The record-union., 1899-09-03
TIDE FLOWING
IN DREYFUS' FAVOR.
CONTINUED from First Page.l

cation into the case, We're then read,
and M. Labori then pointed out to
General Gonse that these letters never
alluded to the alleged confession of
Dreyfus. General Gonse replied that it
was because he always advised Colonel
PIcquart not to mix UP the ESterhaZy
and Dreyfus cases.
Dreyfus, he added. had been con-
demned and his case could not be re-
opened, but they were bound to see if
there was another traitor.
The General made a bitter complaint
at the fact that his letters had been
communicated to M. Scheurer-Kest-
ner, who published them in book en-
titled "Pontius PLATE"
Replying to M. Labori General Gonse
insisted that Dreyfus having been con-
demned, it was not his duty to go back
to his case.
A scene between General Gonse and
Colonel Picquart followed The latter,
being called, said he gave General
Gonse's letters to his lawyer when he
realized that he was the object of
abominable intrigues. and when he re-
ceived in Tunis letters of threats from
the late Lieutenant-C Colonel Henry, sent
with the assent of Generals Gonse and
De Boisdeffre.
Colonel Picquart added that he was
not responsible for the subsequent pub
hcation of the letters. In reply, General
Gonse said he had not given his assent
TO Henry's letter and that Colonel Pic
quart perceived machinatiOns against
him everywhere.
Picquart then declared that at the
same time he took the bordereau to
cret dossier. Therefore, he claimed,
General Gonse could easily have ac-
quainted himself with the probability
that Dreyfus was innocent
NJ Labori then took General Gonse in
hand on the subject of tampering with
Colonel Picquart's correspondence,
while the Colonel was in Tunis. Gon=s
admitted that one letter was opened,
and that the words of this letter were
used in forging the telegram which was
intended to destroy the value of the
petit bleu.
The General insisted. however, that
only suspected letters addressed to Col.
Picquart were opened.
Picquart replied emphatically that all
his letters We're opened.
Discussing the "SepranZa" letters M.
preserved and not returned by Colonel
Picquart, might be considered to be a
forgery.
Colonel Jouaust rebuked M. Labor
for raising the discussion. and counsel
retorted warmly that he intended, ac-
cording to Article 319 of the Code, to
say whatever he considered proper on
a matter which could bring light
Col1nCaJ than r11actipno5 Gaooy-a1
GOnse on the subject of the late Lieu
tenant-Colonel Henry's forgery and the
General replied that he considered it an
unfortunate move directed against
Dreyfus and not against Picquart.
Henry desiring to furnish proof against
Dreyfus, of which there was really no
necessity, the witness added, as the
diplomatic dossier contained sufficient
proofs
NJ Labori at once asked what they
We're, but Colonel Jouaust refused to
put the question. Counsel thereupon
declared he would draw up a formal
application for the reading of these pa
pers.
The next witness, NJ. De Fond La
motto, former officer of the artillery,
testified that in 1894, Colonel Picquart
lent him a firing manual which he
might have kept as long as he pleased.
so" the witness added, "there was
little secrecy at that time. Any officer
could have obtained one in August,
1894. Another point in favor of Drey-
fus is that no prObationer could have
believed in 1894 that he would go to
the maneuvers.'
The clerk read a circular dated May
-. 1894, announcing that the proba-
TONERS would not go to the maneuyers.
NJ. De Fond LamOtte declared that if
the prosecution would follow up the
pieces of evidences they would be alb
solutely convinced that Dreyfus did not
write the bordereau.
This witness proved one of the
strongest witnesses for the defense, as
he brought out many points in support
of his contention that Dreyfus could
not have written the bordereau.
eff, as at first stated, the bordereau
was dated May" the witness argued.
"Dreyfus could not have written, L
am going to the maneuvers,' because a
circular was issued in May informing
the probationers that they would not
go to the maneuvers. While, if the
bordereau was dated in April, as now
asserted, Dreyfus could not have
spoken of the firing manual. which was
only printed at the end of May"
Not one of the Generals to-day
found a reply to the last argument,
which looked like a clincher, General
De Boisdeffre alone declaring that al
though it was true that the circular
mentioned was sent to the probationers,
they knew that they could neverthe-
less go to the maneuvers if they made
special application.
Generals MERCER and Roget went on
the stage and confronted NJ De Fond
Lamotte and an animated discussion
ensued. General Roget asked when
the witness had altered his conviction
in favor of Dreyfus, and NJ. De Fond
Lamotte replied:
'At the time / was before the Court
of Cessation I expected proof of my
comrades guilt, and 1 was thunder
struck when I found the date of the
bordereau had been changed"
General Roget was greatly excited
during the foregoing scene, but NJ De.
Fond Lamotte did not finch. He re-
torted quietly to all the Generals OBJ
servations.
The two men glared at each other,
and once General Roget addressed NJ
De Fond Lamotte in such a bullying
fashion that the audience hooted him.
---------------- --
naQnrQr