Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-09-04
HIGHLY ELATED.
Friends of Oreyfus Say He
Cannot Be Convicted.
Strong Evidence in His Favor, Satu :
day, by Major Hartmann.
Combined Efforts OF the Generals Fail to
Shake His Testimony.

Rcnn,s sept. Elation ~ thc onl,
word that expresses the feelings Of tn
Drrylusards after Saturdays proceed
inEs. The tide has turned al last. the,
say. ana Dreyfus cannot be condemned
after the evidence given. Saturday.
The spirits # the Dreyfusards ar,
mutt" ncrcurial- Everyday since tn.
opening IF the trial has seen them ris.
w ran. ANA recently they have beer
falling heavily. the close Of the morn.
ing sessions generally finding them III
ANXIOUS conversation. accompanied by
ominous shaking ~ their heads This
buoyancy, therefore. is all the more
noteworthy. Friday was a fairly good
day. hut Saturdays session. they claim.
puts the verdict out Of doubt and the
judges must acquit Dreyfus.
Major Hartmann Of the artillery,
whose deposition was interrupted. Fri
dag by adjournment. assembled the wit
Ecss stand first. Saturday. ana com
pi.tcd his testimony. Referring to his
examination To tho paragraphs or the
borlrreau relating u notifications in
artillery formations he pointed out
that much depended upon whether the
v ord formations" =, fcrred to forma-
lions III time Of War ur in time Of
peace.
In the former case only an officer be
longing to the first bureau Of the head
quarters staff could have obtained the
information prior to July 4, 1924. except
through steps which would immedi-
ately have led to his detection. After
mon knowledge If the formations re-
ferred to were merely manoeuvres, only
aH officer attending the manoeuvres Of
the Sd Brigade At Chalons Camp could
have obtained the information. and no
officer of the headquarters staff could
be suspected
1t will be remembered that Dreyfus
was not connected with the first
bureau and did not attend the Chalons
manocuvers E.sterhazy attended those
nGnocuvrcs.
Discussing the Firing Manual. Major
Hartmann showed that it was widely
distributed in August, 1894. and. there
fore could have been borrowed by an
o!ticr + any army Of the service at
t"ncirc the Gunncry school. But the
comments in the bordereau. in the pin
ioD NJ ~" witness. were only attibut-
allie tn Hon-artillery officers.
Members Of the courtmartial then
Questioned Major Hartmann. who diff
fcrcd With them as regards the mean
ing nf sentences in the bordereau and
The witness then proceeded to show
HOW Estcrhazy could have supplied the
Information indicated in the bordereau.
ana how easily Esterhazy could have
collected at the Chalons Camp infor-
nation sufficient to enable him to com
pose a report on Madagascar and the
covering OF troops.
Replying to NJ Labor. the witness
repeated the testimony he had given
before the court Of cessation in regard
to the communication Of secret artillery
documents by Archivist Boutonnet.
Counsel recalled the statements of
Generals Roget and MERCER, contra
dieting Captain Freystaetter's evidence
relative to the leakage of Information
about a shell, and asked the witness if
he was sure the leakage could have oc-
CURED in 1894 to which Major Hart
mann replied:
Certainly: both in the case of the
shell and the detonatcr."
General Deloyc remarked that Major
evidence did not give him
the impression that it wholly accorded
with the real facts. He proceeded to
refute Major Hartmann's arguments
He asserted Dreyfus could have casu-
ally abstracted information from the |
of officers acquainted with |
the details Of the gun and the brake |
without his informant being aware of |
it.
The major replied that if the general |
tenor of his evidence were admitted to |
be true it was difficult for the details |
not to be true also. He therefore ask
ID General Deloye to be more explicit.
The general reiterated that Dreyfus
rom officials with a special knowledge.
Who had impaired il unconsci-
'usly during the course of conversation
rhe major pointed out that this could
hardly have happened in the case of
)reyfus, as it has been shown through
'ut the trial that it was sufficient for
my person to have been in touch with
Oreyfus for that person to remember
What had passed between him and the
prisoner. The witness did not doubt
hat if an artillery officer had been
isked for information by Dreyfus he
would have come forward to say So
as it would have been his strict con
cientious duty"
At the conclusion of his testimony