The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-19

tail his reasons for the belief that the
agent supplying the information was
French staff officer He then endeavor-
ed to show that traffic with foreign
military attaches could only have been
carried by probationer in the de-
partment occupied by Dreyfus.
The witness referred to the Paniz-
zardi telegram of November 2, 1894,
which he explained left an impression
on him that in 1894 Dreyfus was an old
friend of the Italian government.
Another document of the doSsier, ac-
cording to Major Cuignet. showed be-
yOnd dispute that the bordereau actual
ly passed through the hands of Col.
Schwartz6oppen, this to the witness,
established the authenticity of the bor-
dereau, an examination of which he
pointed out proved SchwartZkoppen
and Panizzardi had the closest rela-
tions in all matters of espionage.
Referring next to the dispatch of Col.
Schneider. former Austrian military
attache at Paris. denouncing as a
forgery a letter purporting to have
been written by the attache. in which
he was represented as referring to eff
forts being made by Sehwartzkoppen
and Panizzardi to conceal their rela-
tiOnS with DreyfuS, witness maintained
that Gen. Mercier's statements on the
subject We're correct and that the au-
thenticity of the letter had been proved.
The intelligence department. he added,
had other documents from the same
attache in it's possession.
THE SCHNEIDER DOCUMENT.
Major Cuignet pointed out that the
Schneider document was included in
the dossier and that NJ Chamoin, who
had the secret documents in his charge
had shown it to the court in behalf of
the ministry of war. Therefore. wit
ness claimed, Col. Schneider's contra
diction was really addressed to the
French government. (SensatiOn).
The major dwelt admiringIy on the
conclusion of NJ. BertiIlon that M. Es-
terhazy had learned to initiate the
handwriting of the bOrdereau after it's
publication in the Matin.
He then reviewed the police reports
( on Dreyfus. Replying to a question of
the court. Cuignet described the cir
cumstances of the discovery of the
Henry forgery and how it was that the
probationers did not participate in the
manOeuVres of 1894, although they had
long believed they would attend.
Major rCarriere, the governments
cOmmissary, at this juncture said he
thought it desira ble to remark, as the
representative of the government, that
he must be understood to endorse all
Major Cuignet had said with reference
to a foreign military officer, who at the
present moment held a diplomatic ap-
pointment in France" (Sensation.)
Replying to M Demange Major
Cuignet insisted that if Henry com
mitted forgery lit was in the interests
of the country" To this statement
counsel retOrted:
You did not say that to the court
of cessation
At the request of NJ Demange, the
majors deposition before the court of
cessation relating to Henry's move
ments and Patty de CLAIMS share in
the preparation of the forgery was
read. 1t showed that NJ. Cuignet en-
phatically declared before the court of
cessation that he was convinced an in
vestigatiOn would easily show that Du
Patty de Clam was the principal author
of the Henry forgery.
Witness claimed he thought he was
| doing his duty in saying all that is in
my mind.
DO you adhere" asked counsel, ito
all you said before the court of cassa-
tion?''
WITNESS GROWS CONFUSED.
This question greatly confused the
witness, who attempted to explain by
saying he was 'only arguing at that
time and that it was not for him to
judge Du Patty de Clam"
NJ. Demange pointed out that in spite
of che many arguments. MAJOR Cuignet
had advanced against Du Patty de Clam,
the military judge, Tavernier threw out
the case. Now" added M Demange
Major Cuignet had advanced as much
against Dreyfus. The court will be able
to appreciate the value of his remarks -
Counsel then asked why Cuignet had
employed the expression report" to
describe the Schneider letter and the
witness replied that he was justified in
doing so to the similarity of the ex-
pressions in it with the terms usually
employed in reports.
NJ. Demange pointed out that the
document included in the dossier con-
tained the word report Does the
original" he asked, contain this
WOrd?"
No" replied the witness.
Replying further, Cuignet said the
document also referred to the campaign
in favor of Dreyfus and to orders sent
to Brussels, the headquarters of the
espionage system.
NJ. Demange-The paper handed in
by Gen. Mercier is therefore only an
extract.
The witness next gave his idea as
to how Dreyfus might have secured
plans of the fortress. But counsel
pointed to Du Patty de Clam s report at
the time of the arrest of Dreyfus, in
which he declared that no document
had disappeared or could have disap-
peared from the ministry of war. When
Dreyfus was asked if he wished to re-
ply to this witness, he declared he had
never asked Major Cuignet for docu-
ments except by the desire of his chief
Major Berth.
"An the details which Major Cuignet
has given on this subject" said the
prisoner, ''sprang out of his own imag-
lnatlon and are due to the same state
of mind which prompts unreasOning
bitterness even against an innocent
man.
Amid buzz of excitement the name
of Major Du Patty de Clam was called
out, whereupon Major Carriere said Du
Patty de Clam had been officially in
formed that his presence was necessary
to the court martial and it was hoped
he would be able to come, but the gov
ernment commissary had heard moth
ing from him since this notification was
sent
DU PATTY DE CLAM IS WANTED.
At the request of NJ. Demange it was
decided to notify Du Patty de Clam
that the court martial was ready to
hear his deposition.
There was a further thrill of curios-
ity when Gen De Boisdeffre, former
chief of the general staff of the French
army advanced to the witness box and
took the customary oath to tell the
truth. The general remarked that in
view of the exhaustive evidence al
ready given, he would try to be brief
He hl1rrieC1y reviewed. he