The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-01
Have the Friends OF Dreyfus Misman-
aged Their Case?

Now that Frenchmen have been compelled
by the decision Of the Court OF Cessation to
recognize the fact that DREYFUs was I'M
Justly convicted Of treason, some Of them
tried to excuse their former opposition to
revision OF the sentence by alleging that
his case was improperly managed by his
friends. The question, they say, should
have been confined to the guilt or inno-
cence Of the accused individual, and ought
not to have involved criticism OF the
army. Whose fault is 1t that the Dreyfus
affair has not been kept within the narrow
limits to which 1t was originally restrict ed?
Are the friends or the enemies OF DREYTUs
chargeable with the fact that the reputa-
ton OF four successive Ministers OF War
and of several distinguished Generals has
been seriously impaired by their relation to
the matter?
The inquiry may be easily answered, in
asmuch as the Paris Figaro has laid before
the world all the evidence taken before the
criminal section OF the Court OF Cessation.
No man who has failed to read that evidence
is qualified to express an opinion on the
subject and no man who has read it can
hesitate to fix the responsibility for the de-
plorable fact that the Dreyfus affair has
furnished the honor Of the French army in
the persons OF many OF it's chiefs.
AS for DREYFUs himself, there is no
doubt that he believed his condemnation
to have been simply the outcome Of mis-
take; that from his prison he repeatedly
wrote pathetic letters. in which he ex-
pressed absolute faith in the very Generals
hn <,f
tence. and that, Until he was transferred to
Rennes. his trust in them was unbroken.
This absolute trust in the equity of the
General Staff was at first shared by the
French public. which, for nearly two years,
regarded as entirely just the degradation
Of DREYFUs on Jan. 8, 1895.
The first doubt as to the justice of the
sentence was conceived and expressed
within army headquarters. and the General
Staff then had an opportunity OF proving
it's disinterestednsss and of keeping the
Dreyfus affair confined to the simple ques-
ton Of the guilt or innocence OF single
man. We refer to the discovery made In
March. 1896, by Col. PIooUARr then head
Of the Intelligence Department, that the
handwriting Of the borderedu was identical
with that OF EsTERHAzY. who about the
same time was incriminated by name
in . petit bleu, or post card, found at
the German Embassy. PIooUART was no
friend OF DRKYTUs and hitherto had taken
for granted the Justice OF the latter's
sentence. But he now examined the 30
called secret dossier. and was stupefied to
find in 1t nothing that seemed to him to
be a proof Of DREYFUs's guilt. In August
and September, 1897, he pressed on Gen.
DE BoIsDEFFRE and Gen. GoNsR the neces-
sity Of the Government taking the initia-
tive In revision Of the affair. but the two
chiefs refused to allow even reference
OF the handwriting to experts, and Pic
QUART has testified that GoNsR said to him:
If you say nothing, nobody will be any
the wiser" In the end, the Generals named
got rid Of Col. PIoQUARr, first by sending
him away 10 Tunis and then by Diminishing
him from the French army.
Meanwhile, namely, on Oct. 81, 1896, to
convince Gen. BILLoT, then Minister Of
War, that there were new proofs OF DRRY-
FUSS guilt, Col. HENRY OF the Intelligence
Department committed the forgery known
by his name. 1t will be observed that,
thus far, no friend OF DREYFus has ap-
peared In the affair. Everything done in
his favor or against him has been done by
an army officer. Up to this point the
French public knew absolutely nothing
concerning the stand taken by PICQUART,
and the measures taken to stifiq him. 1t
was not until Oct 80, 1897, that, outside
OF army headquarters, the name OF ESTER
HAzY was so much as mentioned in con-
nection with tho case. On that day DE
CASTRO, stock broker, happening TO
glance at fac simile Of the bordereau,
which he had bought from newspaper
hawker, broke out WITH "Why, that's the
writing OF my client, EsTERHAZY "
1t was on Nov 10 II the same year,
or more than II Year after PIOQUART
had communicated the facts to the War
Department, that EsTEKHAzY was openly
denounced, on DE CAsTRos information,
by MATHIIU DREYFUs, and that an inter
pellatiOn on the subject took place In the
| Chamber OF Deputies. Gen. BILLoT prom
issd that EsTERHAZY should be tried for
the offence that had been imputed TO DREY-
| FUs Thus the chiefs OF the army had a
second opportunity Of executing justice
| and likewise OF combining the Dreyfus
AFFAIR within narrow limits How was the
opportunity used?
Toward the end Of 1897 Gen. DE
| PELLlEUX was ordered to conduct a mill
tary inquiry upon EsTERHAZY. Without so
much as calling in experts to compare
EsrRRHAZY's writing with that Of the Dor
dereGu, he nnds non-lieu, that Is that there
is no case against him. De PELLIRuXs
TO-. Z A =. ~. Il