The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-22
The Situation at Rennes.

As we look back over the second trial Of
DREYFUs, which has now entered upon a
third week, two facts stand forth distinctly.
First had the Court been a civil one, known
to be impartial. a motion for tho acquittal
OF the accused would have been made
Immediately after tho prosecution rested,
on the ground that no legal evidence
against DREYFUs had been adduced.
Secondly, the military tribunal Is 30
far from being regarded as impartial
Fiat the defence has felt constrained
to call a great array OF witnesses, yet, not
wthsta nding the weight and cogency Of
their evidence. given by Judge BERTULUs
and Col. P1CQUART, the acquittal OF the
prisoner Ia by no means assured.
No foreigner who has followed the pro-
ceedings at Rennes would imagine that a
court-martial Ia compelled by law to OBJ
serve the same rules regarding hearsay
evidence and arbitrary opinions as are
prescribed for the French civil courts, and
that those rules are just the same in France
as they are In other civilized countries
Col. JoUAUsT, the presiding officer Of the
court-martial, has allowed MERCER, Bill
LOT. ZURLINDEN GoNsE, BoIsDEFFRE
Roget, CUIGNET and CAvAIGNAC to offer
their personal convictions and to repeat at
second and even third hand assertions
alleged to have been made by persons not
subp8naed. Indeed. with two exceptions,
the testimony Of all the witnesses named
was confined to the iteration of hearsay
evidence, or to the legally worthless ex-
preston Of individual opinion.
The two exceptions were these First,
MERCER produced n paper written in
French which he described as a report in
eliminating DREYFUs made to his Govern
ment by Col. SCHNEIDER. an Austrian mill
tary dttache This report Col. SCHNEIDER
At once proclaimed a forgery, and it is said
that he is coming to Paris to prosecute
MERCIER Secondly, ROGET swore that
Col. PANIzzARDI. an Italian military attach,
had reported to his Government that DREY-
FUs had made treasonable communications
to Col. ScHwARzKoPPEN, the German mill
tary GhdchS. This report ROGET did not
pretend that he had ever seen himself, or
had even seen anybody who had seen it.
He simply testified that such report had
existed No sooner was his evidence pub
lished than PANIzzARDI telegraphed his
word Of honor that he had never written
pu'u lepOlb HOI any 6ucn
fact. These are positively the only new
pieces OF ostensible evidence that the prose-
cution has been able To collect against
DREYFus since the first court-martial.
For several reasons suspicion attaches to
the ability or the intention of the present
court-martal to render Judgment in ac-
cordanco with the law and the evidence.
From the outset OF the trial, extreme def
erence has been shown by the subordinate
officers composing the military tribunal to
the Generals and ex-AIinisters OF War who
have been called for the prosecution. On
the other hand. their demeanor toward
BERTuLUs and PIcQUART, the witnesses for
the accused. has been inattentive or I'M
friendly. They have refused to adjourn even
for forty eight hours to permit Maitre
LABoRI, the counsel for the prisoner and
the victim OF an attempt to murder, to ap-
pear in court and cross-examine the wit
nesses produced against his client. Again,
they have made an order, Notwithstanding
the protest OF the defence, that the deposi-
tion o! DU PATTY DE CLAN shall be taken In
Paris, thus relieving the witness from cross
examination.
The worst violation Of their Legal duties,
composing the second court-martial Is their
refusal TO take cognizance OF the judgment
OF tho Court Of Cessation, In pursuance OF
which they are now acting, The refusal is
exemplihed in their reputation OF the
limits imposed on the present inquiry by
the supreme tribunal. The Court Of Cas-
sation declared that DREYFUs was not the
author OF the bOrderedu, and that the sim
pie question to be determined by the SECOND
court-martal was whether DREYFUs had
as matter of fact communicated to q for
eign power the documents which the
5ordereau cnumerates. In defiance o
the position taken by the hghes
court in France. the Generals anC
ex-Minislers OF War have been allowed
to repeat under oath their individual opin
ions that DnEYFUs did write the bordereau
and, therefore, theoretically, must have de
nveFsd the documents therein named