The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-18
INNOCENCE OF DAEYFUS


that of the bordereau and he had re-
course to Du Patty de Clam. who was
supposed to have Psychological knowl-
edge" Gaughter).
Then the witness described what he
characterized as the irregular steps
taken by General MERCER to accom-
plish the arrest of Dreyfus.
No Fresh Evidence.
Referring to the dictation test the
witness earnestly and emphatically af-
firmed that he saw no signs of pertu-
baton in the handwriting of Dreyfus
on that occasion, and moreover, short
ly afterward Du Patty de Clam admit
ted that he had not found fresh
charge against Dreyfus.
Beyond the bordereau," added the
witness, there was nothing against
ENTHUSIASTICALLY nothing
His impression during the investi-
CATION. continued Colonel Picquart,
was that the acquittal of the accused
was probable, as the evidence was in
sufficient"
Witness believed he had even told
the minister of war that the condem-
nation of the accused could not be Sc
cured unless the court martial had
been shown the secret documents which
it had been agreed to submit to the
court. The colonel next declared that
in 1894 he did not know the contents of
the secret dossier, but he believed, like
all other officers, that 1t contained
frightful proofs against the prisoner.
When he became acquainted with its
contents, he found that his earlier i'm
pressions We're entirely wrong" pro
longed sensation).
Picquart then recalled the vehement
protests of innocence which the pris-
oner had not ceased making during
all phases of the degradation. The wit
ness declared he was quite ignorant
of the confession Dreyfus is alleged
to have made to Captain Lebrun-
Renault.
Continuing. Colonel Picquart de-
Tended himself against the charge that
he had always directed his efforts to-
wards the rehabilitation of Dreyfus.
He said he had only directed the in
vestigation made to that end, when he
became convinced that the writing of
Esterhazy and the bordereau were
identical.
During the course of his testimony,
Colonel Picquart asked to be confront
ed with Major Du Patty de Clam and TO
be permitted to deal with some of his
peculiarities when Patty de Clam is in
the witness box
Next the colonel examined the bor-
dereau and declared DreyfuS could no.
have disclosed part of it.
Regarding the Madagascar note, the
witness disputed it's value and said he
did not believe it was a confidential
note. He added that if Dreyfus. in his
capacity of probationer, had asked the
Witness for the note, he would have
handed il to him Immediately. There
fore he (PicquarD was unable to un-
derstand the sentence in the bOrdereau
regarding this document very difhcult
to obtain"
Colonel Picquart then declared he
had never seen Dreyfus copy the
| smallest document in She war depart
ment. In the opinion of the witness.
| the department where the bordereau
was discovered ought to have been
searched when the discovery was maze.
| This. he explained, was the department
| in which Du Patty de Clam worked and
that was the department in which he
was working on the plan of concentra-
| ton of the troops and the Madagascar
| expedition. He added:
1T was in Major Du Patty de Clam $
department that the search should
| have been made. or rather in his pri-
vate room, where he worked quite
alone" (Sensation).
Du Patty de Clam, continued the wit
ness, had been guilty of grave imprud-
| ence in having, contrary to regulations.
| had confidential documents copied by
single secretaries. non-commissioned
| officers and even private soldiers,
whereas the custom was that such work
| was done solely by officers.
Later on the witness said he Won
dered If 1t was not to avoid the risk
of punishment that Du Patty de Claim
advanced the date of the reception of
the bordereau at the intelligence de-
partment so as to make it prior to the
date of the Paty de Clam's) arrival in
the third department. (Sensation).
At Las a. m. the court adjourned
for the day.