The record-union., 1899-08-29

anu 1A. 1HdTdFniy, Tic iSAAAs AN'S
and reporter on ancient manuscripts,
was called to the witness bar His
deposition was SO inaudible that he was
requested to speak up.
I'm 1894" said M. Charavray, "I, with
two colleagues, though acting under
separate instructions, was commission
ed to examine the bordereau and a.
number of documents for comparison,
unsigned and in different handwriting.
examined first the latter documents
and by the process of elimination,
fixed upon one resembling the border
eau. [ was then furnished with spec
linens Of the handwriting in question,
but was not told the name of the
writer / asked if the document could
be regarded as genuine and was told
the place whence it emanated which
could not be mentioned by me, and
which could leave no doubt in regard
to it's value. / make this remark be-
cause I think it explains my opinion,
for 1 could not consider that docu
ment Of this nature was not marked by
a certain dissimilitude of handwriting.
l therefore attributed to the diSSimila-
ton the differences / was careful
to note in my report. I must inform
the court that in view of the fact that
handwriting which was not produced
in 1894 and which is evidently akin to
the handwriting of the bordereau as
the handwriting Of Dreyfus has since
been submitted to me. l cannot main
tain with the same degree of certainty
the conclusions of my former report,
and l can only make one statement,
namely, that those two handWritingS
resembled the bordereau.
Il should, however, point out one Of
the typical dissimilarities upon which I
laid stress, but not writing Of the bor-
dereau and the documents submitted
for comparison, namely, that the double
IS is not found between the bordereau
and the new handwriting. In other
words the double IS in the bordereau is
found in ESterhazy's writing
After repeating the evidence he gave
the Court of Cessation, NJ. Charavray
declared it was the new element, the
handwriting of Esterhazy, which led
him to declare he did not adhere to his
conclusions in 1894.
In conclusion NJ Charavray energet-
ically protested against General Mer-
cier's accusations, adding that what
convinced him that he had made
mistake in 1894 was the publication of
Esterhazy's letters, the discovery of
the Henry forgery, the inquiry 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 a great relief to my conscience"
M. Charavray added, ito be able to say
before you and before him who was the
victim of my mistake, that the bor-
dereau 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 pre-
sented for comparison We're sufficient
to convince him that the bordereau was
not written by Dreyfus.
The prisoner, on being asked the Gus
tomary questions, requested N. Char
vary to give further particulars as to
the reasons which led him to modify
his opinions in regard to the writer Of
the bordereau, whereupon witness en-
tered into a lengthy technical detail.
/ He explained how he found unmistak-
able resembIances between the border
eau and Esterhazy's writing.
NJ. Pelletier, another expert, prefaced
his evidence by saying he desired to
make a definite statement on the point
on which he was in entire disagreement
with General Mercier. The latter had
testified that the witness refused to use
certain documents submitted to him
for comparison in common with the
other experts, and said he had been
led to regard NJ. Pelletier's work with
some suspicion because of certain Incl
dents in which NJ. PelIetier, being sum
moned to appear simultaneously in two
different courts, had written to both
excusing himself on the ground of at
tendance
General MERCER declared this made
him suspicious of NJ. Pelletiers report
in favor Of Dreyfus, inferring that his
| failure to comply with the summons of
| the examining magistrates in Novem-
ber, 1894 was connected with his re-
port, whereas his report, the witness
pointed out, was handed in October
25th.
! Il have only to oppose facts to Gen
! =
/ PelIetier. "On October 22d 1 was en-
! trusted with the verification in ques-
/ ton. 1 handed in my report October
] 26th, and it was only in November that
! I was summoned 70 undergo cross ex-
animation on a complaint lodged by
the military authorities. General Mer-
! cier, in short, had not the slightest
reason to suspect the conclusion which
! I had reached"
! After replying to question or two
! from the court, M. Pelletier continued:
/ After settling this personal matter,
! there remains nothing but to maintain
in their entirety my conclusions to the
effect that there is no likeness between
/ the writing of the bordereau and that
| of the prisoner"
| Continuing the witness said that
after q fresh superficial examination of
the Esterhazy- -Dreyfus writings he ex-
/ pressed the belief that the bordereau
could only be ascribed to Esterhazy.
! NJ Couard the official expert in the
/ Esterhazy case in 1897, then testified
that he was instructed by Major Raw
! rary to expert and examine the bor
/ dereau and specimens of Esterhazys
/ handwriting. The witness insisted up
on experimenting with the original
! kordereau and specimens of Ester
/ hazys caligraphy, written by Esterhazy
! in the presence of experts. Beyond this
! the experts and Esterhazy had no re-
Z MI ~