The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-08-30

that suspicious Of heVprisoner's guilt
became definite. The witness said he
believed that the bordereau arrived at
the war office after Sept. "a. Very few
officers were aware that treason had
been committed. The witness thought
it was necessary to enter into these
particulars, in reply to the statements
of his assistant, Maj. Lauth, before the
court Of cessation.
AT this point Maj. Lauth, rising in
the center Of the court, exclaimed: II
beg leave to speak. my colonel
Proceeding with his testimony, Col.
Cordier said he believed the bordereau
was handed to Col. Sandherr by Col.
Henry Cordier then explained what
was the ordinary channel by which
information reached the war office.
The ordinary channel" the witness
said, was very clever spy attached
to the intelligence department, who had
the habit of visiting great houses, but
who preferred the company of servants
to the company of their masters"
Cordter then described the method of
pieclng documents and showed how the
.bordereau was pasted together by
Henry, who was usually intrusted with
this work. The witness said that piec-
ing documents possessed fascination for
the men who were engaged upon such
work, like the passion of fortune tell
ing by cards.
Men who have once pieced paper
said the witness, amidst Laughter, will
always continue to do SOL
Referring to the spy who was dubbed
as ordinary ohannel," Col. Cordier said
the former did not directly, receive the
documents from the embassy from
which they were distracted. A woman,
he explained, served as an intermediary
and, the ordinary channel having
been closed, it was found necessary to
negotiate directly with the interme-
diary, the woman, with whom rendez-
vous were usually made in churches.
But as the ordinary channels" SER
vices were still available elsewhere, his
pay was continued Possibly, continued
the witness, the spy endeavored to re-
new his relations with the embassy
Such was the situation at the moment
OF the reception of the bordereau.
Dealing with the leakage discovered
by the military authorities, Col. Cordier
said he ascertained it was occurring at
Bourges. The witness recalled the fact
that an artificer named Thomas was
sentenced for, treason in 1894. The for
eign correspondents ofTThomas did not
notice his arrest, and consequently a,
letter addressed to Thomas was inter-
cepted and a reply was semi. This let
ter asked for plans Of a shell. The
and sent them to Thomas correspond
ents. The latter replied. thanking
Thomas and inclosing bank notes,
which were credited to the-funds Of the
headquarters staff.
Whatever had been said to the con-
trary, the witness maintained that the
leakage at, Bourges could not be as
cribed to Dreyfus. This also was the
opinion of Col. Sandherr who frequent
ly had recourse to the witness intimate
knowledge of this question in the futile
efforts to discover evidence against
preyfuS. Cordier, whose evidence
greatly interested his hearers. described
the various leakages. He especially re-
ferred to very serious case designated
as Leakage Of st. Thomas Aquinas,"
in which clerk of the Church Of st.
Thomas Aquinas, Paris. was mixed up
in espionage, and a serious leakage in
the ministry Of marine.
The witness recalled how information
OF the leakage of 1894 was received pri-
marily. The name mentioned was that
of gentleman, AZ years Of age and
decorated, who used to convey Edoou-
ments to the embassy, which the wit
ness described as house with a large
garden. Col Cordier emphasized the
fact that the above personal descrip-
ton did not bear the slightest resem-
blance to Dreyfus, but resembled much
more closely another officer whose
name has been mentioned. and who
could no longer be prosecuted or con-
victed.
M. Belhomme, former inspector of
schools, testified that he examined as
an expert the bordereau in the Ester
hazy case, and claimed to come to the
conclusion it was not the work of Es-
terhazy Witness adhered to his opin-
ion even more positively now than be-
fore. Incidentally, M. Belhomme ex-
pressed surprise at the fact that the
court of cessation did not take the re-
suit of his examination into account. In
conclusion M. Belhomme declared Ae
never believed the bordereau was In
Esterhazy's handwriting, ana added
that until he actutlly saw him make q
fresh copy of the document witness
would have no remarks to make in re-
gard to the handwriting of Dreyfus,
which he had not sufficiently exam
iied. After M Demange had asked 4
question or two, to which Belhomme
did not reply, NJ Demange pointed out
the contradictions in NJ Belhommeu
original statements and statements to-
day. Court at noon adjourned.