The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-08-29

plication of the system, M. Bernard
aroused merriment by remarking that
NJ. Bertillon's system could, neverthe-
less, be useful, seeing that it enabled
the witness to show that the bordereau
was a natural and not a fabricated
document. In conclusion, NJ. Bernard
exhibited to the judges a plate repres-
enting page Of current handwriting,
and said:
examined by NJ. Bertillon's system
1t VIII show certain peculiarities which
would not be found upon the examina-
ton of so million other documents, M.
Bertillon would therefore say the docu-
ment was fabricated. But he would be
wrong. for ! borrowed the page from
d report written by M. Bertillon him
self"
M. Teyssonnieres folIowed.He said he
adhered in all respects to his report.
dated Oct, 20, 1894, in which he express,
ed the opinion that the bordereau was
the work of the writer OF the documents
seized at the prisoners residence. For
purposes of comparison, the witness
criticised the bordereau letter by letter.
pointing out resemblances to the pris-
oper's handwriting. In conclusion, M.
Teyssonnieres said he thought it was
impossible to find more tangible reasons
than those which induced in him the
belief which he hoped the court would
share. (Sensation)
The copy of the bordereau made bv
Dreyfus was then handed to the wit
ness, who declared it had never been
given to him for purposes Of COMPARE
son. (Sensation) The witness adda5
that he would require three DAYS to
give an opinion upon it,
M. Cnaravay, the archivist and expert
IN ancient manuscripts, was called to
the witness bar.
After repeating the evidence he gave
before the court of cessation, M. Char
away declared it was the new element.
the handwriting of Esterhazy, which
led him to declare he did not adhere
to his conclusions in 1894. In conclu-
sion, M. Charavay energetically pro-
tested against M. Mercier's accusations.
and added that what convinced him
that he had made a mistake in 1898 was
the publication Of Esterhazy's letters.
the discovery of the Henry forgery the
inquiry of the court OF caSsafion. and
Esterhazy's confession. The conscience
of the witness compelled him to say
that in 1894 he was misled by similar
ity in handwriting
1T is great relief to my conscience
M. Charavay added, ito be able to saw
before you and before, him who is the
victim of my mistake, that the Dor
dereau is not the work Of Dreyfus, but
of EsterhaZy."
An immense sensation was caused in
court by this statement.
Replying to Col. Jouaust, the witness
said that the mere examination of the
bordereau and the documents present.
ed for comparison, was sufficient to con-
vince him that the bordereau was not
written by Dreyfus.
M. .Pelletier, another expert, declared
that there was no likeness in the writ
ing or the bordereau and that of Drey-
fus. The bordereau, he said, could
only be ascribed to Esterhazy.
M. Couard, the official archivist and
expert in the Esterhazy case in 1897.
adhered to his opinion of 1897 that the
bordereau was not the work of Ester
hazy. He. the witness, would wager
his head on this. Laughter)
M. Couard said he was convinced that
the caligraphy of the bordereau was
neither frank nor natural and the
writer, in his opinion, probably wished
to initiate another PERSONS handwrit-
ing. The letter Of Aug. %, although
declared genuine by Esterhazy himself,
seemed doubtful to M. Couard, who be-
lieved Esterhazy would say anything
he was wanted to say. Since 1897, the
witness has not believed word Ester
hazy had said; and there was nothing
to prove Esterhazy would not year
hence say exactly opposite OF what he
said now. Replying to a question, M.
Couard, while reasserting that the Dor
dereau was not the work of Ester
hazy. declined to commit himself in
regard to Dreyfus, whose handwriting
he had never been called upon to ex-
anime,
Maitre Demange, of the counsel for
the defense. asked the clerk of the
court to read the evidence of NJ. Attha-
lin before the court of cessation in re-
gard to the genuiness of Esterhazy's
letter. which M. Couard doubted, and
the evidence showing how the letter
was seized and testifying to it's genuine
ness. This was done M. Varinara.
who with NM. Couard and Belhomo,
acted as expert in the Esterhazy case,
was the next witness. He adhered 81
his report that the bordereau was not
the work of Esterhazy.
Before adjourning the court for the
day. Col. Jouaust announced that NJ.
De Freycinet, former minister of war,
nj. Gallichet and Col Cordies would be
examined tomorrow The government
Mai Carriere rose and
said: II have handed the court a let
ter regarding the health of Col. Du
Patty De Clam. 1t indicates that Col.
Du Patty De Clam is writing his evil
dence, and that he will send 1t to us.
That deposition has not arrived.
therefore ask the president of the court
to- be kind enough to instruct the re-
porter of the second Paris court martial
10 have the evidence of Du Patty De
Clam taken by commission
Col Jouaust assented to this. and at
II 30 o'clock the court adjourned for the
day.