Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-09-06

witness said, he was convinced, like
everybody else. of the prisoners guilt,
but violent diatribes ON the fact that
Dreyfus was Jew awakened his sus-
picions. He, therefore, consulted NJ.
Hanotaux Clate prime minister of
France, and the latter informed the
witness of the existence of the ''Cette
CANAL. tic D." document, though NJ.
dauotarlX iailed to inform him that 1t
had been impaired 10 the judges of the
first courtmartial unknown TO the pris-
Oner. This fact the witness learned
later.
Trarieux denounced the secret COM
munication of the document us a mon-
strous IlicgaIity and violation of the
most sacred rights of the defense. The
witness described as impossible the hy-
pothesis advanced by NJ. Teyssonieres
20 convince the witness that Dreyfus
was guilty. The.witness' doubts were
confirmed when he heard that NJ
Scheurer-kestnerh had secured proofs of
the innocence of Dreyfus and the guilt
of another.
NJ. Trarieux said he could not agree
to Il single conclusion reached by Cen
eral Gonse Ill his correspondence with
Lieutenant Colonel PicQuart, and said
the latter's cemoval from the secret in
telligence department was the result of
underhand plotting by some one op-
posed to revision. The witness enum-
Grated III support of this statement vari-
GUS forged documents which, he as
serted, had emanated from the secret
intelligence department. He said he
assumed the chiefs were deceived.
NJ. Trarieux pointed out that if any
proof whatsoever of the guilt of Drey-
fus existed i'll 1896 General GOnse would
have shown Lieutenant Colonel Picquart
an order to stop the investigation.
After an interview with M. Scheurer-
Kestner. the witness said, he became
convinced of the guilt OF Esterhazy.
NJ. TIarieuX mentioned an interview
he had with foreign ambassador, who
declared that Dreyfus never had rela-
tions with him nor with any military
attache or officer OF the army of his
country. NJ. Trarieux asserted the i'm
portance of this statement of the ambas-
sador, who energetically reaffirmed the
absolute innocence of Dreyfus. The
ambassador added that he had investi-
gated and found nothing to implicate
Dreyfus.
Further, the ambassador said, he had
seen i'll the hands of Colonel Paniz-
zardi letter from Colonel Schwartz
koppen proving the guilt of Esterhazy,
who, his excellency added, generally
communicated information of minor
value. Moreover, at the time of M.
Scheurer- -Kestner's revelations Major
Esterhazy called upon Colonel Schwartz
koppen, and it was then that a DRAM
attic scene of violent recriminatioIs and
threats occurred. The ambassador also
showed the witness that the "Cette Ca
naille de D. phrase did not apply to
Dreyfus.
M. Trarieux explained that the am
bassador had accorded him permission
to communicate it to the judicial au-
thorities. In a subsequent interview
which the witness had with the same
the latter had Informed him
that the Henry forgery, which had just
been discovered, had been long known
to his government and that the French
had been aware of it for
year.
At one point he declared in part:
at may be said that should not ad-
duce here the evidence of foreigner.
That is NJ. Cavigndc's opinion, and do
not oppose it, but it has no foundation
either III fact or i'll law. The testimony
of foreigners is not disallowed by law"
He said Colonel Panizzardi was cited to |
appear in q case OF swindling at Yer
sailles, and foreign witness had been |
the day before. Even the su-
preme head of the army, the gallant
soldier De Galliffet, had not shrunk |
from adducinp before the court of cas-
satiOn the testimony of General Talbot. |
With regard to General Roget and
Captain Cuignet. the witness declared
hat their allegations that Colonel
Danizzardi had informed his ambassa-
lor that Colonel Schwartzkoppen had
lad relations with Dreyfus were abso-
utely unfounded. On the contrary,
he witIess asserted. Colonel Paniz-
.ardi expressly stated that Dreyfus had
10 relations with any foreign atIache.