Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-28
therefore, attributed to tissimalation the
differences 1 was careful to note in my re-

differences l was careful to-note IN my re-
port.
Now, I must inform the court that. in
view of the fact that handwriting which
was not produced in 1894, and which is
evidently akin to the handwriting or the
bcrdereau and the handwriting of DreyfuS,
has since been submitted to me, 1 cannot
maintain with the same degree of certainty
the conclusions of my former report and
can only make one statement, namely, that
these two handwritings resemble the bor-
dereau
Il should, however. point out one of the
typical dissimilaHties upon which l laid
stress. between the writing of the border
eau and the documents submitted for COM
parison. namely. that the double 8 is not
found between the bOrdereau and the new
handwriting. In other words, the double
of the bordereau is found In Esterhazy' $
writing"
After repeating the evidence he gave be-
fore the court of cessation, NJ Charavay
declared it was the new element. the hand
writing of Esterhazy, which led him to de-
clare he did not adhere to his conclusions
in 1894.
MisIed in 1894.
In conclusion. NJ. Charavay energetically
protested against Gen. Mercier's accusa-
tions adding that what convinced him that
he had made a mistake in 1894 was the
publication of Esterhazys letters. the dis
covery of the Henry forgery. the inquiry
of the court of cessation and Esterhazy's
confession. Inc conscience or the witness
compelled him to say that in 1894 he was
misled by similarity in handwriting.
1T is great relief to my conscience NJ.
Charavay added Ito be able to say before
mistake, that the bordereau is not the
work of Dreyfus. but of Esterhazy."
An immense sensation was caused in
court by this statement
Replying to Col. Jouaust the witness
said that the more examination of the bor-
dereau and the documents presented for
comparison We're sufficient to convince him
that the bordereau was not written by
Dreyfus.
The prisoner. on being asked the GUS
tomary questions, requested NJ Char"vay
to give further particulars as to the rea-
sons which led him to modify his opinions
in regard to the writer of the borlereau,
whereupon the witness entered into a
lengthy, technical detail. He explained
how he found unrnistakable resemblances
between the bordereau and Esterhazy' S
writing.
M. Pelletier, another expert prefacei his
evidence by saying he desired to make a
definite statement on the point upon which
he was in entire disagreement with Gen.
Mercier. The latter had testified that the
witness refused to use certain documents
submitted to him for comparison in COM
mon with the other experts and said he
had been led to regard NJ. Pelletier's work
with some suspicion because of certain in
cidents in which NJ Peletier being sum-
moned to appear simultaneously in differ
ent courts, had written to both, excusing
himself on the ground of attendance at the
other.
General MERCER declared this made him
suspicious of M Pelletiers report in favor
of Dreyfus, tnferring that his failure to
comply with the summons of the examining
magistrates in November, 1894, was con-
nected with his report, whereas the report
the witness pointed out, was handed in
October %
81 have only to oppose facts to General
pall
ION October - I was intrusted with the
Verification in question. l handed in my
report October %, and it was only in No
EemDer that | summoned to undergo
REORGANIZATION on a complaint lodged
by the military authorities. General Mer-
cier, in short, had not the slightest
sons to suspect the conclusions which |
had reached
After replying to a question or two from
the court. NJ. Pelletier continued:
After settling this personal matter there
remains nothing but to maintain in their
entirety my conclusions to the effect that
there is no likeness between the writing
of the hordereau and that of the prisoner
Continuing, the witness said that after
fresh. superficial examination of the writ
ing of Esterhazy and Dreyfus he expressed
the opinion that the bordereau could only
be ssscribed to Esterhazy.
NJ. Ccuard Called.
NJ Couard, the official archivist and ex
pert in the Esterhazy case in 1897, then
testified that he was instructed by MAJOR
Ravary to eXpertiy examine the bordereau
and specimens Of Esterhazy's handwrit-
ing. The witness insisted upon experiment.
ing with the original bordereau and speci-
mems of ESterhazy's caligraphy, written
by EsterhaZy in the presence of experts
Beyond this, the experts and Esterhazy
had no relations. The latter, therefore,
could not have Influenced him, and the wit
ness protested against NJ. Zola's accusa-
IONS nd 1h..rs 10, ,itziH 8
that the bordereau was not the work of
EsterhaZy. He. the witness, would wager
his head on this. Uaughter.)
NJ Couard said he was convinced the
caligraphy of the bordereau was neither
frank nor natural, and the writer, in his
opinion. probably wished to initiate another
persons handwriting. The letter of Au-
gust %, the witness continued, although
declared genuine by Esterhazy himself
seemed doubtful to NJ. C5uard who added
that he believed EsterhaZy would say any
thing he was wanted to say. Since 1897 the
witness had not believed a word EsterhaZy
had said. and he pointed out there was
nothing to prove Esterhazy would not a
year hence say exactly the opposite of
what he said now.
Replying 10 question, NJ Couard. while
reasserting that the bordereau was not the
work of ESttThaZy. declined to commit him
self in regard to Dreyfus. whose handwrit-
ing he had never been called upon to ex-
anime.
Maitre Demange of counsel for Dreyfus
asked the clerk of the court to read the
ev .dence of NJ Atthalin before the court of
ca saton in regard TO the genuineness of
Els erhazys letter, which NJ Couard
doubted, and the evidence of others show
ing how the letter was seized, and testify
ing to its senuineneSS, which was done
NJ. Varnard who. with NM Couard and
Boihomme, acted as an expert in the Els
terhaZy case, was the next Witness He adj
hered to his report that the bordereau was
not the work of Esterhazy and said he
persisted in this opinion in spite of Ester
may statements to the contrary
Before ad]ourning the court for the day
Col Jouaust announced that NJ de F'reyci-
net, former minister of war; NJ GallifYet
and Col Corder would be examined 10
morrow. ~
The government commissary Mai Car
riere, rose and said
Il have handed the court a letter regard
ing the health of Col. du Patty de Clam n
indicates that Du Patty de Clam is writing
ms evidence and that he will send it to us
Ihat deposition has not arrived | there
iofe ask the president of the court to be
hlhd enough to instruct the reporter of the
second ParlS court-martiai to have the evil
dence OF Du Patty de Clam taken by com
mission
Col Jouaust assented to this and at
How O'Clock the court adjourned for the
day. '--e
DIPHTHERIA INCREASING.
Seventy (AseS i'm nfstr;ct a..