The San Francisco call., 1899-09-10


Therefore, counsel contended, Dreyfus
could not have betrayed this secret.
Regarding the practical tests OF the gun. |
NJ. Denahge continued. Drey fus was sim |
llarly ignorant.
General Mercier's statement that Drey- |
fus attended the trials could pe dismissed. |
as L has been proved that the only leak |
age resulting from those trials had been |
furnished by he spy Grenier. 1t was thus |
apparent into what error all the witnesses |
supporting The prosecution had fallen |
Their opinions had been most impartially !
formed and the judges must be on their |
guard against ii, honest and sincere as it
doubtless was.
After refutng the imputations against !
Dreyfus based on the firing manual which !
he said were purely hypothetical NJ |
Demange continued emphatcally: The |
prosecution has no right TO rest content I
Justice. The defense alone has the right |
TO say 1t is impossible. 1t is the duty of /
the public prosecutor to produce evidence, |
but he has adduced none against Drey- !
fus."
After showing that the prisoner had
never seen the 'l2o short gun. counsel
the latter attended the Chalons camp and |
probably witnessed the trials.
But the prosecution" added NJ De- !
mango. had not TO choose between Drey- !
fus and Esterhazy. 1t had only TO prove |
Dreyfus guilty and could not do so. On
the contrary, we have shown that Drey-
fuS did not possess the documents COM
in them"
Dealing with the note referring to the
covering Of troops. NJ. Demange pointed
out General Merciers change of front on
this subject In 1894 the general contended
that Ii was with reference 10 the COM
mand OF these troops that the leakage /
occurred while he now asserted that ii
was regarding the mobilization and trans
pOrtation Of troops.
The prosecution has thus advanced two !
versions, which must cause the Judges /
terrible searchings OF conscience. especial !
ly as no proofs had been furnished. What !
right had the prosecution to advance !
statements with out corroboration?'' F!
Counsel put ii TO the conscience of the /
Judges. and he had asked this Of General 1
Mercer himself
Continuing TO plead with great warmth
and eloquence and with closely reasoned /.
arguments, which were followed with /
breathlesS interest by the entire audience /
NJ. Demange declared he did not believe /
in the completely of Henry and ESrsrhazy I
for Henry was honorable and loyal. II he /
had been the accomplice of EsterhaZy /
Henry would have destroyed the bor- |
dereau. Possibly Henry had inadvertent- I
y divulgeG information TO Esterhazy un- /
der the impression that he was conVers-
ing with an honorable. straightforward /
man Ike himself, and discovering in 1896 {
that he had placed his hands in a traitors {
he committed q crime upon which counsel I
declined to enlarge, since the perpetrator
What other explanation could be given |
Of the suicide OF this man. with whom the !
N41olS army SNmQdtnlZSQ. even after the
discovery OF the crime? Henry had spoken
Of scoundrels. Was one of these not Es-
tcrhazy and the other Weyl. the latter
having unCousCiously BETRAYED informa-
ton? General Saussier had every conf /
dence in Henry's loyalty and Esterhazy
might have received information from
Henry or Weyl. who were unconscious
inf9rmers. A loyal soldier. General Billot
had moreover said the traitor was not
alone IN his mind he connected the
names of Esterhazy and Dreyfus." Coun-
sci did not profess TO clear up the matter
but he wished IL to be cleared UP. II must
be proved that Dreyfus knew Esterhazy
and WeyL He (M Demange) did not fear
whatever light could be thrown on the
case. Three men were in the intelligence
qepartment1Henry, Esterhazy and Weyl.
ksierhazy had even placed the others
under pccuniaary obliga atoms and all three
were closely bound together
Replying 70 the hypothesis deduced in
the artillery. NJ. Demange pointed out
| that the information could have been
obtained by Esterhazy at the Chalons
camp, while, regarding the Madagascar
note, Dreyfus had never had pos
session OF il, though one of his bitter per
socutors. Colonel Du Patty de Clam. had
manual counsel showed how Esterhazy
secured copy of it and pointed to the
fact that his Government had asked
| Colonel Schwarzkoppen for supplement
tary Information which showed that the
/ original intelligence was incomplete and
supplied by an incompetent person, not
I dsl di lllI6i ludll nc memorandum to
| Colonel Schw3rzkoppen asked for the
/ firing manual, which must therefore
/ have been offered. and for the gradua-
/ ton bar which EsteThaZy had obtained
! from a friend and kept Had all these
proofs existed against Dreyfus, how
strong would have been the case for the
] not even probable. while the theories Of
/ the defense were all supported by docu-
ments culled from the secret dossier.
/ Dealing with the last line of the bor6-
! referring thn
Demange produced a note written by
/ Dreyfus proving that he knew in May
/ 1924, that he would not attend the man
! euVers with his regiment.
Counsel dwelt upon the Importance of
the fact that the probatoners absolute
/ ly knew they could not attend the ma
/ neuvers, though certain individuals cher
ished the hope that exceptions might be
made in their favor. Only one actually
applied to General de Boisdefrre for per-
mission, but the latter did not promise
| anything.
NJ. Demange protested against the Gov
| ernment Commissioners assertion that Ii
had been agreed that the probationers
should attend the maneuvers as officers
of the headquarters staff, and said ne
wished to know if Major Carriere adhered
TO his statement on the, subject.
Boisdeffre had declared that he had
promised to do his best TO satisfy the pro-
/ bationers.
NJ Demange-And you call that an
| agreement?
Major Carriere-Certainly.
NJ Demange-Then we do not agree as
TO the meaning of the word in the French
| language.
Continuing. NJ Demange exclaimed:
| Hear what the author of the borde-
reau writes ,s, I lam am going to the maneu-
rather a certainty? Well, gentlemen. l
have shown you Dreyfus could not have
written that. On the contrary. Ester