The San Francisco call., 1899-08-19

ries of Major du Patty de Clam, permit
me 20 point out to you. gentlemen, that
TINS document was not the property Of
any particular Minister. 1t was classified
as belonging to the Intelligence Depart
ment, and, as you see, it formed part OF
a well defined dossier-a dossier which
was shut up in one of the drawers of my
Gesk and which was ahStracted from il.
lhiS commentary. therefore is upon a
secret dossier document which was i'm
properly removed from my department. -
(Sensation)
Continuing. the witness said: Mention
vas MADE yesterday of the disappearance
or documents. That is the case in point" "
IurllnS TO the second part of the dis
sier Colonel PicQuart said a number Of
documents in 1t are forgeries and said the
ponce reports therein contained showed
n0lhlne ssrlous against Dreyfus. He eX-
pialned that they embodied the theme
mostly utilized by police spies in order
to dupe the Intelligence Department. and
asserts 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
civil section of the Court of Cassation>.
continued Colonel PicQuart you have an
excellent example of the sort of people
gulse what amounts to absolutely moth
ing. You cannot imagine. gentlemen.
Wnat people in order to get money. II
only modest O-franc piece, have brought
shape Of so.called information which
eXamlnaton has proved to be worthless" "
DTeytus displayed the keenest interest
in P1cquart's protracted analysis of the
dossier, to which the whole audience
listened with profound attention The
members OF. the court-martial and the
former Ministers of War were equally in
terested;. OF the latter Generals Billot
and Zurlinden were in full uniform. Gen
eral MercIer was attired in civilian
clothes. Near them sat NJ Bertulus, the
n l-f 1,A ,,.,l.
strong testimony for Dreyfus yesterday
Madame Henry, widow of Lieutenant
Colonel Henry, who taxed NJ. Bertulus
with being Judas, was not present.
secret dossier, Colonel Picquart explained
how he had acquired the conviction that
lhe pordereau was written by Esterhazy
and how he ascertained that the anti
iDreyfus proofs were worthless. He be-
gan by detailing how he first learned of
me existence of Esterhazy and his efforts
to discover something about him. The
witness earnestly asserted that the first
occasion on which he saw Esterhazy was
when he read the address of the petit bleu
lie said he was not acquainted with and
TO this effort had been made to prove the
contrary and show Picquart knew Ester
hazy before the discovery of the petit blue
The colonel emphasized this point with
view, as explained, of showing how Ger
tain newspapers had travestied the facts,
and he created mild sensation by add
ing L snail nave occasion to point out
otner and similar examples
The witness then rebutted the charges
made against him. of unnecessarily delay
ing the prosecution of Esterhazy. He said
his object was to avoid arousng suspicion
IN regard to an officer who, perhaps was
entirely innocent.
What a mistake" he added "would
have been averted in 1894 had they acted
IN the same way in regard to Dreyfus!"
This remark caused murmurs of ap-
prevail in court:
What the witness gathered about Ester
hays character, he continued. created
the worst impression upon him, but he
learned nothing TO connect Esterhazy
with any act of espionage Therefore he
did not mention his suspicious. An agent
however, was ordered to watch Estcr-
hazy, who had completely compromised
himself through his relations with an
English company of which he had agreed
TO become director
That could not be permitted in the case
Of French officer" said Pcquart. More
over, Esterhazy gambled, led a life of dc
bauchery and lived with Mile. Pays
Turning to the leakage at Headquarters
the witness described the negotiations of
Major Lauth with Spy Richard Cuers IF
Basle, showing how the spy promised in
tPGrmatlQn Prn,5art "a. ABOUT the leakage, and how
Lauth to Basle.
,Picquart also described the vagu. rc-
plies of Henry when questioned on the
supJect OF Esterhazy before his departure
and the futility of the visit to BasIe be-
cause OF Cuers' refusal. when he saw
henry 10 impart the promised informa-
ton This incident caused the witness to
wonder whether, instead of trying to make
Guers speak, Henry and Lauth had not
cone cone e,Verything possible to impose silence
upon him. Before the Basic incident Col
onel Picquart had decided to speak to
General de Boisdeffre about Esterhazy.
In ansWer to my request" said the
witness, General de Boisdeffre wrote me
q
his arrival from Vichy. While driving
from the railroad station to the general s
nome l told him all / had done An regard
to Esterha2y. | affirm that General Bois
deftre knew that this question was to re-
main secret between us, and that | was
not to mention it except to the Minister
OF war. 1 knew Esterhazy was anxious
TO enter the War Office. and | did not re-
gard his desire favorably. l communi-
Gated my impressions to my chiefs, who
approved all my steps, and the application
OF ESterhazy was rejected His insist
ence, however, only increased my uneasi-
ness regarding him, and ! resolved to OBJ
tain specimen of his handwriting. 7
was Immediately struck with the similar
lty OF his handwriting and that of the
bordereau, and forthwith | had the letters
of Esterhazy which were in my possession
photographed; and showed the photo
Bertilon (the handwriting experD, be-
tween August % and September s.
The colonel emphasized this point be-
cause NJ. BertilOn an1rmS he saw the DhO-
tographs in May, 1896 and made a note
Of them, whereas the letters were not
written on that date. The conflicting tes
timony of Picquart and Bertillon on this
point has been used to discredit the form
ers evidence.
Colonel Picquart. continuing, said De
Clam, on seeing the writing, forthwith
declared 1t was that of Matthew Dreyfus.
the brother of Captain Dreyfus.
The witness continuing, said "You
know he maintained that the bordereau
IS the joint work of Alfred and Matthew
Dreyeus.' NJ. Bertillon said, That is the
writing of the bordereau. NJ. Bertillon
the handwriting, but the only information
l impaired was that II was current and
recent handwriting NJ. Bertillon then
suggested that ii was a tracing and end
ed by saying that If it was current hand
writing 1t could only have emanated from
some one whom the Jews had been exer-
cising for a year In initiating the hand
writing of the bordereau.
AT Nj. Bertillon's request | left the
photographs with him. When he returned
them he said he had adhered to his opin-
ion and earnestly asked to see the orig
inal. When l saw beyond q doubt that
the handwriting of the bordereau was Es
terhazy's and seeing that documents men
toned therein might have been supplied
by EsterhaZy, that the words L am goine
to the maneuvers' could perfectly well an
ply to Esterhazy, and that Esterhazy had
secret advices at his disposal to c0py a
document so voluminous as the firing
manual ] resolved to consult the secret
dossier to see what part of the treacherv
.N.l1