The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-10


phatlcally:
No Evidence.
"The prosecution has no right to
rest content with hypothesis; we are in
a court of justice. The defense alone
has the right to say it is impossible.
1t is the duty of the public prosecutor
to produce evidence, but he has ad-
duced none against Dreyfus."
After showing that the prisoner had
never seen the ''120 short" gun, counsel
read letters from Esterhazy proving
that the latter attended the Chalons
camp and probably witnessed the
trials.
But the prosecution" added NJ De-
mango, had no choice between Drey-
fus and Esterhazy. 1t had only to
prove Dreyfus guilty and could not do
SO. On the contrary we have shown
that Dreyfus did not possess the doc
uments communicated nor the informa-
ton contained in them"
Dealing with the note referring to
the covering of troops, NJ. Demange
pointed out General Mercier's change
of front on this subject In 1894 the
general contended that ii was with ref
erence to the commands of these troops
that the leakage occurred. while he
now asserted it was regarding the
mobilization and transportation of
troops. What right had the prosecu-
tion to advance statements without
corroboration? Counsel put it to the
conscience of the judges, and he had
asked this of General Mercier himself.
Continuing to plead with great
warmth and eloquence and with closely
reasoned arguments which were fol-
lowed with breathless interest by the
entire audience, NJ. Demange declared
he did not believe in the completely of
Henry and Esterhazy, for Henry was
honorable and loyal. If he had been
an accomplice of Esterhazy Henry
would have destroyed the bordereau
Possibly Henry had inadvertently di-
vulged information to Esterhazy under
the impression that he was conversing
with an honorable, straightforward
man like himself and, discovering, in
1893, that he had placed his hands in
traitors, he committed a crime upon
which counsel declined to enlarge, since
the perpetrator had already paid for it
with his life.
What other explanation could be
given of the suicide of this man. with
whom the whole army sympathized,
even after the discovery of the crime.
Henry had spoken of scoundrels.
Two Scoundrels.
Was one of these not Esterhazy and
other Weyl, the latter having uncon-
sciously betrayed the information?
Three men were in the intelligence de-
partment, Henry, Esterhazy and Weyl.
Esterhazy had even placed the others
under pecuniary obligations and all
three were closely bound together
Replying to the hypothsis deduced
tion of the artillery, NJ. Demange point
ed out that the information could have
been obtained by Esterhazy at the
Chalons camp while, regarding the
Madagascar note, Dreyfus had never
had possession of It, though one of his
most bitter prosecutors, Du Patty de
Clam, has it in his office. Reverting to
the firing manual, counsel showed how
Esterhazy secured a copy of it and
pointed to the fact that his govern
ment had asked Colonel Schwartzkop-
pen for supplementary information,
which showed that the original intelli-
gence was incomplete.
Dealing with the last line of the bor-
dereau, referring to the maneuvers, NJ
Dreyfus, proving that he knew in May
1894, that he would not attend the
maneuvers with his regiment.
Counsel dwelt upon the Importance
of the fact that the probationers alb
solutely knew they could not attend
the maneuvers, though certain indi-
viduals cherished the hope that excep-
eioho AlSil bV illdut III lIlelT IdNOT.
Only one actually applied to General
Boisdeffre for permission, but the lat
ter did not promise anything.
Continuing, M. Demange exclaimed:
Hear what the author of the bor-
dereau writes: I am going to the ma
neuvers.' Is that only belief? Is that
not, rather, certainty? Well, gentle
men, l have shown you Dreyfus could
not have written that. On the contrary
E,Stprh1ZV' regiment al ha
neuvers, regarding which information
was supplied. Was Esterhazy there?
do not know. But what is certain is
that Dreyfus, if he was the author of
the bordereau. could not have written
at the end of August i am going to
the maneuvers,' since he knew the pro-
bationers were not going. l think | have
shown that when all the points of the
accusation are examined they vanish.
Demolished the Case.
80 much for the technical value of
the bordereau. | might say with pride
that l have demolished the case for the |
prosecution, but I merely say to the |
court, be careful. You must be certain. |
and before you can say Dreyfus is |
guilty you must, on your souls and con- |
science, be able to declare that there |
is no doubt that no one but he had the |
documents enumerated in the bor- |
dereau But you do not know what the |
documents are That is my last word |
on this portion of the case. | have |
now to deal with the material evil |
dence."
After the usual brief adjournment of |
the court. NJ. Demange resumed his |
speech for the defense.
He discussed the handwriting evil |
dence and reminded the court of the |
groans with which M. Scheurer- X Kestner |
was greeted when he displayed the |
writing of the Esterhazy tribune
Is that all you haye?'" disdainful-
ly asked the senator.
To-day the prosecution has no |