The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-09-08
DAMANGE PLEADS.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

to some of the documents, while others
did not apply at all to the prisoner.
The sixth document was a letter
written by Count Won Munster Leden-
burg, the German ambassador to
France from Germany to Col. SchWatZ-
koppen, the military attache of Ger
many at Paris, containing the words:
LAS regards Dreyfus, we are easy"
NJ. Demange pointed out that the
Dreyfus case was the universal topic of
Germany at this time and at first the
German officials might have been IN
easy but have evidently treasured
themselves Counsel was indignant
that because Count Won Munster Lee
denburg had not expressly declared
Dreyfus was innocent, the prosecution
had deduced from his words, an avowal
of the guilt of Dreyfus.
In regard to the letters of November
2 and November IL sent by Major Pan
izZardi to his chief, it had been alleged
that they proved DreyfuS had relations
with Col. Schwartzkoppen whereas, in
reality Major Panizzardi merely denied
that Dreyfus had any relations with
Italy. 1t was impossible to doubt the
authenticity of these facts. 1t was in
credible that Col SchwartzkOppen and
Major Panizzardi deceived their gov
ernments. The omission of Esterhazy's
name from these letters was intention
al.
7 have finished said NJ. Demange,
my examination of the secret dossier.
All France knows the worthlessness of
contents. I
the country has been distracted for
months and it has been thought that
there were documents and proofs in it
which might bring France to blows
with a neighbOring power. You are now
acquainted with it. The secret dOssier
has been exploded.
You will pardon me the loss of time
I have imposed upon you.
Il viii not take up the circumstantial
evidence"
A brief adjournment Of the court was
here announced. Counsel was warmly
applauded as he took his seat.
On resumption of the session NJ.
Demange discussed the circumstantial
evidence adduced in 1894. He said the
perturbation of DreyfuS at the dicta-
ton scene had nothing to do with pro-
ducing the idea of guilt in the minds
of those present.
Col. Du Patty de Clam, NJ. Rochefert
and NJ. Gribelin were all convinced be-
forehand of his guilt as a result of evil
dence which they considered unim
peachabIe, so much so that they wished
Dreyfus to blow out his brains, but
Dreyfus declined because he was limo
cent.
NJ Demange successfully showed the
hOllOWness of the stories of Matthew
Dreyfus' attempt to corrupt Col. Sand
herr, the late Lieutenant Col. Henry's
theatrical denunciatiOn of Dreyfus as
traitor at the court martial of 1894 and
the reports of detectives.
He pointed out how the prosecution
had advanced as proof the alleged
statements of individuals who were not
in any war office but whom they care
fully abstain from producing for exam
nation, especially dwelling upon Hen
rvs statement in 1894 which has since
been admitted to be false. that a GER
tain war Office employee informed him
that Dreyfus was the culprit.
NJ. Demange then showed the empti-
ness of the gambling and libertine
charges against the prisoner and said
the simplest actions of Dreyfus were
misconstrued even his legitimate desire
to obtain knowledge being imputed as a
crime.
Could spy have maintained the
naughty demeanor Dreyfus always
showed toward his comrades?
After demonstrating the falsity of the
evidence of M De Beaurepaire's wit
nesses, NJ. Mueller, De Breiul, Villon
and Cernuschi, counsel said the only
proof left was the bordereau? Who
could have sent it? Who wrote it?
Complete light could only be shed on
it by the production of the notes enum-
Grated in the bordereau.
This had been said by General Eur
linden himself. But counsel asked the