Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1899-08-31
THE oReYFus TRIAL.
Some Dramatic and sensational Fea-
lures of the Evidence.


lures of the Evidence.
Dramatic and sensational as was
Thursdays session of the Dreyfus court
martial, 1t yielded less substantial advan-
tage to the defense than the friends Of
truth and justice anticipated. The politi-
cal character Of the trial was strongly
emphasized. For the first time the court
itself directly interviewed to shield and
protect the military witnesses. The re-
frain so familiar at the lola trial. "this
question will not be put" was frequently
heard during Labori's attempt to cross
examine MERCER, the chief Of the con-
Epirators. Besides, many of the ques-
tons which counsel did put and which
the court could not decently rule out as
Irrelevant Mercier simply declined to an
swer.
With an unprejudiced court few ses-
sions like that of Thursday would mean
a verdict of not guilty. The testimony
of such witnesses as MERCER is evidently
valueless, for only their illegal refusal
to answer proper questions saves them
from disgrace and exposure. But there
seems no reason for believing that the
court has any conception OF law, evil
dence or justice, that it is able and will
ing to distinguish between the suspicious
and opinions of mighty champions Of
the army" and actual, valid and proper
testimony.
All that Labor succeeded in showing
was that MERCER was intriguing with
Patty de Clam on the very eve of the
present trial, that he inserted an alleged
discriminating document in the secret dos
sier which he had illegally held and that
he had tried to prevent the defense from
knowing its contents. This document
Col. Jouaust was forced to rule ont. All
the rest Of the scathing cross-exanina-
ton related to the trial Of 1894, now
known to have been fagrantly lawless
and unfair, and had no bearing on the
question under inquiry except as tending
to prove the existence of prejudice and
conspiracy.
At the opening of Fridays session Of
the court-martial, a doctors certificate
to the effect that 1t was impossible for
Du Patty de Clam to be present was
read. NJ. Labori asked the court that
an Official physician be sent to examine
De Clam, but Col. Jouaust refused.
Rowland Strong, Paris correspondent
of the London Observer, and the only
English witness to testify before the
court, was the first witness called on
Friday. He was respondent in red whis-
kers and London clothes. Strong told
how he tried to buy Esterhazy's confess
sion for publication, and that Esterhazy
had admitted he wrote the bordereau.
When Esterhazy Quilted prison he told
Strong several times that he would tell
all and that it would ruin De Clam and
oil those who had abandoned him. Strong
said Esterhazy impressed him as being a
thorough crook and swindler.
NJ. Colbert, handwriting expert Of the
Bank Of France, was called. Colbert told
how he was originally called by the war
Office to examine the bordereau. After
comparing it with specimens Of Dreyfus'
handwriting he declared that from first
to last it was not the work Of accused.
Gen. Gonse was called to confront the
witness. Gonse said that Colbert was
wrong in the details of his testimony,
whereupon the expert earnestly demon
strated the correctness of all he had said.
Gonse retired discounted, but insinuated
that Dreyfus had known the witness in
the bank. Dreyfus denied emphatically
that he had ever known Colbert.
The rest Of the days session was given
over to the testimony of Nj. Bertillon,
head of the anthropometric department
Of the Paris police, and who maintains
that he has proved Dreyfus was the au-
thor Of the bordereau.
Bertillon came into court accompanied
by four soldiers carrying charts, porto
los, compasses. logarithm tables, photo
graphs, ETC., which looked like the proper
- l. 10 I'M
burst into laughter at the sight. The
judges themselves looked disn,aycd as
the procession approached the platform.
and all those in the court who did not
have to be there fed from the room. The
rush for the doors was noted by Bertil-
lon, who remarked that it took intelli-
gent people to understand what he was
going to demonstrate.
After arranging his paraphernalia
about him on tables and chairs. the wit
ness began by stating that the bordereau
had beeS produced by the forces OF ma
ture, but that somebody must have writ
ten It. This was given In the manner of
aNman announcing a great discovery. M.
Bertillon continued by declaring that the
bordereau had been traced by Dreyfus,
who had cleverly initiated his own hand
writing. Then Bertillon proceeded to
give the exact measurement OF each pep
stroke, and showed the court a large
diagram resembling the plan OF fort
ress.
This he claimed proved mathematically
that Dreyfus was guilty. The witness
stopped constantly to unite packages and
surround himself with mysterious APP
paratus TO the increased bewilderment
Of his auditors. Bertillon proceeded to
demonstrate his whole system, which,
with Its ratios and angles, was under
stood by no one In the court. The table
In front of the witness was filed with
charts which came inexhaustively from
numerous pouches. Bertillon's exhibit
ton discredited the whole expert sys-
TEN. His reasoning was based on taking
as n fact some charge against Dreyfus
which was unsupported by evidence and
then arguing In circle until he reached
the starting point. His methods seemed
to impress weak-minded people that
something was being proved. Bertillon's
testimony was not concluded when court
adjourned.