The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-09-03

There is reason to believe that the court
martial sitting at Rennes will have COM
pleted its work before the end of the
present week. What is TO be the fate OF
DREYFUs? 1t is an Ominous circumstance
that those observers who came to Rennes
with high hopes OF witnessing a prompt
and triumphant vindication of the accused,
and who have since watched the proceed
ings carefully. are most doubtful as to the
outcome. The doubt is not due to a recog-
milton that the testimony for and against
DREYFUs is nearly balanced; on the con-
trary, it ia acknowledged by ali unpreju-
diced onlookers that the evidence Is de-
cidedly In favor OF the accused. They cam
not but admit, however, that there is some
testimony, such as it is, against him, and
perhaps, enough to afford pretext for
condemning him in the eyes OF judges con-
WINGED that the reafflrmation OF the former
sentence is Indispensable to the mainten-
ance OF the honor OF the General Staff and
the discipline OF the French Army
The prosecution has not, as yet, ATTEMPTED
to prove that DREYFus knew the German or
the Italian military dttdchs in Paris, that
he visited them or either OF them, at their
residences, or that he left in charge OF one
OF their servants any papers or packages
bearing their address. That testimony of
this kind would be produced has been
threatened, but 1t is not yet forthcoming.
What the accusers OF DREYPUs have under
taken to show Is this: First-That he was
the only officer In position to procure and
betray the information referred to In the
hOrIprppn. Snpnn6lv nj ha kNr l..
In his handwriting; thirdly, that, after his
former sentence he confessed his guilt.
merely attempting to minimize the impor-
lance OF the secrets betrayed.
No attention has been paid by the mill
tary tribunal to tho fact that the two latter
assertions were pronounced untenable by
the Court Of Cessation In tho Judgment
ordering a second trial. That court, in its
Judgment distinctly says that the facts
submitted to it tend to show that the
bordereau could not have been written by
DREYFUs," and that 'one cannot regard the
statements made by DREYPUs to LEBRUN-
RENAUD as confession Of guilt since not
only do they open with q protestation Of
innocence, but 1t is impossible to arrive at
their exact and full text owing to the diff
ferences between the successive declara-
tions OF LEBRUNRENAUD and those OF the
other Witnesses"
Had the Court OF Cessation given to
these opinions their logical effect and pro-
ceeded to aequit DREYFUs OF the charges
preferred against him. there would have
been an end OF the affair. Instead OF doing
this, the supreme civil tribunal Of France
ordered second court-martial to investi-
gate the question whether "DREYFUs ia
guilty OF having, in 1894, instigated plots
or held communications with a foreign
power, or with one OF its agents, with a
view to engage it to commit hostilties and
to wage war against France, or, in order to
furnish it with the means to do so, by be-
traying thereto the notes and documents
enumerated in the bordereau."
The words here quoted, read in connec-
ton with the opinions previously recited
seem intended to limit the inquiry, and to
exclude from the consideration OF the sec
| ond military tribunal the question OF the
authorship OF the bordereau and that Of
DREYFUs's alleged con fession, both Of which
matters had been carefully. and. as it was
supposed, exhaustively examined by the
Court OF Cessation. The military Judges
have, however, assumed the right, and the
counsel for DREYFUs have acquiesced in the
assumption, to go into the whole case de
mono. and most OF their time has been
| devoted to listening to efforts to mako