Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1899-09-03

The PRISONER FORM ULAl lNG
THE AU-IMPORTANT
POINTS IN THE PHYSIOLOGY
OF THE DOCUMENT BROUGHT
OUT-ANY ARTILLERY OFF,
GER, Or ONE NOT IN THAT
BRANCH, COULD HAVE SECUR-
ED ALL THE INFORMATION RE-
CURED TO WRITE THE DOCU-
MENT - DREYFuS NEVER
SOUGHT INFORMATION RE-
GARDING THE ROBIN SHE'LL.
RENNES, September 2.-Elation is
the only word that expresses the feel
ings of the Dreyfusards after to-day's
proceedings. The tide is turned at last,
they say, and Dreyfus cannot be con-
demned after the evidence given this
morning. The spirits of the Dreyfus-
ards are quite murcurious. Every day
since the opening of the trial has seen
them rise and fall, recently they have
been falling heavily, the close OF the
morning sessions generally finding
them in anxious conversation, accom-
panied by ominous shaking of their
heads. To-days buoyancy, therefore,
is all the more noteworthy. Yesterday
was fairly good day, but to-day's ses-
sion, they claim, puts the verdict out of
doubt and the judges must acquit Drey-
fus.
NJ Labori for the first time got Gen.
Gonse to admit that he ordered the
tampering with Picquart's letters in
order, as he said, to ascertain Pc
quarts doings while he was chief Of the
intelligence bureau. A little later NJ
Labori evidently disconnected Gen.
Ganse, for the latter blurted out that
Lieut.. Col. Henry committed his forg-
cry in order to have proofs against
Dreyfus. The audience smiled aud
IDLY at this explanation.
Then came the leading witness of the
day, NJ. De Ford Lamotte, a probation
er contemporaneously with Dreyfus,
who is now a civil engineer, and so has
no reason to fear the wrath of the mill
tary clique. The witness opened by de-
claring that despite the fact that he
had brother in the garrison at Rem
mes, he came to tell what he knew in
favor of Dreyfus. and he proceeded to
make statement which. according TO
the Dreyfusards, practically decides the
case. First, he recalled the fact that
a circular was sent to the probationers
on May IA, 1894, informing them that
they must not go to the manoeuyres.
thus showing that the man who wrote
the bordereau in August and said, 81
am going to the mapoeuvres, could
not be Dreyfus. The witness then
pointed out that none of the ministers,
who, he believed, acted in good faith
were informed Of the existence of this
circular, which he declared: Il con-
slider vital point in the case"
"This circular" he continued, "shat-
tiers the prosecution, because after May
II Dreyfus could not say, 4 am going
to the manoeuvres,' for then he knew
he would not go, while prior to May II
he could not have known the five docu-
ments comprised in the bordereau.
He then brought out another strong
point. Abiding to the notifications Of
the disposition concerning the troops,
he said the writer of the bordereau
used the term new plan"
Now" said the witness, cit has been
impressed upon you that on October Is,
a circular was sent out from the war
ministry containing those very words,
and that, therefore, the writer OF the
bordereau must have been an officer Of
the ministry. But one thing has struck
me-who sent out that circular? It was
the third bureau. the chief Of which
was Lieut. Col. Du Patty de Clam. VINO
had had the bordereau in his hands for
the previous twenty days
N. De Fond Lamotte by this intended
to show that Du Patty de Clam purpose
ly used the words new plan" in tue
circular order by what the witness de
seTloed as arguing IN a vicious circle
10 back UP his contention that an on
Ger of the ministry wrote the border
eau ana that that officer was Dreyfus
Gen. Roget then rose To reply 10 H.
De FOND Lamotte. but found he had
Tartar. He did not succeed in shak-
ing the witnesses testimony. while ~
lie Fond Lamotte took the unpgece ieut-
ed course OF actually questioning Gen
Roget and getting the better OF him
once or twice. The Two men stood ex-
changing heated arguments, totally ig-
noring Col Jouaust. VINO was twjs 2
obliged to ask them not 10 speak at
each other and to remain calm Gen.
Roget especially was excited, parlicu-
larly when he found that he wa makiHg
no impression on his opponent. who
on the contrary. scored OF him. Roget
was unusued 20 this treatment, as hitn-
erto he has had his own way and been
allowed 10 bully witnesses.
Finally on Roget declaring that Drey-
fus might have written Il am going 10
the manoeuvres, because he could have
asked speeial permission, which is in
variably granted H. Demange asked
him if there was any proof that Drey-
fus did ask such permission. To this