The record-union., 1899-08-19

dereau, Il am going to the maneuyerS.
He said there was no question of pro-
bationerS going to the maneuverS in
September This, he pointed out,
would have curtailed their period Of
probation in an entirely unusual man
ner
After dealing with the testimony of
the experts at the court t-martial of
1894, Picquart proceeded to examine
the secret dossier, close analysis of
which, he asserted. was particularly
necessary, owing to the weight the doc
ument had with the members of the
court martial in 1894.
This dossier." continued the fitness,
may be divided into two parts. The
first contains three documents. One
document Known as the d'Avignon doc
ument, the terms of which are about as
follows: Doubt the proofs; service
letters; situation dangerous for me
with French officer; no information
from an officer of the line; important
only as coming from the Ministry; al
ready somewhere else
Two, the document containing the
words, 'Cette Canaille de D.
Three, a document which is nothing
land made in behalf of a foreign
Power.
THE second part of the dossier,"
continued Picquart. considered chiefly
of a supplementary review of the first.
1t contained the gist of seven or eight
documents. one of which, 'Cette Cam
allie de D will serve for the pur-
poses of comparison. 1t also contained
the correspondence of attaches "A and
b These initials. it should be borne
in mind, represent Colonel Schwartz
koppen, formerly German military at
tache at Paris and Major Panizzardi,
the former military attache of Italy
at the French capital
At this juncture the Colonel said it
would facilitate his explanation if he
were permitted to see the secret dos
sier, adding: Il have already had it in
my hands, but l fear my memory may
fail me on some points,
What you ask" replied the Presi-
dent of the court-martial, 'is impos-
sible. The Ministers orders are abso-
lutte. The secret dossier can only be
examined under certain conditions"
Il regret it" answered Picquart,
but I will try to refresh my memory"
The next witness explained why Ma
jor Du Patty de CLAIMS translation of
the d'Avignon document, which has
been classed as idiOtic. was open to
doubt, and why the document. if it had
any meaning whatever. was as apph-
cable to Esterhazy as to Dreyfus.
Regarding the correspondence of the
military attaches, the witness demon
strated the insignifcance Of the infor
nation asked for While Du Patty de
Clam regarded the correspondence as
convincing and as clearly indicating an
officer of the second bureau, Picquart
maintained that the terms of the cor
respondence indicated that the writer
intended to ask a friend and not a
spy for the information desired. Many
headquarters officers. he pointed out,
were on cordial and absolutely intimate
terms with the foreign military at
taches.
Colonel Picquart then took up the
"Cette Canaifle de D document.
He called attention Of the court to the
fact that it was addressed by
Schwartzkoppen to Panizzardi, and not
vice versa, as long believed.
After giving his reasons for believing
to in that document, Picquart showed
how De Clam came to ascribe the au-
thorship of the document to Panizzardi
with the view of establishing a con-
nection which in reality did not exist
between the various documents in the
Indictment against Dreyfus
The document referring to the French
agents journey to Switzerland of
which Schwartzkoppen is said to have
been informed was only slightly COM
mented upon by the witness as he did
not attach Importance TO it. The
minute detail with which the Colonel
dealt with the evidence the clearness
of his language and his deductions, had
great effect upon the audience, and
elected general admiration. The former
Chief of the Intelligence Department
concluded his examination of the first
portion of the secret dossier by say
ing:
May l be allowed to express deep
regret at the absence of Major du
Patty de Clam? 1t seems to me indis-
pensable that this officer, who wrote
the commentaries on the secret dossier,
should be summoned to give evidence
here. He would give us his reminis-
sences and l would help him." Gaugh-
ter)
But" added Picquart, 'since l am
dealing with this question of the COM
mentaries of Major du Patty de Clam,
permit me to point out to you, gen
tlemen, that this document was not the
property of any particular Minister. It
was classified as belonging to the IN
telligence Department, and, as you see,
iMformed part of a well-defined dossier
"a dossier which was shut up in one of
the drawers of my desk, and which was
abstracted from it. This commentary,
therefore, is upon secret dossier doc
ument which was improperly removed
from my department" (Sepsation)
Continuing, the witness said: Men
ton was made yesterday of the disap-
pearance of documents That is the
case in point"
Turning to the second part of the
dossier. Colonel Picquart said num-
Der of documents in it are forgeries,
and said the police reports therein con-
tanned showed nothing serious against
Dreyfus. He explained that they en-
bodied the theme mostly utilized by
police spies, in order to dupe the In
telligence Department, and asserted
that their information was mostly
worthless, embroidered, or false, or
prepared in order to make interesting
reading.
"In the inquiry made by NJ Quesnay
de Beaurepaire' (former President os
the civil section of the Court of Cassa-
tion), continued Colonel Picquart, you
have an excellent example of the sort