The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-31

Regarding the bordereau," continue,
NJ. Picot. "the attache said only thre'
documents enuemrated were referred 10
the fact being that others were padding
meant to swell the dossier."
The witness noticed that the attache en-
ployed the expression hydraulic brake
and never pneumatic brake
In regard to Esterhaxy, the attache,
NJ Picot said. declared that he consid
cred him swindler. The atiache alsC
asserted that Esterhazy had relations with
Colonel Schwarzkoppen. who dismissed
him because Esierhaxy only brought in.
formation devoid Of interest"
1T was then" continued NJ. Picot, "that
Esterhazy tried to enter the war office
aud almost succeeded. and IL was then
that he wrote TO Colonel Schwarzkoppen
The letter. since known as the bordereau. -
In reply TO the writer of the border
eau added Picot, Colonel Sehwarzkop-
pen wrote the telegram card known as the
petit bleu. but on reconsideration he
crumpled 1t up and threw it in the fire.
place" At this juncture General Roget
asked leave TO speak and stationing him
self behind the witness. he said he must
strongly protest against NJ. Picot's evil
dence regarding the military attaches sur
prise that French officers did not believe
their foreign colleagues.
What does the witness think" con-
tinued General Roget. of the foreign Of
fcer, who, having caused the publication
In Figaro of an emphatic denial of u
statement of General Mercier. was after
ward obliged to acknowledge the author
ship of document the paternity of which
he nj first denied?"
NJ. Picot retorted that he had only re-
peated statements made to him and had
abstained from comments upon them. He
had, therefore, nothing TO say in reply to
General Roget's questions.
NJ. De Mango, intervening, asked Roget
IL he did not think the foreign officers
mistake was excusable since the word re
port had been applied to an order not
possessing the character of report.
1T is not for me TO accuse or excuse, ="
replied the general. II confne myself 70
pointing out to the court that the con-
Versstion repeated occurred in May, that
is to say, at the time the investigation OF
the court of cessation was already known.
For my part l only interviewed because
French officers have been arraigned and
when heing accused. French officers have
the right TO reply" (EXcitement)
The general then returned to his seat
and General Deloye, director of artillery
at the war office, was called 10 the wit
ness bar. He repeated his explanations
given before the court of cessation as to
the various peculiarities OF the artillery,
particularly with reference to the brake OF
considered that in 1924 II would have been
impossible for any officer serving with
his regiment to communicate anything OF
the brake OF this gun. He added that al
though the gun was in use at Rennes the
officers who formed the court martial,
among whom was an officer commanding
a "l20" short gun. had only the vaguest
ideas about this gun. which while in 1894
the details of the pneumatic brake could
have been known to only very few officers.
The court closely questioned General De-
loye and judge asked when it was known
that the German shell "C9l" presented
analogies 10 the Robin shell.
General Deloye-In 1895.
The Judge-Not before 1894?
General Deloye-No.
The Judge--It was the information in re-
gard to the pneumatic brake, contained in
the provisional instructions for the i20
short gum which was communicated.
General Deloye-Yes.
The Judge--Was 1t possible for an officer
OF the headquarters stan to procure the
firing manual2
General Deloye.--It was not impossible
II he adduced a plausible preteXt.
Colonel Jouaust.-Was the brake rnanu-
featured at Bourges?
General Deloye.--Yes. at the foundry,
The Judge.-And the Robin SHELF
General Deloye.-At the gunnery school.
NJ. he Mange.-WaS the distance between
the two great?
General Deloye.-The foundry was con-
tiguous to the gunnery school.
When Dreyfus was asked II ne had any
thing to say he replied: II do not intend
10 discuss the terms Of the bord1reau nor
advance theories about H. 1t is necessary
to know what is in the notes and what
Is their nature and their value before thro-
ries can be suggested.
Mention has been made of the 100
short gun ! state briefly for the second
time that all ! knew in iSS9-a0 at Bourges
OF the gun was the principles of the con-
struction Of the pneumatic brake.
General Mercier's deposition recalled
the fact that he was Inspector general at
Bonrges In 1890. He must remember the
lecture given in the presence OF all the of Z
hcers both of the gunnery school and ioun- I
dry and all the departments OF Bourges |
and the officers OF the garrison artillery. /
He must recollect the final lecture given
on the subject OF pneumatic brake, OF
which he made the customary rough
sketch. This Is to be found in the St
4yr lectures, All my knowledge of pneu-
matte brakes was derived from the leo
lures
in regard 10 the brake itself, | have
seen 1t twice once in the court yard OF
The gunnery school at Bourges and once in
The school of war. ! have not seen 1t In
action. have not seen the 'l2O short
gun fred. | have never been present at |
he firing trials. but the probationers at