The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1899-08-31
THE DREYFUS TRIAL.
Some Dramatic and sensational Fea-
lures of the Evidence.

lures of the Evidence.
Dramatic and sensational as was
| Thursdays session of the Dreyfus court
| martial, it yielded less substantial advan-
| tage to the defense than the friends of
| truth and justice anticipated. The politi-
| cal character of the trial was strongly
| emphasized. For the first time the court
| itself directly intervened to shield and
! protect the military witnesses. The re-
| frain so familiar at the Zola trial, this
| question will net be put was frequently
| heard during Labori's attempt to cross
examine Mercier, the chief of the coz
| spirators. Besides, many of the Ques-
| tions which counsel did put and which
| the court could not decently rule out as
irrelevant Mercier simply declined to an
swer.
With an unprejudiced court a few ses-
sions like that of Thursday would mean
a verdict of not guilty. The testimony
of such witnesses as MERCER is evidently
valueless, for only their illegal refusal
to answer proper questions saves them
from disgrace and exposure. But there
seems no reason for believing that the
court has any conception of law. evil
dence or justice, that it is able and will
ing to distinguish between the suspicious
and opinions of mighty champions of
the army and actual, valid and proper
testimony.
All that LabOri succeeded in showing
was that Mercier was intriguing with
Patty de Clam on the very eve of the
present trial, that he inserted an alleged
discriminating document in the secret dos
sier which he had illegally held and that
he had tried to prevent the defense from
knowing its contents. This document
Col. JOuaust was forced to rule ont. All
the rest of the scathing cross-eXanina-
ton related TO the trial of 1894, now
known to have been tlagrantly lawless
and unfair, and had no bearing on the
question under inquiry except as tending
to prove the existence of prejudice and
conspiracy.
At the opening of Fridays session of
the court-martial, a doctors certificate
to the effect that it was impossible for
Du Patty de Clam to be present was
read. NJ. Labori asked the court that
an official physician be sent to examine
De Clam. but Col. Jouaust refused.
Rowland Strong, Paris correspondent
of the London Observer, and the only
English witness to testify before the
court, was the first witness called on
Friday. He was resplendent in red whis-
kers and London clothes. Strong told
how he tried to buy Esterhazy's confes-
sion for publication, and that Esterhazy
had admitted he wrote the bordereau.
When Esterhazy quilted prison he told
Strong several times that he would tell
all and that it would ruin De Clam and
all those who had abandoned him. Strong
said Esterhazy impressed him as being
thorough crook and swindler.
NJ. Colbert, handwriting expert of the
Bank of France, was called. Colbert told
how he was originally called by the war
office 10 examine the bordereau. After
comparing it with specimens of Dreyfus'
handwriting he declared that from first
to last it was not the work of accused.
Gen. Gonse was called to confront the
witness. Gonse said that Colbert was
wrong in the details of his testimony,
whereupon the expert earnestly demon
strated the correctness of all he had said.
Gonse retired discounted, but insinuated
that Dreyfus had known the witness in
the bank. Dreyfus denied emphatically
that he had ever known Colbert.
The rest of the days session was given
over to the testimony of NJ. Bertillon,
head of the anthropometric department
of the Paris police, and who maintains
that he has proved Dreyfus was the au
thor of the bordercau.
Bertillon came into court accompanied
by four soldiers carrying charts, portfo-
los. compasses, logarithm tables, photo
graphs, etc, which looked like the proper
ties in a comic opera. The audience
burst into laughter at the sight. The
judges themselves looked dismaycd as
Ile procession approached the platform.
and all those in the court who did not
have to be there fled from the room. The
rush for the doors was noted by Bertil-
Ion, who remarked that it took intelli
gent people TO understand what he was
going to demonstrate.
After arranging his paraphernalia
about him en- tables and chairs. the wit
ness began by stating that the bordereau
had bee, produced by the forces of ma
.ure, but that somebody must have writ
ten it. This was given in the manner of
4 man announcing a great discovery. Nj.
Bertillon continued by declaring that the
bordereau had been traced by Drcyfus.
who had cleverly initiated his own hand
writing Then Bertillon proceeded to
give the exact measurement of each pen
stroke, and showed the court a large
diagram resembling the plan of fort
ress.
This he claimed proved mathematic;,lly
that Drcyfus was guilty. The witness
stopped constantly to unite packages and
surround himself with mysterious ap
paratus to the increased bewilderment
of his auditors. Bertillon proceeded to
demonstrate his whole system, which,
with its ratios and angles, was under
stood by no one in the court. The table
in front of the witness was filled with
charts which came ineXhaustively from
numerous pouches. Bertillon's eXhibi-
ton dscrcditcd the whole expert sys
TEN. His reasoning was based ON taking
as a fact some charge against Drcyfus
which was unsupported by evidence and
then arguing in n circle until he reached
the starting point. His methods seemed
to impress wcak-mindcd people that
something vas being proved. Bertilon's
testimony was not concluded when court