The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-08-29

OF the 01G0 session Oh G06 bnlrQ week Ol
the second trial by courtmartial of Gap
tain Alfred Dreyfus of the artillery,
charged with treason, occurred, the
clerk Of the court read medical GER
tificate, signed by two doctors whose
names were unknown to the audience,
declaring it was impossible for Colonel
Du Patty de Clam to leav his bed, come
to Rennes and testify.
Maitre Labori, leading counsel for the
defense, asked the president of the
court, Colonel Jouaust, to instruct two
well-known medical men to examine
Du Patty de Clam, but Colonel Jouaust
refused.
Rowland Strong, an English news.
paper man, was then called to the wit
ness bar and deposed to the fact that
Major Count Esterhazy confessed to
him that he wrote the famous bor-
dereau.
Replying to the court, Mr.. Strong
said that Esterhazy, while admitting
the authorship of the bordereau, said
the documents enumerated in it had
been betrayed by Dreyfus to Germany.
M. Henri WE'LL, former officer of
the headquarter' staff, was then called,
but he was absent and his deposition
was read. The facts in the case were
published April 20. M. Weill's state
ment, in substance, was that Esterhazy
told him in 1894 that Dreyfus was inno-
cent, but that this would not prevent
his conviction, because he was Jew.
[Sensation.
A brief discussion ensued regarding
the character of Colonel Picquart's for
mer orderly, Savaignaud, who testified
rl,a do hof,rn fN ,NNStincr latta,.o -, Mau
and June, 1897, addressed by the colo
mel to M. Schuerrer -Kestner, the former
vice president of the senate, who was
prominent in obtaining revision of the
Dreyfus case. During this discussion
Savaignaud protested that he had been
confounded with bandsman of the
same name who had bad character.
A former sergeant, who was at one
time employed in the war office, testi-
fed to seeing Dreyfus copying tine list
of railroad stations mentioned in the
plan of mobilization, to which Dreyfus
replied:
''It is true, but copied the list by or
der of Captain Besse." [Sensation.l
The evidence of the handwriting ex.
perts followed. M. Colbert referred to
his 30 years of service during which he
had reported on thousands of docu-
ments and added. visibly affected: 81
protest against the term interested ex-
pert, adding, turning toward the pris.
oner. "after all have no right to COM
plain when l look ut this unfortunate
man now before you" tGreat sensa-
ton.
The court closely followed NJ. Co.
bert's exhaustive story of his examina.
ton of the bordereau and his interview
with Generals Mercier, De Boisdeffre
and Gonse.
M. Colbert asserted that the handwrit.
ing OF the bordereau was natural and
fluent, but that it was almost illegible,
whereas Dreyfus, even when writing
rapidly, always wrote most legibly.
The witness asked General Gonse if
an envelope accompanied the bordereau,
as he, M. Colbert, wished to see what
the writer's careful caligraphy was like,
explaining that the address of letter
is always in firmer hand than its con.
tents.
General Gonse refused the request on
the ground that the witness must not
know the name of the addressee.
General Gonse, it appears from the
testimony, Was greatly enraged when
he learned of the result of M. Colbert S
examination of the bordereau and Wis.
tied the expert repeatedly. The latter
always insisted upon learning the name
| OF the suspect
The witness described how, from an
examination of an official report on
| Dreyfus, from which Dreyfus' name
had been removed, M. Colbert had the
malicious satisfaction of telling General
Gonse the name Of the officer they
| wanted to arrest.
1t was after M. Colbert had refused to
incriminate Dreyfus that M. BertilIon
| was entrusted with the examination of
the bordereau, and, after few hours
study, M. Bertlllon positively attributed
the bordereau to Dreytus.
Colonel Jouaust asked M. Colbert for
@ more definite criticism of the border
eau, and the witness replied that he no.
| ticed certain similarities between the
handwriting of the bordereau and that
| OF Dreyfus, but, he added, there were
many important differences which
| proved to him that Dreyfus was not the
author OF the bordereau, and his opin-
ion had since been confirmed. because it
was now proved the bordereau was the
work of Esterhazy. [Sensarion.l
Replying to the court, M. Colbert sug-
| gested that the judges compare the bor-
| dereau with letter admitted to be in
ClhuAJ y huhuWllbluS duu udG6u
| from Rouen, Aug. II, 1894, and with
| documents written by the prisoner.
"You will then Enthusiastically recog
nize, M. Colbert added, "that the Dor.
ereau is in Esterhazy's handwriting and
not in the handwriting of Dreyfus." /"
[Great sensation. The witness at this
juncture identified the borderauu as the
same which was submitted to him and
he proceeded to point out tine identity
OF letters therein with letters in docu.
ments admittedly written by Esterhazy,
saying that while the resemblance was
not apparent in Dreyfus' handwriting
| in Esterhazy's there were marked pecu.
liarities of punctuation and the manner
Of beginning the lines, which were also
noticeable i'll the bordereau, but which
were not found in the prisoners calig.
raphy.
Proceeding, the witness traversed the
old ground of the peculiarities Of the
tracing paper which 1T is known Ester
hazy used and said the date of the bor-
dereau must be July "a 1894