The record-union., 1899-08-15

OcuGTdI (dNdlSudc, lOIlIicI MlLlStSl
of War, was the next witness called.
Replying to the President of the court,
he said he was the first Cabinet Min
lister to assume responsibility to Drey-
fus.
Continuing, the witness said that
among the principal points upon which
he based his convictions was the con-
fession to Captain Lebrun Renault. in
support of which contention he quoted
a passage from an alleged letter OF
Dreyfus, which in reality was part OF
General Gonz's report of the Minister
of War on Colonel Du Patty de CLAIMS
report of alleged confession.
M. Cavaignac admitted the POSSIBLE
ity of mistakes in human testimony,
and said they ought to be taken into
account when condemning fellow
man. But he asserted that he was con-
WINGED of the guilt of Dreyfus because
his accusers were so entirely in agree
ment in their testimony.
The witness also said he found adj
ditional proofs of the prisoners guilt
in the technical character of the bor-
dereau, and thought the bordereau
alone established the fact that the
treason had emanated from the bu-
reau of the general staff, and from an
officer who was able to secure all the
information desired.
According to M. Cavaignac, even in
his attempts to hide his crime, the ac-
cused had allowed words to escape
him which indisputably established his
guilt. Everything, according to this
witness, condemned Dreyfus, and he
claimed that in spite Of the prisoner
denials, it was established that he had
been everywhere it was necessary to
procure the information in question 1t
was established, the witness asserted,
that the prisoner had copied plans OF
the proposed concentration of the
army. Witnesses, he claimed, would
testify in support of this assertion.
NJ Cavaignac discussed the denials
of Dreyfus, and said his excuses OF
lapse of memory were inadmissible.
Dreyfus, he claimed, was aware of the
changes in the bridge corps belonging
to the artillery, and also of the details
of concentration. Why, then, the wit
ness asked. had he denied this knowl-
edge?
1t was impossible, according to M.
Cavaignac, to credit that Esterhazy
was a traitor, even admitting the Dor
dereau was written by him. Ester
hazy, he insisted, could only have act
ed as the intermediary of an accom-
plice. The inquiry of the Court of
Cessation proved that treason was
really committed, and M. Cavaignac
had not based his conviction of the
culpability of Dreyfus solely on the
handwriting of the bordereau. In the
secret dosSier, he said, there were
many elements for conviction, and he
proposed to discuss all the allegations
made by foreigners with the view of
eXculpating Dreyfus.
For instance, he said there would
be official dement's (denials) which
would leave plenty of room for the
truth to escape. Besides, it was quite
possible the accused was guilty of
treason without having direct relations
with the agents of foreign Govern
ment, and a certain ambassador had
admitted that his military attache had
spied under the immunity granted to
diplomats. M. Cavaignac also found
in the contradictory statements of for
eign diplomatists that Dreyfus was
we'll known at various chancellories.
Colonel Jouaust asked NJ. Cavaignac:
How do you explain the Henry for
gery?" and the witness repeated the
statements he had already made on the
subject. He dealt at length on M.
Cuignet's long investigation.
Colonel Jouaust then asked: What
do you think of the Henry forgery in
relation to the facts now occupying our
attention."
1.-The Henry forgery replied M. Cav
aignac, las alleged, was in order to
secure a revision of the case by the
Court of Cessation and was not even
alluded to. This forgery, therefore,
should remain outside of the scope of
the questions submitted to the court
martial. This is my opinion"
Replying to another question, M.
Cavaignac said his statement that
Dreyfus went to Brussels in the middle
of 1894 rested on hearsay.
M. Cavaignac introduced during the
course of his evidence a memorandum,
written in German asking for various
information, wanted by the Embassy,
which appears to have been unearthed
from archives of the Bureau of Infor-
nation of the War Office. He said he
believed it was written by a military
attache
NJ. Demange asked why NJ. Cavaig-
nae, who was so anxious to incriminate
Dreyfus, had not produced this docu-
ment in the Chamber of Deputies.
The witness replied that he had other
means of reaching the ends.
Counsel for the prisoner then ques-
toned Cavaignac in regard to his state
ment that Boisdeffre was absent from
Paris November 9th, when General
MERCER declared he was there. The
witness replied that General De Bosi-
deffre was certainly absent on that
date.
NJ. Jouaust remarked that this par
ticular would be elucidated when Cen
eral De Boisdeffre appeared. Colonel
Jouaust then told Dreyfus to rise alpl
asked him if he had any remarks TO
make upon the evidence.
The prisoner, who during M. Cavaig
macs arraignment of him, had seemed
nervous and agitated, replied in a low
voice: Il am astonished that the men
who produced in the tribunal of the
chamber the Henry forgery, can come
here and base his convictions of my
culpability on matters which the Court
of Cessation has already disposed Of"
Great sensation).
General Zurlinden, also a former
Minister of War, was the next witness.
He began by pointing out the obliga-
ton resting upon those directing es-