The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-09-02
witness at the time attended the ses-

sions.'
Major carriere sat down, checkmated.
The letters exchanged between Colonel
Plcquart and General Gonse, at the time
ti.e Co.onel wanted thorough ifivestiga-
NJ Labori pointed out TO General Gonse
that these letters never alluded to the
alleged confession Of Dreyfus
General G0nSe replied that 1t was be-
cause he always advised Colonel Picquart
not to mix up the Esterhazy and Dreyfus
cases. Dreyfus, he added, had been con-
denlned ana his case could not re reopened
but they were bound to see il there was
not another traitor.
The General then made a bitter COM
plafnt al the fact that his letters had
been communicated to M. Scheurer-K -Kest-
ner, former Vice President of the SEN
ate who published them in a book en-
Replying to M Labori General Gonse
insisted that Dreyfus having been CON
demned it was not his duty to go back to
A scene between General Gonse and Col
onel Picquart followed. The latter being
called said he gave General Gonse's LETT
he was the object of abominable intrI-
gues, and when he received in Tunis a
letter Of threats from the late Lieutenant
Colonel Henry, sent with the assent of
Generals Gonse and de Boideffre- Colonel
Discussing the .sSpefanza' letters nj.
sible for the subsequent publication of the
In reply. General Gonse said he had not
given his assent to Henry's letter and
that Colonel P.cquart perceived machina-
ton against him everywhere
Picquart then declared that at the same
time he took the bordereau to General
Gonse he showed hm the secret dossier.
Therefore, he claimed, General Gonse
could easily have acquainted himself with
the probability that Dreyfus Was inno-
cent
M Labori then took General Gonse in
af "a mo yVi
Colonel Picquart's correspondence. while
the Colonel was in Tunis and Gonse adj
that the words of this letter were used
in forging the telegram which was intend-
ed to destroy the value of petit bleu The
General insisted. however, that only sus-
pecfed letters addressed to Colonel Pic
quart We're opened.
Picquart replied emphatically that all
his letters were opened.
Discussing the 'Sepranza" letters, M.
Labori said the last letter having been
preserved and not returned by Colonel
Picquart might be considered to be a forg-
cry
Colonel Jouaust rebuked NJ. Labori for
raising the discussion and counsel retort-
ed warmly that he intended, according to
Article 3l9 of the Code to say whatever
he considered proper on q matter which
could bring light.
f. Counsel then questioned General Gonse
on the subject Of the late Lieutenant
Colonel Henry's forgery and the General
replied that he considered it an unfortu-
nate manoeuvre directed against Dreyfus
and not against Picquart, Henry desiring
which there was really no need, the wit
ness added, as the diplomatic dosser con-
tanned sufficient proofs.
NJ. Iabori at once asked what they were
but Colonel Jouaust refused to put the
question. Counsel thereupon declared he
would draw up a formal application for
the reading OF these papers.
The next witness, Nj. de Fond-Lamothe,
a former officer of artillery, testified that
In 1884 Colonel Picquart lent him a Fir
ing Manual, which he might have kept as
so" the witness added there was lit
tie secrecy at that time. Any officer
could have obtained one in August, 1894
Another point in favor Of Dreyfus Is that
no probationer could have believed in
1884 that he would go to the manoeuvres. "
The clerk of the court read a circular
dated May Is, 1884, announcing that the
probationers would not go TO the man
oeEvres-
NJ de Fond-Lamothe concluded with
declaring that If the prosecution would
would be absolutely convinced that Drey-
fus did not write the bordereau.
This witness, who is fellow proba-
tioner of Dreyfus, proved one of the
strongest witnesses for the defence. as
he brought out in support of his c0nten-
ton that Dfeyfus could not have written
the bordereau the following argument:
If. as at first asserted, the bordereau
was dated May Dreyfus could not have
written am going to the manoeuvres,
because a circular was issued in May i'm
forming the probationers that they would
not go to the manoeuvres, while, if the
hordereau was dated in April as now
. asserted, Dreyfus could not have spoken
of the firing manual. which was only
printed at the end Of May
Not one of the Generals, today. found
a reply to the last argument. which look
ed like a clincher, General de Boisdeffre
alone declaring that although 1t was true
the circular mentioned was sent to the
probationers the lack of news that they
could, nevertheless, go to the manoeuvres
If they made special application.
Generals MERCER and Roget then went
on the stage and confronted NJ. de Fond
Lamothe and a heated discussion ensued.
General Roget asked when the witness
had altered his conviction in favor of
Dreyfus and M de Fond-Lamothe replied.
"At the time was before the Court of
Cessation I expected proof of my COM
rade,s guilt and / was. thunderstruck
when found the date Of the bordereau
had been changed"
The prisoner then rose to reply to Cen
eral de Boisdeffre's argument. He de-
clared he had never asked for permission
to go to the manoeuvres and recalled that
Colonel du Patty de Clam fixed the date
of the bordereau in August, he Dreyfus.
pointed out that he could not have writ
ten the phrase, Il am going to the man
General Roget here interpelated that re-
quests to so to the manouevTes were
usually made verbally so it could not be
proved whether Dreyfus had asked or
had ont asked to go to the manoeuvres.
The General however, admitted that no
inquiry had ever been made on this inn
portant point
The court then adjourned for the day
General Roget was greatly excited our
ing the foregoing scene, but NJ de Fond
Lamotte did not finch. He retorted quick
ly to all the Generals observations. The
two men glared at one another and once.
General Roget addressed M. de Fond La
motto in such a bullying fashion that
the audience hooted him.
The following are the proceedings in de-
tail-
When the Dreyfus court martial reas-
sembled this morning Major Hartman OF
the Artillery whose deposition was IN
terrupfed yesterday by the adjournment
Of the court, ascended the witness stand,
and completed his testimony referring TO
his examination of the paragraphs of the
bordereau relating to notifications IN ar
tillery formations He pointed out tndt
much depended upon whether the word
formations referred to formations IN
time or war or in time Of peace. In the
fordmer case he added, only an officer
belonging to the First Bureau OF the
Hcaddllarters staff could have obtained
the Information prior TO july 4. 1854. ex-
cent through steps which would immedi-
atelv have led 10 his detection. After
.Tulv 4 1884 when the decree was issued
making effective the new notifications in
the Artillery ii was matter OF common
knowledge If the formations occurred re-
fererd 10 were merely manoeuyres, only
an office attending the mailoeuvres OF the
Third Brigade, at Ghalons Camp eouid
officer Of the headquarters stan could pe
kzN47