Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1899-09-14
DEMANGE's ADDRESS.


-
DEMANGE'S ADDRESS.
Closing Appeal of the Counsel for
Drcyfus.
Renncs, Sept On. Demange began
his address by saying:
when yesterdays sitting ended
was about to deal with what l called
indirect evidence, namely, the technical
value of the bordereau. The prosecu-
ton, by taking separately each OF the
notes containing information supplied
by the writer of the bordereau de-
duced the opinion that Dreyfus alone
could have communicated the informa
ton i'm the documents. If he had at his
disposal proof of this he should have
given it. 1t devolves upon the public
prosecutor to proVe that Drcyfus pos
sessed this information, and nobody
but he. That is how the question must
be put. We are before court of JUS
tlce, where suggestions have no place.
In order to produce proof l must ask,
and we must know, what was the in
formation supplied. Consequently we
must have the notes delivered; other
wise we have to deal With a hypothesis.
THAT is my first objection, to which
challenge the public prosecutor to
reply
Counsel, rcmarking that the hypothe-
sis accepted in 1894 could not now be
maintained, proceeded infinitely to eN-
anime the theories of the headquarters
staff, especially Roget's, whose argu-
ments he refuted seriatiln. lie sim
| ilally analysed the evidence of MERCER,
reiterating the argument as to the ut
ter improbability of an artilleryman
employing the incorrect terms used in
the bordereau in'conmcction with artil-
lery matters.
Counsel then reviewed the we'll
known facts i'm the case, showing that
schwartzkoppen, German military at
tache at Paris, had supplied informa-
ton to his government years before re-
garding the "l2o short" field gun. lie
said that only the internal construc-
ton of the brake of this gun remained
secret, but Dreyfus knew nothing
about it and never asked for informa-
ton ON the subject from the few Off
! GERS knowing it. Therefore, counsel
commended, Dreyfus could not have be-
trayed this secret. Regarding The
practical tests of the gun, Demange
continued, Dreyfus was similarly ig-
norant. Mercier's statement that Drey-
fus attended the trials could be dis
missed, as it had been proved the only
leakage resulting from those trials had
been furnished by the spy Grenier. 1t
was thus apparent into what error all
the witnesses supporting the prosecu-
ton had fallen. Their opinions had
been most imperfectly formed and the
| Judges must be on Their guard against
them, honest and sincere as they
doubtless were.
Generals Change of Front.
Counsel rcfuted the imputations
against Dreyfus, based on the firing
manual, which he said were purely hy-
pothetical. After showing the prison
Ell mad never seen the "l20 short field
gun fired, counsel read letters from
Esterhazy proving the latter attended
the Citations camp and probably wit
messed the trials. But the prosecu-
tlon, added Demange. had not to
choose between Drcyfus and Ester
hazy. 1t had only IT, Prove Dreyfus,
guilty, and could not DO so. On the
contrary, we have shown Dreyrus did
not possess the documents commune
Gated nor the information contained
in them"
Dealing with the note referring to
the covering of troops, Demangc point
ed out Mercicr's change of front on the
SUBJECT. In 1894 the general commended
it was with reference to the commands
OF these troops that the leakage oc-
Cured. while he now asserted it was
regarding the mobilization and trans
port OF troops. The prosecution had
i thus advanced two versions, which
must cause the Judges terrible search
ings of conscience. and especially as
10 proofs had been furnished. What
right had the prosecution to advance
statements without corroboration?
Reverting to the firing manual coun-
sci showed how Esterhazy,lad secured
copy of it. and pointed to- the fact
that his government had asked
acknowledgment for supplementary
information, which showed the orig
inal intelligence was incomplete and
supplied by an incompetent person,
which must therefore have been of
fered, and for graduation bar, which
Esterhazy had obtained from friend,
Had all these proofe existed against
Dreyfus, how strong would have been
/ the case for the prosecution. But their
hypothesis was not even probable,
while the theories of the defense were
all supported by documents culled
from the secret dossier.
| Dealing with the last line Of the hor,
| dereau, u am going to maneuyers,"
counsel produced a note written by
Dreyfus, proving he knew in May, 1924,
he would not attend manenyeTs. But
Esterhuzy's regiment WAS ut the ma.
rel,ycrs regarding which information
Nas slippliatb ne euntiiNesli
"Was EsseFbhSy therep ] tic ubf
know, But what Il certain u tint
| Ryeyfu1,s3t IN WAft tn NWtbNr N ~