The record-union., 1899-09-03

clared he had never asked for per-
mission to go to the maneuyers and
recalled that when Colonel Du Paty
de Clam fixed the date of the border
eau in August, he (Dreyfus) pointed
out that he could not have written the
phrase, 'I am going to the maneuv-
ers.,'
General Roget here interposed that
requests to go to the maneuvers were
usually made verbally, SO it could not
be proved whether Dreyfus had or had
not asked to go. The General, how
ever, admitted that no inquiry had
ever been made on this important
point.
Court then adjourned for the day.
The following are the proceedings in
detail:
When the Dreyfus court-martial re-
assembled this morning, Major Hart
mann of the artillery, whose deposition
was interrupted yesterday by an ad-
journment of the court, aScended the
stand and completed his testimony, re-
ferring to his examination of the para
graphs of the bordereau relating to
notifications in artillery formations.
He pointed out that much depended
upon whether the word formations"
referred to formations in time of war
or in time of peace. In the former case,
he added, only an officer belonging to
the First Bureau of the headquarters
staff, could have obtained the informa-
ton prior to July 4, 1894 except
through steps which would immediate
ly have led to his detection.
After July 4, 1894, when the decree
Il ink off he
notifications in the artillery, it was q
matter of common knowledge. If the
formations referred to were merely
maneuvers, only an officer attending
the maneuvers of the Third Brigade at
Chalons Camp could have obtained the
information and no officer of the head
quarters staff could be suspected.
(Note.-Dreyfus was not connected
with the First Bureau and did not at
tend the Chalons maneuvers. Ester
hazy attended those maneuvers)
Discussing the firing manual, Major
Hartmann showed that it was widely
distributed in 1894 and could have been
borrowed by an officer of any arm OF
the service attending the gunnery
school But the comments in the bor-
dereau, in the opinion of the witness.
could only be attributed to a non-artill-
cry officer.
Major Hartmann was proceeding to
discuss the shells, when General De-
loye objected, saying such matters
could only be discussed in camera.
Colonel Jouaust decided that if a Sc
cret session of the court was neces-
sary it could be held at the end of to-
IL Io TrC+ h
day morning.
Members of the court martial then
questioned Major Hartmann, who dis
cussed with them regarding the mean
ing of sentences in the bOrdereau, and
the witness proceeded to show how Es-
terhazy could have supplied informa-
tion indicated in the bordereau ana
how easily he could have collected at
the Chanols Camp information suft1-
cient to enable him to compose a re-
port on Madagascar and the covering
of troops.
Replying to NJ. Labori, the witness
repeated the testimony he had given
before the Court Of Cessation in re-
gard to the communication Of the Sc
cret artillery documents by Archivist
Boutonnot. Counsel recalled the state
ments of Generals Roget and Mercier
contradicting Captain Freystaetter's
evidence relative to the leakage of in
formation about the shell and asked the
witness if he was sure the leakage
could have occurred in 1894, to which
Major Hartmann replied, Certainly, in
both the case of the shell and the de-
tonator."
Replying to further questions, the
Major said that while he was con-
nected with the artillery technical de-
partment he never saw Dreyfus.
General Deloye here advanced again
and remarked that Major Hartmann'S
evidence did not give him the impress
sion that it wholly accorded with the
real facts. (Sensation)
Continuing, the General proceeded to
refute Major Hartmann's arguments.
He asserted Dreyfus could have casu
ally abstracted information from the
conversation of officers acquainted with
the details of the gun and the brake
without his informant being aware of
it. The witness replied that if the gen
eral tenor of his evidence was admitted
to be true it was difficult for the de-
tails not to be true also.
He asked General Deloye to be more
explicit. The General reiterated that
Dreyfus could have obtained the infor-
nation from officers with a special
knowledge who had impaired it un-
consciously during the course of con-
versation.
The Major pointed out that this
could hardly have happened in the case
of Dreyfus, as it had been shown
throughout the trial that it was suffi
cient for any person to have been in
touch with Dreyfus and for the person
to remember what has passed between
him and the prisoner. The witness did
not doubt that if an artillery officer
had been asked for information by
Dreyfus he would have come forward
to say so, as it would have been his
strict conscientious duty. (Commo-
tion)
At the conclusion of his testimony
Major Hartmann asked if the Artillery
Department Of the War Office had not
investigated the leakage at Bourges.
and General Deloye replied:
There have been many inquiries into
many leakages but the Artillery De-
partment has never inquired into them.
In regard to Dreyfus, / was asked to
do so, and supply information, but
that is ALL"
Major Hartmann retorted that he was
surprised that when an officer was ac-
cused of the most abominable crime of
treason it was not thought necessary
to open an inquiry with the view of