The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-08-28

Before ygn. am only a witness, i,asa.s but but
/ other tribunal l am, perhaps, an accused
Colonel Jouaust-. Not at all. You are
NJ Teyssonieres- am an accused per-
SON"
| per which he had brought with him and
began to read, whereupon Coionei Jououst
said
you cannot read a newspaper"
ct is a newspaper, it is true, replied
| M Teyssonieres, but it is also the re-
| port OF NJ Ballot Beaupre..
Colonel, Jouaust-f.We have no need TO
consider the reports of the judge. The
| incident is closed.
After a brief suspension of the session
the court resumed hearing testimony and
| NJ Charayay, the archivst and expert n
/ ancient manuscripts, WAS called 20 the
witness bar. His deposition was so in
audible that he had TO be requested 10
In 1874 said M. charayay, Il. with
with two colleagues, though acting under
separate Instructions, was commissioned
TO examine the bordereau and a number OF
documents, for comparison, unsigned, ana
/ in different handwritings. | examined
first, the latter Documents and, BY pro-
/ cess of elimination, fixed upon one re-
sembling the bordereau. | was then fuI-
nished with specimens of the handWTit-
ing in question but was not told the
ment could be regarded as genuine ana
| was told the place whence it emanated.
which could not be mentioned by me, ana
! which would leave no doubt in regard TO
| its value. | make this remark because
/ think il explains my opinion, Tor could
not consider that document OF TINS
/ nature which was not marked by GER
| tain Discrimination of handwriting. 1
| therefore attributed to discrimination the
/ differences I was careful to note IN my
Now. 1 must inform the court that, in
view of the fact that handwriting, Whlch
/ was not produced in 1884 and which evl-
| IDENTIFY akin to the Handwriting of the
! bordoreau and the handwriting OF Drey-
| fus, has since been submitted to me, l
| cannot maintain with the same degree OF
I certainty the conclusions OF my FORMER
| report, and I can only make one state
| ment, namely, that these two handWrit-
ings resemble the bordereau.
Il should however, point out one OF the
| typical dissimilarities, upon which ! laid
| stress, between the writing Of the bor-
dereau and the documents submitted for
comparison, namely, that the double
| is not found between the bordereau and
| the new handwriting: In other words;
the double of the bordereau is found
| in Esterhazy's writing
| After repeating the evidence he gave
| before the Court of Cessation, NJ. Chara-
way, declared that it was the new ele-
ment the handwriting of Esterhazy,
which led him to declare he did not
adhere to his conclusions in 1894.
In conclusion NJ. Charavay energeti-
accusations, adding that what convinced
! him that he had made mistake n 1894,
was the publication OF Esterhazy's let
| tiers the discovery of the Henry forgery,
the enquiry of the Court Of Cessation and
ESterhaZy'S confession.
The conscience of the witness compelled
him to say that in 1894 he was misled by
similarity in handwriting
"It is great relief to my concience, M.
Charavay added. TO be able to say before
you and before him who is the victim of
my mistake, that the borderau is not the
work of Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy-
An immense sensation was caused in
Court by this statement
Replying to Colonel Jouaust, the wit
ness said that the mere examination OF
the bordereau and the documents present
| ed for comparison were sufficient to con-
| vince him that the bordereau was not
| written by Dreyfus.
| The prisoner, on being asked the cus-
to give further particulars as TO the
reasons which led him to modify his
opinions in regard to the Writer OF Inc
bordereau, Whereupon the witness enter
ed into lengthy, technical detail He
explained how he found unmistakeabie
rdesemblances between the bordereau and
M Peiletier. another expert, prefaced
his evidence by saying he desired to make
definite statement on the point upon
which he was in entire disagreement with
General Mercier. The latter had testi-
fed that the witness refused to use GER
tain documents submitted to him Tor
COMPARISON III COllfIlD4l Will tlic CtilcA C1A-
perts and said he had been led to regard
M Pelletier's work with some suspicion,
| because of certain incidents IN which M
| Pelletier. being summoned to appear sim
1lltaneously in two different courts, had
written to both. excusing himself on
the ground Of attendance at .is. tne
made his suspicious of NJ Pei
letters report in favor OF Drey-
fus, inferring that his failure to complv
with the summons of the examining mag
| istrates in November, 1894, was connected
with his report, whereas the report, the
witness pointed out, was handed in Octo-
ber 26.
Il have only to oppose facts to General
Mercier's inferences," said M. Pelletier-
sOn October % / was entrusted with the
verifieation in question. / handed in my
report October 26 and it was only Novem-
Der that / was summoned to undergo
ross-examination on complaint lougeu
by the military authorities General Mer-
cier. in short, had not the slightest rea-
sons to suspect the conclusions which
had reached.
After replying to a question or twosfrom
the Court, NJ Pelletier continued
After settling this personal matter
I there remains nothing but to maintain in
their entirety my conclusions to the erect
that there is no likeness in the. writing
of the bordereau and that of the pris-
Continuing. the witness said that after
fresh superficial examination of the
writing of Esterhazy and Dreyfus he ex-
pressed the opinion that the bordereau
could only be ascribed TO ESterhazy.
M Couard. the official archiyist and ex-
pert in the Esterhazy case in 1891 then
testified that he was instructed by Major
Rayary to expertly examine the bordereau
and specimens of Esterhazys handwrit-
ing. The witness insisted upon experi-
/ menting wiki the original bOrdereau and
specimens Of Esterhazy' s scaiigraphy,
written by EsterhaZy in the presence of
experts Beyond this, the experts and
Esterhazy had no relations. The latter,
therefore, could not have Influenced him
and the witness protested against nj. 10
las accusations and adhered to his op1n-
ion of 1897 that the bordereau was not
the work of Esterhazy. He, the witness,
would wager his head on this Laugh>
ter)
caligraphy of the bordereau was neither
frank nor natural and the writer, in his
opinion, probably wished to initiate am
other persons handwriting. The letter
of August 2S the witness continued,
although declared genuine by Esterhazy
himself seemed doubteful TO M. Couard
who added that he believed Esterhazy
would say anything he was wanted TO
say Since 1897 the witness had not be-
lieyed a word Esterhazy had said, and,
he pointed out there was nothing to
say exactly opposite of what he said
now.
Replying to a question. NJ. Couard, while
reasserting that the bordereau was not
the work of Esterhazy, declined to COM
NIT himself in regard to Dreyfus, whose
| handwriting added the witness, he had
| never been caield upOn to examine.