The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1899-09-16
OEMAxGE's ADDRESS.

AT 500 the court returned and rem
dered its verdict as related above.
DEMANGE'S ADDRESS.
Closing Appeal of the Counsel for
Dreyfus.
Rennes, Sept. 9.--M. Demange began
his address by saying:
When yesterdays sitting ended l
was about TO deal with what l called
indirect evidence, namely, the technical
value of the bordereau. The prosecu-
ton, by taking separately each Of the
notes containing information supplied
by the writer of the bordereau de-
dnced the opinion that Dreyfus alone
could have communicated the informa-
ton in the documents. If he had at his
disposal proof of this he should have
given it. 1t derolves upon the public
prosecutor TO prove that Dreyfus pos
sessed this information, and nobody
but he. That is how the question must
be put. We are before a court of jus
tice, where suggestions have no place.
In order to produce proof / must ask,
and we must know, what was the in
formation supplied. Consequently we
must have the notes delivered; other
wise we have to deal with a hypothesis.
THAT is my first objection, to which
/ challenge the public prosecutor to
reply"
Counsel, remarking that the hypothe-
sis accepted in 1894 could not now be
maintained, proceeded infinitely to ex
anime the theories of the headquarters
staff, especially Roget's. whose argu-
TnApfc1 ha ,.af,{A1 carsnts~~ En es,,-
ilarly Analysed the evidence Of MERCER,
ter improbability of an artilleryman
the bordereau in connection with artii-
lery matters.
Counsel then reviewed the well
known facts in the ease, showing that
Schwartzkoppen, German military at
tache at Paris, had supplied informa-
ton to his government years before re-
garding the "120 short" field gun. He
said that only the internal construc-
ton of the brake of this gun remained
a secret, but Dreyfus knew nothing
about it and never asked for informa-
ton on the subject from the few Off
GERS knowing it. Therefore. counsel
commended, Dreyfus could not have be-
trayed this secret. Regarding the
practical tests of the gum Demange
continued, Dreyius was similarly ig-
norant. Mercier's statement that Drey-
fus attended the trials could be dis
missed, as it had been proved the only
leakage resulting from those trials had
been furnished by the spy Grenier. 1t
was thus apparent into what error all
the witnesses supporting the prosecu-
tion had fallen. Their opinions had
been most imperfectly formed and the
judges must be on their guard against
them, honest and sincere as they
doubtless were.
Generals Change of Front.
Counsel refuted the imputations
against Dreyfus based on the firing
manual, which he said were purely hy-
pothetical. After showing the prison
er had never seen the "120 short" field
gun fired, counsel read letters from
Esterhazy proving the latter attended
the Challons camp and probably wit
messed the trials. But the prosecu-
tion," added Demange. "had not to
choose between Dreyfus and Ester
hazy. 1t had only to prove Dreyfus
guilty, and could not do So. On the
contrary, we have shown Dreyfus did
not possess the documents commune
Gated nor the information contained
in them"
Dealing with the note refe ing to
the covering of troops, Demange point
ed out Mercier's change of front on the
subject. In 1894 the general contended
it was with reference to the commands
of these troops that the leakage oc-
CURED, while he now asserted it was
regarding the mobilization and trans
port of troops. The prosecution had
thus advanced two versions, which
must cause the Judges terrible search
ings of. conscience, and especially as
no proofs had been furnished. What
right had the prosecution to advance
statements without confederation?
Reverting to the firing manual coun-
sci showed how Esterhazy had secured
a copy of it, and pointed to the fact
that his government had asked
Schwartzkoppen for supplementary
information, which showed the orig
inal intelligence was incomplete and
supplied by an incompetent person,
which must therefore have been Of
fered. and for a graduation bar, which
Esterhazy had obtained from a friend.
Had all these proofe existed against
Dreyfus, how strong would have been
the CASE for the prosecution. But their
hypothesis was not even probable,
while the theories of the defense were
all supported by documents culled
from the secret dossier.
Dealing with the last line of the bor-
dereau, II am going to maneuvers,"
counsel produced a note written by
Lreyfus, proving he knew in May, 1894,
he would not attend mianeuvers. But
Esterhazy's S'egimcnt was at the ma
neuvers regarding which information
was supplied. He continued:
"Was Esterhazy there? I do not
know. But what is certain is that
Dreyfus, if he were the author of the
bordereau, could not have written at
the end of August, I am going to the
maneuvers,' since. he knew probation
ers were not going"
Evidence of Experts.
After recess Demange dissected the
handwriting evidence, and reminded
the court of the groans with which
Scheurer-Kestner was greeted when
he displayed the handwriting of Ester
hazy in the tribune of the senate. as
that all you hape2" disdainfully asked
the senator's. Today the prosecution
has no more. .
After demolishing Bertillon's theo-
ries, Demange said that if the hand
writing of the borderean were dis
guised, how could Dreyfus' excla1na-
ton, This handwriting has u frightful
resemblance to mine,'' be explained?
Counsel was convinced the bordereau
was written in II natural hand by rs.
terhazy. The paper on which it was
written also condemned Esterhazy.
Then Demange examined at length
the theory that Esterhazy was n straw
man and showed that this was rem
dered untenable by every action of Pic
quart, who was accused of trying to
effect a substitution. How, if Ester
hazy was u straw man, could be have
lost his head at the moment of his ar
rest to such an extent that he contem-
plated suicide. He contrasted the lives
of Dreyfus and Esterhazy. When the
time had arrived for the Judges to say
whether the bordereau was in the