The times., 1899-09-03

ed for discussion Major Hartmann wss
more closely questioned by the court than
any preceding witness, but his examina-
fion was entirely technical.
General Deloye took the stand and said
that while Major Hartmann's testimony
was fun Of accurate points. yet it did not
give an absolutely truthful impression.
This comment excited Hartmann's ire and
he retorted that he was astonished that an
officer who. according to his own state
ment gave Dreyfgs information which he
should not have given said officer,
should thus criticise him. General De-
Ioye replied weakly that one could give
details without thinking in the course OF
conversation and would only realize the
indiscretions afterward.
Mn Labori and Demange both ques-
toned General Deloye as to whether an
artillery officer would use this term or
: that expression which appeared in the bor-
dereau.
General Deloye admitted in nearly every
case thar an artillery officer would not use
the terms OF expressions referred 10. yet
when the general question was finally
pressed. could the borderaau be the work
of an artillery officer. he rather weakly per-
sisted that il might have been.
Pinning Esterhazy Down.
General Mercier again intervened in the
character OF prosecutor, recalling Lieuten-
ant Bernheim TO ask when Esterhazy re-
ceiyed copy of the firing regulations
Bernheim's answer was: Before the ma
neuvres in September, 1884"
General MERCER asked when was it that
Germany experimental with the hydro
pneumatic brake. Bsrnheim replied that il
was not until 1896 Marcier thsreupon ar
eued that until 1896 Germany called it hy-
draulic. hence il was not surprising that the
author Of the bordereau used the name
whereby il was known TO Germany IN lis
own army.
Major Hartmann. who was still supposed
10 be or the stand during this period, de-
rtroyed Mercier's point by announcing that
Germany began experiments with the ny
draulie brake in 1850 and abandoned them
in 1888. the year before the bordersau was
written
Prof Havet. Of the French Institute,
made a new and interesting analysis OF the
bordsreau from literary standpoint he
Dofnted out that il was defective IN It's
French and contained several slight pecu-
lgritias which were common to foreigners,
bui rare in native Frenchmen- The Wit
ness said ne had examined many OF Drey-
fus' letters. but had never discovered one
OF these peculiarities- On the other hand,
they occur constantly in Esterhazy's writ
ings-
Piequart Faces Gonse.
After the recess Maitre Labori applied
10 the court TO have read the correspond
ence between Colonel Piequart and General
Gonse in regard TO the Esterhazy and Drey-
fus cases. These letters have already been
printed.
General Gonse repeated his old explana-
tion. that he had advised Colonel Picquart
10 make a discreet investigation. but not
20 mix the two affairs.
Colonel Picquart mounted the platform
beside General Gonse and there was SEN
sational scene, in which General Gonse.
Colonel Picquart, and NJ. Labori took part
General Gonse, when pressed for his
reason for desiring TO keep the Dreyfus
and Esterhazy cases separate. was driven
10 say it was because Dreyfus had been
condemned His case Was closed as a
matter OF law and there was no reason
why they should have concerned them
selves further with any of the circum-
stances. II was true the prisoner might
have had sccomplices hence he General
investigate EsteThazy but not concern
himself about the Dreyfus affair.
The discussion became general between
the three men, Colonel Picquart finally
asking his former chief the direct ques-
ton: did you not believe in September,
1886 in consequence of information which
placed before you, that Dreyfus was in
nOcent -
General Gonse stood silent Then Mai
wk.- a L. -< ef.r
persecution Of Colonel Picquart at the
War Office.
Henry's Crime of Forgery.
General Gonse admitted that he ordered
Colonel Henry to open Colonel Picquart's s
letters. He said the only circumstance JUS
tifying this action was that Colonel Pic
quart omitted TO inform him OF the result
OF the Esterhazy enquiry.
RI Labori asked General Gonse IL the
real object Of Colonel Henry's forgery was
not to implicate and ruin Colonel Picquart
General Gonse replied: Henry did not
conide in me what his move was. II was
unfortunate he made this forgery to have
new proof against Dreyfus for there was
no need Of any"
NJ Labori-Yas Henry's forgery made
10 influence his chiefs or the public?
give Henrys thoughts.
n Laoori-Did you seek new proofs
against Dreyfus in the Henry forgery?
Colonel aouanst-I refuse 10 put that
question.
NJ Labori-Didn't you know that the
Speranza letter was a vulgar forgery, con-
eocted for the purpose OF running an hon
Orable oficer2
Colonel Jouaast-You must not put ques-
tions IN the form OF deductions.
General Gonse-I read the Spersnza let
ter and kept X Il was possible il would
prove OF value.
NJ Iabori-Anything against Colonel Pic
quart vas welcome al the War Office, was
Il not7
General Gonse-T considered il necessary
10 keep watch OF Colonel Piequart's move
nents-
NJ Lsbori-Wss that the object IN open
Ing Colonel Picquarts s letters?
General Gonse thesitatingIy)-I thought