Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-08-22
bori. the leading counsel for Dreyfus,
who was wounded by wouldbe assas.
sin. appeared in court this morning,

| teuSlOnS- was, according 10 the WltueSs
equally disliked by his comrades an
superiors. was. Fabre said, constantl
endeavoring by all sorts of means t
learn the secrets of the plan of cOncen
tration of the Eastern railway system
and i'll his anxiety to secure information
neglected his duties. His official duties
witness also said, placed it in Dreyfus
power to disclose the documents referred
to in the bordereau.
General Fabre, in conclusion, de
clared he was still as firmly convincet
as in 1894 that the prisoner was the au
thor of the bordereau Sensation.
After NJ. Demange had pointed on
the discrepancy in Fabre's present state
ments and those he voiced in 1894
Colonel Jouaust invited Dreyfus to re
ply. The prisoner said General Fabr,
quite correctly described the work OF
which he was engaged as probationer
especially emphasizing that he had tt
keep the dossier relating to the concen
tration centers on the eastern system
posted up. This was not a fictitiou.
task
The prisoners reply was made in
calm, measured tones and his frankness
seemed to favorably impress the judges
Colonel D'Abboville, former deputy
chief of the fourth bureau, gave some
testimony. Demange pointed out dur
ing his testimony that the expression
81 am going to the man9uvres" might
have applied to an expedition of the
headquarters staff and was understood
in 1894 to SO apply.
In reply to the usual question Drey.
fus said that he had never held any con.
versation with Colonel Sandherr, the
late chief of the intelligence depart
ment, who was SO little acquainted with
him that he once addressed him by an.
other name.
The former chief of the detective de.
partment, Cochefert, who was present
when Dreyfus underwent the dictation
test in Du Patty de CLAIMS office, testi.
fed.
He told the minister of war at he
time that, from Dreyfus' actions when
being confronted. that he might be
guilty.
Colonel Jouaust invited Dreyfus to
speak. The prisoner replied:
NO, l will reply when Patty de Clam
Is here"
NJ. Gribelin, the principal archivist OF
the headquarters staff, was the next
witness. He testified with great volu-
bility. and expressed the opinion that
when Dreyfus was arrested in 1894, he
was enacting a role by Systematically
denying all the. charges against him,
even the most obvious and least i'm
portant things, and in declaring himself
ignorant of matters which should have
been known to every officer of the gen.
eral staff.
The witness said he was cognizant of
Dreyfus' relations with loose women.
Replying to questions, M. Gribelin
positively asserted that Esterhazy never
came to the intelligence department.
A member of the courtmartiaI re-
ferred to M. Gribelin s statements con-
cerning the use Colonel Picquart made
of the secret service funds and the wit
ness admitted the truth of Picquart's
evidence that the surveillance of Ester
hazy cost but little.
Questioned as to the alleged indiscre-
ton of Colonel Picquart in showing
Maitre Leblois the secret dossier, wit.
ness admitted that when he saw M.
Leblois in Picquart's Office, in the au-
tumn OF 1896, while the secret dossier
and the dossler of the carrier pigeon
service were lying ON Picquart's table,
they had not been removed from their
envelopes.
When questioned concerning the
"Liberateur" document Gribelin ad-
mitted he still wondered how it came
into Esterhazy's hands and could not
understand why Esterhazy was not ar
rested when he brought the document
to the ministry OF war.
Replying to NJ. Demange, M. Gribelin
admitted having mixed up Patty de
CLAIMS and Henry's intrigues in favor
of Esterhazy. The admission created
/, sensation.
Replying to further questions, NJ.
Gribelin denied that he had ever opened
letter addressed to Picquart.
Later Picquart protested against the
manner in which his correspondence
was tampered with. He also denied he
had given NJ. Leblois the slightest in
formation regarding the secret dossier,
and said the only document of the dos
sier revealed, and that was not by him.
self, was the .'Cette canaille de D."
document, which had been utilized by
the enemies of Dreyfus. There was
also ''The Liberateur" document which
was delivered to EsterhaZy, who used it
to levy the most shameful blackmail oD
the government.
Major Lauth followed. He traversed
the ground covered by his evidence be-
fore the criminal division of the court
of cessation in regard to the clrcum-
stances under which Henry cOmmuni-
Gated the DOrdereau
He denied certain statements made
by Picquart in his testimony.
After short adjournment, the court
reassembled and the Judges Questioned
Major Lauth. They asked his opinion
of the Schneider letter of Nov. 30, 1897.
Witness replied that it was authentic
and emanated from agent "Pierre."
AT the instance of NJ. Demange,
Colonel Picquart again described the
alterations of the Petit Bleu.
Captain Junck followed. He said he
was probationer simultaneously with
Dreyfus. but in another department Of
the war office. He saw the prisoner a
great deal and detailed conversations
in which, he alleged, Dreyfus spoke of
great sums he had lost i'll gambling and
in intercourse with loose women.
The witness, continuing, said Drey-
fus wss well acquainted with the
scheme for the concentration of troops
and could trace it on any map, as most
of the other probatione1Noould.
Witness then detailed the work of
the different bureaus and proceeded to
demonstrate that the probationers were
cognizant of the plans for the trans
portation and concentration of the
troops and how Dreyfus was ordered to
draw up report on the German artil-
lery, comparing it with the French
artillery, and having access to all the