqunrt. Henry being dcslroua
To- furnish proof against DrcyfuH. N
M.lNU tH'l. was l,AHl no N.tNf WV
witness added. no the diplomatic dos-
slgr contained sufficient proofs.
NJ. Labor nt once asked what they
wore, but Col. Juunust refused TO put
the question. Counsel thorupon declared
he would draw up formal application
for the reading of these papers.
The next witness. VI. de Fond La
motto. former officer 81 the artillery
testified that lu 1894 Col picqunrt lent
him n firing manual. which he might
have kept as long as he pleased.
3d. the witness added, There was
little secrecy ut that time. Any uill-
Ger could have obtained one In August
1894 Another point IN favor Of ORGY
fus n that no probntloucr could have
believed IN 1895 that he would 40 TO
the manocuvcra."
CIRCULAR OF MAY ~. 1894.
The clerk read a circular dated May
10, 1894. announcing that the probation
ere would not 20 TO the mnnoeuvcrs.
NJ de Fond Lumottc declared that n
the prosecution would follow up the
pieces Of evidence they would be Oh.
eolutcly convinced that DroyfuH ala not
write the bordDrcnu.
This witness proved one Of tho stron-
cot witnesses FOR the defense, ns he
brought out many points In support ot
his contention that brUyfuu could not
have written the bordcrcau.
N, us AZ irst asserted. the bordercau
was dated May" tho witness argued.
'ureyfus could not have written I am
going 60 the manoeuycra' because cir
culnr was Issued IN May Informing the
prohatlonerB that they would not 40 to
the mauoeuvcrs,
while n the bordoroau was dated In
April. us now asserted, Drcyfus could
not have spoken OF the nrlnR manual,
which was only printed az the end Of
May"
Not one OF the generals today found q
reply to tho last argument, which
luukel like cllnchor. Gen. de ioia-
drnre alone declaring that although 70
was true that the circular mentioned
was Hent To the prpbutlOnCra, they know
that they could nevertheless 10 tu the
manocnvcrs n they made special appli-
cation"
Gems. Mcrricr and Roget went on the
stage and confronted ~ de Fond La
motto and % heated discussion cnHued.
Gen. Roget asked when the witness
had altered his conviction IN favor OF
Drcyfus. ana NJ. De Fond Lnmotto re-
piled; AT the time | was before the
court of cessation / expected proof OF
my comrades quilt. and was thunder
struck when I found tho date OF the
horlerenu had been changed
ROGET GREATLY EXCITED.
Gen. ROGET was greatly excited during
the foregoing scene. but NJ de Fond
Lamotte did not finch. iio retorted
quickly % al the generals observa-
lions. Tho two men glnrci nt each
other, and once Gen. Roget addressed
". de Fond Lamottc In such a bullying
fashion that the audience hooted him.
The prisoner rose 10 reply TO Gen. de
llulHdofrn'H argument Ho declared he
had never asked for permission TO 40 to
the manoouvcrH, and recalled that when
Col. Du Patty De Clam fixed the date 81
the hDrdcrcau In August ho DrcyfuD
pointed out that h. could not have writ
ten the phrase 4 am going to the ma
nu.uycra.'"
Gen. Roget here interposed that re-
quests 20 10 the mnnOouvcrs were uHu-
ally made verbally so Il could not be-
proved whether Drcyfus had or had not
asked 10 40. Tho general. however. adj
mitted that no Inquiry had ever been
made on this important point
Court then adjourned Tor the day.