Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1899-08-22
Thinks DREYFUS GUILTY.
Maj. Cuignet on the Stand-Tells
of Certain Suspicious Cir
cumstances.
cumstances.
COUNSEL FOR DREYFus coRFuSEs HIM.
Dreyfus Interrupts witness When He
Calls Attention to Dossier, in
Which Would BE Found Evidence
of His Guilt, and Shouts: cit Is n
Manifest Lie"


Which Would De Found Evidence
of His Guilt, and Shouts: cit Is IA
Manifest Lie"
Rennes, Aug. 81. : No special Incl
dent occurred Saturday morning when
the second trial by court-martial of
Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, of the Fourteenth
artillery, charged with treason, was re-
sumed at the Lycee.
The first witness called was Maj
Cuignet, formerly attached to the min,
istry of war.
The witness, who declared he was
convinced of the prisoners guilt, was
cross-examined by M. Demange, of
counsel for the defense, who succeeded
in pointing out that several of his
statements contradicted his previous
dispositions.
Maj. Cuignet, the first witness called,
was not in uniform, as he is not at pres
ent attached to any corps.
Reason for suspectins Dreyfns.
''Before beginning an account of the spe-
cial investigations into the case which
was ordered to make by ministers of war,
from M. Cavaignac to M. de Freycinet.
said the witness, II wish to mention
personal fact which. in conjunction with
the evidence already heard, will constitute
fresh proof of the prisoners indiscreet be-
havior when employed on the headquar-
tiers staff. / was on the staff when Drey-
fus was a probationer. during the latter
half of 1893. Among other duties l was
connected with the railroad service and
the mining of railroads, with the view
IL, nf
is hardly necessary to point out the Sc
cret character of such matters. Dreyfus
was a probationer on the eastern rail-
roads and had been ordered TO specially
study the mining on them and possessed
information relating solely TO them. one
day Dreyfus asked me to give him the
general scheme of mining which l pos
sessed, giving as a reason for his request
that he was anxious 10 increase his knowl-
edge and that 1t was necessary for him
to know the general scheme in order to
properly carry out the work intrusted to
him. replied that did not see the ne
cessity of giving him the scheme and that
in any case he had better apply to his own
chief, Maj. Berth. Dreyfus pretended
Berth would not impart any information.
Day after day he pestered me so that
finally having no reason to distrust him,
I began giving him explanations. Drey-
fus displayed the keenest interest and took
searched these notes were not discoverabe
do not know what became of them. But
1t is difficult to believe they were de-
stroyed considering the Importance he
seemed to attach to the information and
the persistence shown in procuring II"
After launching the above declara-
ton, which he apparently considered to
be weighty evidence of the treachery
of Dreyfus, Maj. Cuignet proceeded to
recount in detail the task which Gen.
Gonse assigned to him in May, 1898, of
classifying the documents in the Drey-
fus. Esterhazy and Picquart cases.
1.-THE first question will ask here" said
the witness, lis, is Dreyfus guilty? My con-
yiction of his guilt is based on three
grounds:
"First-His confessions to Capt Lebrun-
Renault.
"Second-The technical nature of the
contents of the bordereau.
'Third-The results of the examination
of the secret dossier
II will add to these three points the evil
dence of the expert, Bertillon. Qaughter)
as in direct proof, the means employed by
the Dreyfus family to secure the prison
ers rehabilitation.
81 protest that a campaign has been I'M
dertaken against justice, truth and our
country"
The majors outburst of heroics
evoked cynical smiles and indications of
dissent coupled with marks of assent
from the assembled generals.
The witness next spoke of the secret
dossier of the war ministry. He invited
the courts special attention to this
dossier, in which he said would be found
ample proof of the prisoners guilt.
Dreyfus Replies.
At this stage of the proceedings Drey
fus rose and interrupted the witness,
shouting: THAT is manifest lie."
Replying to NJ. Demange, Maj. Cuig-
net insisted that if Henry committed
forgery sit was in the interests of the
country"
To this statement counsel retorted:
"You did not say that to the court of
cessation"
AT the request of NJ. Demange the
majors deposition before the court OF
cessation relating to Henry's motives
and Patty de CLAIMS share in the prep
aration of the forgery was read. 1t
showed that Cuignet emphatically de-
clared before the court of cessation that
he was convinced an investigation
would easily show that Patty de Clam
was the principal author of the Henry
forgery.
Witness claimed he thought he was
doing his duty lin saying all that is in
my mind"
do you adhere" asked counsel, ito
all you said before the full court of
cassation?"
Witness Becomes Confused
This question greatly confused the
witness, who attempted to explain by
saying he was only arguing at that
time" and that it was not for him to
judge Patty de Clam.
M. Demange pointed out that in spite
OF the many arguments Maj. Cuignet
had advanced against Patty de Clam, the
military judge, Tavernier, threw out
the case.
"Now," added NJ. Demange, "Mai.
Cuignet has advanced as much against
Dreyfus. The court will be able to ap-
Preciate the value of his arguments"
Call for Patty de Clam.
Amid buzz of excitement the name
of Maj. Du Patty de Clam was called out.
whereupon Maj. Carriere said Patty de
Clam had been officially informed that
his presence was necessary to tbe court