The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-06
CHANCE FOR THE EMPEROR



also received letters from Major Ester
hazy which he had never read
NJ. Labori-Does General Roget con-
slider the confessions of Esterhazy
valid?
General Roget-No; all versions given
by Esterhazy are quite incorrect. He
is an impostor. concerning whom /
prefer to express no opinion
M. Labori-How do you explain the
fact that Esterhazy made no confess
sion during the lola trial?
General Roget do not know
NJ. Labori-You had made a speech
for the prosecution rather than a de-
position. I have, therefore, the right to
question and note the fact that you do
not reply.
M. Labor then expressed surprise
that there was no mention of a man Of
straw until so late day, while all the
acts of which Esterhazy is accused
were long known.
At the request of NJ Labor the re-
port of the court of inquiry which de-
cided whether or not Esterhazy should
be considered was read.
When the reading of the report was
concluded, NJ. Labori vainly tried to
question General Billot concerning the
document Literature" which secured
Esterhazy's acquittal Colonel Jousaust
declaring he would not permit General
Billot to be re-examined.
Roget's Failure.
General Roget next attempted. but
without success, to refute the evidence
given on Saturday by NJ. Des Fond
Lamotte relative to the sentence, Il am
going to the maneuvers," saying the
circular issued may have been indefin-
lite.
NJ. Dehes, a correspondent of the
Temps, deposed that Major Esterhazy
told him in London that he CEsterhazy)
was the writer of the bordereau.
Senator Trarieux, eX-minister of JUS
tice. was the next witness. He pre-
faced his evidence by saying that he
wished to throw full light upon his
right in this case
When Dreyfus was convicted the wit
ness said he was convinced, like every
body else, of the prisoners guilt, but
violent diatribes on the fact that Drey-
fus was a Jew awakened his suspicion.
He, therefore, consulted NJ. Hanotaux
date prime minister) who later inform
ed the witness of the existence of the
"Cette canaille de D." document,
though M. Hanotaux failed to inform
him that it had been impaired to the
judges of the first court-martial I'M
known to the prisoner This fact, the
witness learned later.
Senator Trarieux, whose statement
was practically a speech for the de-
tense, proceeded to denounce the secret
communication of the document as a
monstrous illegality and a violation of
the most sacred rights of the defense.
M. Trarieux dwelt upon the ideal of M.
Scheurer K esther, who, although unac-
quainted with Dreyfus, passed sleepless
nights consumed with the thought an
innocent man was shedding tears of
blood. .,
NJ. Trarieux said he could not agree
TO a single conclusion reached by Gem
eral Gonse in his correspondence with
Lieutenant Colonel Picquart, and said
the latter's removal from the secret in
telligence department was the result of
underhand plotting by some one OPP
posed to revision
NJ. Trarieux pointed out that If any
proof whatsoever of the guilt of Drey-
fus existed in 1896 General Gonse would
have shown it to Lieutenant Colonel
Picquart in order to stop the investiga-
ton.
He Was Convinced.
After an interview with NJ. Scheurer-
kestner, the witness said he became
convinced of the guilt of Esterhazy,
and his duty as a conscientious citizen
and senator and perhaps as an eX-min-
lister, and that to fulfill his duty he
must devote himself to a work of JUS
tice.
In describing the steps taken in sup
port of revision, NJ Trarieux mentioned
an interview he had with foreign am
bassador who, in tones of the most pro-
found and affecting sincerity, declared
that Dreyfus had never had relations
with him nor with any military attache
or officer of the army of his country.
NJ. Trarieux asserted the Importance
of this statement of the ambassador,
who energetically reaffirmed the abso-
lutte innocence of Dreyfus. The am
bassador stated that he had investi-
Dreyfus. Further, the ambassador said
he had seen in the hands Of Colonel
Pannizardi a letter from Colonel
Schwartzkoppen proving the guilt of
EsterhaZy.
NJ. Trarieux said he suspected neither
the sincerity nor the probity of the
judges of the court martial of 1894, but
only the nature of the documents sub
mitted to that tribunal. Criticising
General Mercier's role as a witness, M.
Trarieux said he was surprised that
the eX-minister of war had not includ-
ed in the dossier the official version Of
the Pannizardi cipher telegram.
With regard to General Roget and
Captain Cuignet, the witness declared
that their allegations that Colonel
Pannizardi had Informed his ambassa-
dor that Colonel Schartzkoppen had
relations with Dreyfus were absolutely
unfounded.
General Roget attempted to intervene
but M. Trarieux continued, reasserting
the truth of all he had stated.
Esterhazy, the Traitor
THE ambassador already referred to
said" M. Trarieux continued, Ester
hazy is the traitor"
Continuing, NJ. Trarieux said 1.-THE
supreme court has given it's decision
and our very eyes confirm its 1udg-
ment."
NJ. Trarieux proceeded to show that
Major Esterhazy's confession must be
genuine.
After demonstrating in his way why
question of the guilt of Dreyfus is i'm
possible, M. Trarieux concluded:
This is no longer the time for plead
ing for falsehoods; it is the hour for
pacifcation. It is also the hour for
justice, which has declared that small,
as well as great. without distinction of
sex or person, shall have their rights"
After a brief desultory interchange of
remarks, the court retired to deliberate
over the application of NJ. Labor for
an order upon the government COM