The San Francisco call., 1899-08-29

II. He could not conclude his examina-
ton on the spot. He must have time.
Here a member of the court-martial,
giving the result of his examination of the
bordereau, remarked: The letter ~ is
always isolated. even at the beginning Of
words
To this NJ. Trissonieres replied that this
popularity was also found In the prison.
er's handwriting.
When he was Invited to reply to the wit
ness Dreyfus said that M Trissonieres'
remarks seemed TO him quite Incorrect,
and that in order to reply properly he,
the prisoner, must have the documents
under his eyes.
LAS regards the criticism on the subject
of paragraphing," Dreyfus added, Il beg
to reply that one does not make fresh
paragraph except when beginning new
idea. Every time l begin a new idea in
anything l write make a paragraph.
The prisoner, in conclusion, asked the
president of the court to request the wit
ness before he retired to produce the doc
uments furnished to him for comparison,
of which the defense had no knowledge.
Colonel Jouaust-Certainly.
After a brief suspension of the session
the court resumed hearing testimony, and
NJ. Charavay, the archiVlSt and reporter
on ancient manuscripts, was called to the
witness bar. His deposition was so maud
ible that he was requested to speak up.
In 1894 said NJ. Charavay, Il, with
two colleagues, though acting under sepa-
rate instructions, was commissioned to
examine the bordereau and a number of
documents for comparison, unsigned and
in different handwriting. l examined first
the latter documents, and by the process
of elimination fixed upon one resembling
the bordereau. / was then furnished with
specimens 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 its value. / make this remark
because | think 1t explains my opinion
for | could not consider that document
of this nature which was not marked by
certain dissimilitude of handwriting l
therefore attributed to the Discrimination
the differences l was careful to note in
my report. ] must inform the court that
in view of the fact that handwriting which
IDENTIFY akin to the handwriting of the bor-
dereau as the handwriting of Dreyfus,
has since been submitted to me, l cannot
maintain with the same degree of certain
ty the conclusions of my former report,
and / can only make one statement name
ly, that those two handwrltings resemble
the bordereau.
II should. however, point out one of the
typical dissimilarities upon which l laid
stress in the writing of the bordereau and
the documents submitted for comparison,
namely, that the double s is not found
between the bordereau and the new hand
writing In other words the double s. In
the bordereau is found in Esterhazy' 5
writing.
After repeating the evidence he gave
the Court of Cessation NJ. Charavay de-
clared IL was the new element the hand
writing of EsterhaZy, which led him to
declare he did not adhere to the conclu-
sions in 1894.
! In conclusion NJ. Charavay energeticalIy
! protested against General Mercier's ac-
/ cusations, adding that what convinced
him that he had made a mistake in 1894
was the publication of Esterhazy's letters
the discovery of the Henry forgery. the
inquiry of the Court of Cessation and Es
terhazys confession. The conscience of
the witness compelled him to say that in
1894 he was misled by similarity in hand
writing.
1T is a great relief to my conscience -
NJ Charavay added ito be able to saw
| before you and before him who is the vic
tim of my mistake that the bordereau is
not the work of Dreyfus but of Ester
haZy."
NJ Pelleter, another expert, prefaced
his evidence by saying that he desired to
make a definite statement on the point
on which he was in entire disagreement
with General Mercier. The latter had tes
tilted that the witness refused to use GER
tain documents submitted to him for com
parison, in common with the other ex-
perts and said he had been led to regard
NJ. Pelletier's work with some suspicion
because of certain incidents in which NJ
PeIletier. being summoned to appear sim
ultaneously in two different courts, had
written TO both eXcusing himself on the
ground Of attendance at the other.
General Mercier declared this made him
suspicious of NJ. Pelletier's report in favor
of Dreyfus, inferring that his failure to
comply with the summons of the eXamin-