The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-27
| shrug of his shoulders and without ut
| tering a word.

tering a word.
NJ. Bertillon, continuing, said:
Fully understanding the RESPONSE
bility of so positive sentiments, on my
soul and conscience l declare to-day,
as l did in 1894, on my oath, that the
bordereau is the work of the prisoner
here" (Sensation)
Dreyfus heard this assertion unmoved
The witness was asked by the court
how he explained the similarity of the
handwriting of the bordereau and that
of Esterhazy, to which he replied that
since 1894 Esterhazy may have prac-
ticed initiating the writing of the bor-
dereau in order to render possible the
substitution Of himself for the prisoner.
In support Of this theory M. Bertillon
produced a fresh array of plates which
he alleged proved his hypothesis in re-
gard to Esterhazy.
There We're murmurs of assent and
dissent. The witness pointed out that
in Esterhazy's writing there were GER
tain caligraphic blunderS. which he as
serted did not exist in the original
| bordereau, but were found in reproduc-
| tions of the document in consequence
| of imperfectons in the methods en-
| ployed to reproduce them This, he
| said, tended to prove that Esterhazy
| had appropriated the writing of these
reproductions.
Man of Straw.
| "Esterhazy," exclaimed NJ. Bertil-
lon, lis man of straw and a scoun-
drel. have said this in the commence
ment of the Zola trial"
There was sensation in court at
| this remark, which was turned to
laughter as the witness, in his excite
ment, knocked his portfolios to the
| ground.
NJ Demange asked M. Bertillon if he
Stlhn1itta6
ing to the same test as the bordereau.
The witness replied in the affirmative,
explaining, however, that the tests
We're less complete than in the case of
the prisoner.
Counsel reminded the witness that he
said in 1894 that he found in the bor-
dereau cryptographic signature, AL
fred Dreyfus." M. Bertillon replied that
he was not now positive on this point,
to which he added he attached mo i'm
portance whatever"
Referring to M. Bertilons state
ments yesterday that he found in the
bordereau the words Dreyfus was in the
habit of using in documents of the war
department, NJ. Demange asked how
the witness accounted for this, and the
witness responded with some confusion
that 1t was a necessary counterpart of
the precautions taken by the prisoner
when he wrote the bordereau in order
a plot" (Sensation)
When asked his opinion of the letter
from Matthew Dreyfus called the
plotting pad letter." from which the
specialist alleged the prisoner took the
key word for his work on the border
eau, M. Bertillon replied that he had
no opinion on the subject, but he main
tanned the letter had been written by
the same system as the bordereau.
That is my hypothesis" said the wit
ness Many similar ones can be
found" (Murmurs of disapproval)
Change of Base.
M. Labori asked how NJ Bertillon
reconciled his present opinion, namely,
that the bordereau was written by
Dreyfus tracing EsterhaZy's handwrit
ing, with his opinion in 1894 that the
bOrdereau was written by Dreyfus, un-
less it had been most carefully forged.
To this M. Bertillon replied that it
was only hypothesis, whereupon M. La
bori remarked that the forgery was
then of such a nature as to constitute
proof in favor of Dreyfus, yet to-day
it is made proof against him"
Continuing counsel said Since the
witness admits Esterhazy has written
by the same mathematical methods as
Dreyfus, why has he attributed the bor-
dereau to Dreyfus, rather than to Es-
terhaZy?"
M Bertillon-It was on Dreyfus' pad
that the key-word interest" was found
and Esterhazy might have had access
to this word.
NJ. Labori-Does NJ Bertillon admit
that EsterhaZy is traitor?"
Colonel Jousaust refused to put the
question to the witness. (Sensation)
NJ. Labori, continuing his questions,
asked NJ. Bertillons opinion as to what
system of defense might have been en-
tlA nit nf hn hnr
if the document had been found on him.
The witness, in a confused and barely
audible tone, declared that the prisoner
would have maintained that the docu-
ment was forgery and would have
adduced it as plot.
NJ Labori-In that case the prisoner
must have foreseen the appearance on
the scene of a man so eminent as M.
Bertillon, capable of imagining a sys-
tenn so ingenious as the one he exposed
day. Uaughter)
NJ. Bertillon retorted that in his opin-
ion a man of the ability of the accused
could have made a model in a quarter
of an hour every time he had occasion
to write Replying to further ques-
tions, NJ. Bertillon admitted he had dis
covered in Esterhazy's writing recul-
iarities similar to those in the border
eau.
Impossible Hypothesis.
Counsel pointed out that 1t was i'm
possible to maintain the hypothes that
Esterhazy was man of straw since IN
1897, when he might very well have ad-
mitted the bordereau. he had confessed.
The reasoning of M. Bertillon, counsel
asserted, therefore fell to the ground.
After short incidental discussion of
the Weyl forgery, which it was believed
was perpetrated by order of the pre-
feet of police Colonel Jousaust asked
the prisoner if he had anything to say
in reply to the witness, and the atten-
ton of all present was Immediately riV-
eted on Dreyfus, who explained how
the exclamation, "Oh, the wretch, es-
capped his lips yesterday.
m. Bertillon," the prisoner said,
was constantly turning to me while
testifying and calling me the guilty
man. l retorted wretch to him. Those
are the circumstances under which
uttered the word. | have nothing to
reply to the deposition of the witness.
But there is one thing of which | am
absolutely sure and that is that l am
not the writer of the bordereau."