The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-08-22

the secrets of the plan OF concentration
of the Eastern Railway system. ana IN ms
anxiety TO secure information neglected
his duties. His official duties, witness also
said, placed it in Dreyfus' power to dls-
close the documents referred to IN the
bordereau. Witness could emphaucally
DENY all Dreyfus had said on this subject
When Major Berth showed witness the
bordereau the latter was struck with the
resemblance of the calliSraphy. DreyIuS
was the only officer who made bad I'M
preston in his bureau, and the opinions OIL
the chief of staff and heads OF other de-
partments confirmed witness belief Cen
eral Fabre, in conclusion. declared he was
still as firmly convinced as in 1894 that
the prisoner was the author OF the DOR
dereau.
After NJ. Demange had pointed out the
discrepancy in Fabres statements ana
those he voiced in 1894 Colonel Jouaust
invited Dreyfus to reply. The prisoner
scribed the work on which he was en-
gagged when. a probationer, especially en-
phaSzing that he had to keep the dossler
relating to the concentration OF the cen
tiers on the Eastern system posted up.
This was not a fictitious task. ne prls,
oner's reply was made in calm, measured
tones, and his frankness seemed to favor
ably impress the Judges
Colonel d'Abovile, former deputy chief
of the Fourth Bureau, related how Fapre
had shown him ph3tograph Oh a.; an
timated to his correspondent, evidently
foreign to the army" that he had conf
Dental documents to communicate Inc
witness told Fabre that the documents
mentioned showed the writer could only
be an artillery officer belonging to the
general staff who participated in the
eyreditions of the headquarters staff in
June and July. 1884 The position of Drey-
fus corresponded with these conditions,
and "to their great surprise STRIKING
resemblance was apparent in the WRITINGS
of Dreyfus and the anonymous letter.
Witness further declared that only pro-
bationer could possess the information
mentioned in the bordereau. 1t was not
only because of the resemblance or the
handwriting that suspicious were directed
at Dreyfus, but because he was in posi-
ton to be acquainted with the documents
enumerated.
M. Demange wished to know why Col
onel d'Aboville said that in 1894, in order
to discover the author of the bordereau
he thought it necessary to investigate the
officers. who participates IN tne eNpeoi-
tons of the general staff that year.
Witness replied that he was induced to
do so by tho expression in the bordereau
Il am going to the maneuvers, for he
considered the expedition of the general
staff equivalent to the maneuvers, al
though troops were not actually present.
Counsel pointed out that a great deal OF
argument was founded on the expression
II am going to the maneuvers. Witness
said it should not be forgotten that In 1884
the expression was understood to apply to
the expedition of the headquarters staff.
In repIy to the usual question, Dreyfus
said that he never had held any CONVEX
sation with General Sandherr, the late
chief of the intelligence department. who
was so little acquainted with him that
he once addressed him by another name.
Greater interest in the proceedings was
manifested when the name of the next
witness was announced, former Chief of
the Detective Department Cochefort. who
was present when Dreyfus underwent the
dictation test in Patty de CLAIMS office.
NJ. Cochefort declared he knew abso-
lutely nothing Of the Dreyfus case when
/ - ;eta of
summoned him to confer with him on the
subject of the bordereau and the suspi-
cions in regard to Dreyfus. General Mer-
cier. Cochefort continued, asked his ad-
vice as TO the procedure which ought
to be followed and introduced him to Du
Patty de Clam. Subsequently, after NJ.