Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-09-10
Argument In the Dreyfus Cnse.
(New York SUM-


(New York SUM-
The prosecution did not attempt to
prove that Dreyfus knew the German or
the Italian military attache in Paris, that
he visited them, or either OF them, at
their residences or that he LEFT in charge
of one of their servants any papers ot
packages bearing their address: mat
testimony of this kind would be pro-
duced was threatened, but II has not been
forthcoming. What the accusers or DIey
fus undertook to show is this: First, tnat
he was the only officer in position 10
procure and betray the Information re-
ferred to I'm the bordereau; secondly, that
the bordereau il in his handwriting; third
ly. that after his former sentence ne
confessed his guilt, merely attempting 10
minimize the importance or the secre's
betrayed. MT.
No attention was paid by the military
tribunal to the fact that the two latter
assertions were pronounced untenable by
the Court of Cessation I'm the judgment
ordering n second trial. That court, IN us
Judgment. distinctly says that the tacts
submitted to IL tend 10 show tnat tne
bordereau could not have been written
by Dreyfus," and that zone cannot regard
the statements made by Dreyfus TO lle-
brun-Renaud as a confession Of CUNT
since not only do they open with a pro-
testation Of innocence but 1t IS lmpossl-
BILE to arrive at their exact and ful text
cessive declarations Of Lebrun.kenaud
and those of the other witnesses.
Had the Court OF Cessation given to
these opinions their logical erect ana
proceeded 10 acquit DreytuS OF the
charges preferred against him, there
there would have been an end OF the al
fair. Instead OF doing this, the supreme
civil tribunal Of France ordered a second
court-martial TO investigate the question
whether "Dreyfus is guilty OF having IN
1891. instigated plots, or held communca-
tions with a foreign Power, or with one
OF its agents. with view to engage IL to
commit hostilities and wage war against
France: or, I'm order 10 furnish II with
the means TO do so, by betraying thereto
the notes and documents enumerated IN
the bordereau"
The words here quoted, read in connec-
ton with the opinions previously recited,
seem intended to limit the inquiry, ana 10
exclude from the consideration or the Sc
cond military tribunal the question OF the
authorship Of the bordereau and that OF
Dreyfus's alleged confession. both OF
which matters had been carefully, and,
as II was supposed exclusively exam
ined by the Court Of Cessation The milf
tary judges. however, assumed the right,
and the counsel Tor Dreyfus ar-
quiesced i'm the assumption, 70 go into
the whole case de nOvO, and most or
their time was devoted TO listening 10
efforts 20 make good the very assertions
which the Court Of Cessation set aside.
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE.
The prosecution manifestly failed to
prove that Dreyfus was the only officer
capable Of obtaining the information out
lined I'm the bordefeau. 1t Is almost inn
possible TO prove a negative, and the at
tempt 10 do so i'm this instance was an
egregious failure. Many witnesses teStl-
fled that the information was accessible
TO a large number Of officers. and it was
al. - IL. 4
in the bordereau was not such as would
naturally be employed by an artillery
officer. on the other hand. il cannot be
denied that not only Berullon. but some
other prOfessed experts in handwriting,
reafiirmed their belief that the bOrdereau
was penned by Dreyfus. We may think
that much greater weight should be at
tached 10 the expert testimony against
this theory, but the fact remains that
the evidence on the subject Is conflict
ing, and that the court-msrtial may have
taken a different view of the relative
weight thereof than is taken by onlook
ers.
The same thing must be said OF the tes-
timony relating TO the confession alleged
TO have been made by Dreyfus TO Captain
Lebrun-Renaud. Dreyfus says that what
he told Lebrun-Renaud was that Du Patty
de Clam had advised him to admit that
he had given unimpOrtant documents 70
a foreign Power i'm the hope Of receiving
that he had refused TO make any such
qualified admission, because there was no
foundation for II I'm fact IL Is hard for
Cn-lOokers 10 see how any tribunal could
fail 20 concur with the Court OF ca sa-
ton i'm the opinion that Dreyfus's version
of what he said on the occasion Is alone
TecOnclable with his asseveratiOn of abb
sOlute innocence, which, as Bebrun-Re-
maud admits he also made. Neyerthe-
less here is a hitherto reputable officer
who testified that what Dreyfus said made
on his mind different impression. and
there are other officers who testified that
he made known To them his impression
at the time; that they derived similar
impression from Major Attel, now dead,
who is said to have been present during
the interview between Dreyfus and Lee
brun-Renaud.
Did these officers commit deliberate
perjury? We cannot eTpect military
tribunal TO arrive AZ such conclusion
except with extreme reluctance. II these
officers are 10 be crcdil ed, however, how
could Dreyfus be acquitted? The counsel
for the accused. when summing up
sought TO extricate the court rom the !
dilemma by arguing that the officers VINO
testified TO the alleged confession are
honest. but mistaken. having drawn an |
in ,orrect inference from Dreyfus's words. |
What We would here point out Is SIM
ply that while the larger part or the !
testimony brought forward against Drey- |
fus was worthless. and while there was, I
in our judgment. a great prepon1erance |
of evidence in his favor. there was, at |
the same time, such a conflict OF evidence |
touching the authorship of The bordereau, |
and such a conflict OF opinion touching |
the meaning Of the words uttered by |
Dreyfus TO Lebrun-Renaud as Afforded |
pretext TO prejudiced court determined |
at any cost 10 uphold the discipline OF |
the army, for pronOuncing sentence |
against the accused.
We believe it a fatal error. and that |
events will prove that the discipline OF |
the army would have been better sub |
served by an act of justice than by the |
sacrifice of a man who can point TO a |
great preponderance of evidence in favor |
OF his Innocence
--un<---