Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-09-07

secret dossier communicated to the
court of 1894 contained a document
concerning shell for which Gen.
Mercier called the captain liar.
Major Hartmann affirmed that it was
quite possible that particulars about
certain shell should have leaked out in
1894.
An interesting conformation between
Gen. Deloye and Major Hartmann fol-
owed, the general declaring he did not
believe the major was keeping strictly
to the truth. Deloye then proceeded
to point to what he said were mac
curaeies in Major Hartmann's testi-
mony. He insisted that Dreyfus, in
the course of conversations with artil-
lery officers, could have secured in
formation on the subjects mentioned
in the bordereau, to which the major
retorted that, II any artillery officer
had been questioned by Dreyfus, no
would already have come forward to
say SO, as a matter OF strict duty.
M. Labor asked Gen. Deloye if he
knew whether the documents which
could have been betrayed by traitor,
especially by the writer Of the border
eau, were important, whereupon the
general turned to counsel and excitedly
l
These EXPLANATIONS created sensa-
| tion in court, which was doubled when
Gen. Deloye added that there was
| sufficient in the bordereau to establish
| that the traitor knew the Importance
of the documents he was giving up.
The witness added when l read the
bordereau, | was dismayed.
Major Hartmann, In reply to Gen.
| Deloye, reiterated that author of the
bordereau was ignorant of artillery
matters, for, ''if he meant the 1920
hydraulic brake, he gave particulars Of
| what was long known; while, IL he
meant the 100 short, he employed a
wrong expression.
The next witness. NJ. Havet, mem
her Of the Institute, took up the Dor.
dereau from a grammatical point Of
view, declaring 1t to he his conviction,
after studying closely the styles OIL
| Dreyfus and Esterhazy, that the latter
wrote it.
The letters exchanged between Col
Picquart and Gen. Gonse at the time
the colonel wanted thorough investi
cation into the case were then read
and M. I.aEori pointed out to Gen
Gonse that these letters never alluded
to the alleged confession Of Dreyfus.
| Gen. Gonse replied that it was beoaus,
he always advised Col. Picquart not t.
mix up the Esterhazy and Dreyfu
cases. Dreyfus, he added, had beef
condemned, and his case could not b
reopened, but they were bound to Sc,
if there was not another traitor. Re
plying to M. Labori, Gen. Gonse in
sisted that, Dreyfus having been con
demned, it was not his duty to go bacl
to his case.
A scene between Gen. Gonse and Col
Picquart followed. The latter beinI
called, said he gave Gen. Gonse's let
: tiers to his lawyer when he realize,
} that he was the object of abominabl
intrigues, and when he received, ii
: Tunis, letter of threats from the lat
J Lieut.. Col. Henry, sent with the assen
J of Gems. Gonse and De Boisdeffre
Col. Picquart added that he was no
responsible for the subsequent publica
tion of the letters.
: In reply, Gen. Gonse said he had nc
, given his assent to Henry's letter, an
, that Col. Picquart perceived machina
tions against his everywhere.
3 Col. Picquart then declared that, a
the same time he took the borderea
to Gen. Gonse, he showed him tn
: secret dossier. Therefore, he claimed
y Gen. Gonse could easily hav
acquainted himself with the proba
i bility that Dreyfus was innocent.
M. Labor then took Gen. Gonse
hand on the subject of tampering wit
+ Col. Picquart's correspondence viii
0 the colonel was in Tunis, and Ger
r Gonse admitted that ono letter W;
o opened, and that the words of this lett,
= were used in forging the telegral
b which was intended to destroy ii
o value of the petit bleu.
l. Further proceedings on third page.l