The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-09-02

communicated to NJ. Scheurer- -Kestner.
former vice president of the senate who
published them in a book entitled"PoII-
thus Pilate-''
Replying to NJ Labori Gen. Gonse
insisted that Dreyfus having been con-
demned it was not his duty to go back
to his case
PICQUART WAS THREATENED.
A scene between Gen. Gonse and Col.
Picquart followed The latter being
called said he gave Gen Gonse's letters
to his lawyer when he realized that he
was the object of abominable intrigueS
and when he received IN Tunis a letter
of threats from the late Lieut. Col.
Henry sent with the assent of Generals
Gonse and De Boisdeffre.
Col. Picquart added that he was not
responsible for the subsequent publ-
cation of the letters. In reply Gen.
Gonse said he had not given his assent
to Henry's letter and that Col. Pic
quart perceived Vaccinations against
him everywhere.
Col. Picquart then declared that at
the same time he took the bOrdereau to
Gen. Gonse he showed him the secret
dOssier. Therefore, he claimed, Gen.
Gonse could easily have acquainted
himself with the probability that Drey-
fus was innocent
NJ. Laborf then took Gen. Conse in
hand on the subject of tampering with
Col. PicQuart's correspondence, while
the colonel was in Tunis and GonSe ad-
mitted that one letter was opened and
in forging the telegram which was in
tended to destroy the value of the Petit
Bleu. The general insisted, however,
that only suspected letters addressed
to Col. Piequart were opened. Pic
quart replied emphatically that all his
letters were opened.
Discussing the letters, NJ. Labori said
the last letter having been preserved
and not returned by Col Picquart
might be considered to be forgery
Col. Jouaust rebuked NJ. Labori for
raising the discussion and counsel re-
torted warmly that he intended, ac-
cording to article 319 of the code, to
say whatever he considered proper on
a matter which could bring light
PROOFS ENOUGH
Counsel then questioned Gen. Gonse
on the subject of the late Lieut. Col.
Henry's forgery and the general replied
that he considered it an unfortunate
and not against Picquart, Henry desir-
ing to furnish fresh proof against
Dreyfus. of which there was really no
need, the witness added, as the diplO-
matte dossier contained sufficient
proofs
NJ. Labori at once asked what they
were, but Col. 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-La-
motto, a former officer of the artillery
testified that in 1894 Col Picquart lent
him a firing manual which he might
have kept as long as he pleased.
So" the witness added, there was
little secrecy at that time. Any officer
could have obtained one in August,
1894 Another point in favor of Drey-
fus is that no probationer could have
believed in 1894 that he would go to
the manOeuVres. >"
The clerk read a circular dated May
Is, 1894, announcing that the proba-
TONERS would not go to manoeuvres.
No 1T 1tf Cd Nv
declaring that if the prosecution would
follow. up the piece of evidence they
would be absolutely convinced that
Dreyfus did not write the bordereau.
A STRONG WITNESS.
This witness, who is a fellow proba-
toner of DreyfuS, proved one of the
strongest witnesses for the defense, as
he brought out in support of his con-
tentiOn that Dreyfus could not have
written the bordereau. IF, as at first
asserted, the bordereau was dated
May" the witness argued, ''Dreyfus
could not have written I am going to
the manoeuvres,' because a circular
was issued in May, informing the pro-
batoners that they would not go to
the maneOuVres, while if the bOrdereau
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
reply to the last argument, which
looked like a clincher. General de BOis-
deffre alone declaring that although it
was true the circular mentioned was
sent to the probationers, they knew
that they could nevertheless. go to the
manoeuvres if they made special appli-
cation.
Generals MERCER and Roget then went
on the stage and confronted M. de
FOnd-Lamotte and a heated discussion
ensued.
Gen. Roget asked when the witness had
altered his conviction in favor of Dreyfus
and NJ. De FOnd-LamOtte replied:
AT the time I was before the court of
cessation 1 expected proof of my COM
rade's guilt. and 1 was thunder struck
when I found the date of the bordereau
had been changed"
The prisoner then rose to reply to Gen.
De Boisdeffroe's argument He declared
he had never asked for permission 10 go
to the nanoeuvers and recalled that when
Col Du Patty de Clam fixed the date Ofthe
bordereau in August he. Dreyfus, pointed
out that he could not have written the
phrase L going to the manOeuverS.' -
Gen. Roget here fnterposed that requests
to go to the manoeuVerS were usually
made verbally. SO it could not be proved
whether Dreyfus had or had not asked to
go. The general however, admitted that
inquiry had ever been made on this
important point.
The court then adjourned for the day.