The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1899-08-18

court. This man IN indeed the Judiai
l Imagined"
Referring 10 papers which arrived
az the same time as the bordereau
Mime. Henry said: These papers wert
not all torn IN thousand pieces.
was able TO note that personally. The
letters often came entire. 81 Bertuliui
has maintained that everything ar
rived In pieces. That Is false"
The court here rcBounded with eK-
olamatlons Of surprise and Nine. Henry
concluded:
II have nothing more TO say"
n. Bertulius said he did not desire
to reply 10 Nine. Henry. adding; "she
is only woman"
II am not a woman" exclaimed Nine.
Henry furiously Il speak In the
name OF my husband"
The incident caused great excltment
in the court,
Now ! will reply 10 the Madame"
said II. Bertuilus.
"she II defending the name OF a
dead man and that Of her child" IRE
newed senaation.)
Colonel Plcquart was then called 10
the witness stand. He protested most
firmly against all suspicion Of having
caused the disappearance OF any docu'
mcnt relating TO Dreyfus. The docu-
ments had disappeared but he was
not connected with their disappear
ance. he also repealed with scorn the
assertion that he had endeayored 10
put another officer In the place OF
the real author Of the bordereau.
1T Is true" the witness continued,
that the name OF Captain Dorval be-
lng mentioned 10 me as dangerous
man. / had him watched. and do you
know. gentlemen. by whom Dorval was
denounced? BY his own cousin" con-
tinued Piequart. Major DePaty du
Clam" (sensatlon)
The colonel outlined his connection
with Dreyfus az the military college
and afterwards at the minlstery OF
war. where. owing TO the anti-semite
prcdjudices Of the general stan. he
firsi appointed Drcyfus to the depart
ment where probatloners had no direct
oognisance Of secret documents"
Referring to the dletation test, the
witness earnestly and emphatlcaily
affirmed that he saw no signs Of per-
turbatlon In the handwriting OF Drey-
fus on that occasion and moreover
shortly Afterwards Du Patty du Clam
admitted that he haaepOt found FRESH
charge against Dreyfus.
'Bsyond the bordereau." added wit
ness. there was nothing against Drey
fus--absolutely nothing"
His impression. during the invesu-
CATION" continued Colonel Picquart
was that the acduittal Of the accused
was probable, as the evidence was In
sufficient"
The colonel declared that in 1894 he
did no, know the coitnets Of the secret
dossler. but he believed, like all other
officers. that II contained frightful
proof against the prisoner. When he
became acquainted with Its contentsA
however. he found that his "earlieC
impressions were entirely wrong"
(prolongued sensatlon.)
Next the colonel examined the bor-
dereau and declared Dreyfus could not
have disclosed part OF u.
Regarding the Madagascar note. the
witness disputed It's value and said he
did not believe 1t was a confidential
note.
Colone PicQuart then declared he
had never seen Dreyfus copy the small
est document in the war department.
In the opinion OF the witness, the de-
partment where the bordereau was dis
covered ought TO have been searched
when the discovery was made. This,
he explained, was the department in
which Du Patty de Clam worked and
that was the department in which he
was working on the plan OF concentra-
ton OF troops and the Madagascar ex-
pedition, He added:
'It was in the Major Du Patty du
CLAIMS department that a search
should have been made, or rather in
his private room where he worked
quite alone" (sensation.)