The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-27

| Dreyfus was III secret communication
with the foreign military attache. TheI
/ came the thrilling Il accuse" by lola
and his charge that Esterhazy was The
real traitor; ZolaS trial for libel, anG
the farcial trial Of Esterhazy.
The final stroke which compelled the
| French Government to turn toward reyi
sion. was the suicide last year of Lieu
tenant Colonel Henry of the secret ser
vice department of the war office. lie
had confessed to forging certain docu'
ments which the anti-reyisionists had
much relied upon in fastening guilt upon
Dreyfus. These forgeries threw such
suspicion upon the whole case against
Dreyfus that the government, despite
the opposition of the army, remanded
the case to the Court of Cessation, the
highest civic tribunal in France. This
court decided in favor or revision on
the ground that the evidence at the
first trial was incomplete, and that the
accused had not been fairly treated
The court, moreover, threw out entirely
the question whether DreXfus wrote the
bordereau, and declared that the simple
question TO be decided by the second
court martial was whether Dreyfus did
really communicate TO foreign power
the documents mentioned in the Dor
dereau. That is the only issue properly
before the present court-martial AT
Rennes, although no one, not up on the
case, could be expected to know it from
reading the immense amount of irrcle-
want gossip and opinion which the MILF
tary judges permit the witnesses to
offer.
If we can trust the press reports of
the Rennes trial, the prosecution has
not offered any testimony proving that
Dreyfus sent to a foreign power the
documents mentioned in the bordereau.
General after general has gone on the
stand and declared his opinion, for in
stance, that Dreyfus wrote the bor-
dereau, yet what do their opinions
amount to beside the majority opinion
of handwriting experts and the decision
of the Court of Cessation? They also
repeat their conviction that Dreyfus is
guilty because he confessed privately to
his iailer III Paris in 1891. But Col.
Sandherr, then chief of the intelligence
department, is on record in letter
stating that the jaiers story of the al
legged confession cannot be depended
upon. The generals also say that GER
tain letters and dispatches by foreign
military attaches prove that Dreyfus is
guilty, yet whenever they produce any
such evidence the said attaches have
invariably declared it to be forgery.
Thus General MERCER has produced an
alleged report made by Colonel Sehneid-
er, the Austrian attache, to his govern
ment, in which Dreyfus was inerimi-
mated. Colonel Schneider at once brand
ed it as a forgery. So, too. the Italian
attache, Colonel Panizzardi. branded as
a forgery an alleged report discriminating
Dreyfus which General Roget said the
Italian attache had sent TO Rome. We
have looked carefully for fresh evidence
against Dreyfus from day to day and
have failed to find any worthy of the
name Did Dreyfus send those docu-
ments? The prosecution evidently has
no direct evidence on the point. That
the documents were actually sent by
some one and are now in the possession
of the German Government, is well
understood, we believe, yet the assump-
ton that Dreyfus sent them has not
been proved thus far.
So far as he is concerned, the prose
cution evidently demands his condemna-
ton on the same ground that an Ameri-
can mob once lynched a subject--on
general principles"
Most outsiders, as well as Dreyfus's
friends, believe that Esterhazy wrote
the bordereau and sent the documents
in question. Esterhazy, although a
great liar. claims from his retreat in
England that he did it. 1t seems GER
tain that the bordereau is in Esterhazy's
handwriting, if in any ones. Dreyfus
was rich and had no possible motive to
betray his country. Esterhazy was a
scamp, a libertine, and always hard
up for money. We won't attempt to
work out the case against Esterhazy,
but mention him to show that there ex-
lists a reasonable alternative TO behev-
ing Dreyfus guilty.
The most reasonable theory of the real
origin of the treason that has come to
our notice is as follows: All great gov
ernments, as is we'll known, maintain q
spy system in the capitals of other pow
ers to obtain secret military informa-
ton. 1t is undoubtedly true that the
various military attaches of European
governments stationed in Paris regularly
buy information about Frances army
from leaks in the war office. 1t is
known that this betrayal has gone on
since Dreyfus was imprisoned. 1t is
for the most part a petty traffic, dealing
in unessential matters. Now, French
army officers receive very small salaries.
General de Boisdeffre when at the head
of the general staff, received but about
$1,000 a year. Lieutenant Colonel Hen
ry, the forger, received but $1,000 a
year as head of the intelligence depart
ment. The temptation Of the poorly
paid staff and bureau officers, living in
Paris, to pedcie secget information to
the foreign attaches is very great. But
Dreyfus had large private means and
was under no such temptation. The
theory is that this peddling of petty Sc
crets for money had gone on for a long
time and had involved high officers.
Esterhazy was an agent and go-between
of these men. The bordereau was writ
ten by him and sent to the German ems
bassy in the regular transaction Of bust
ness. There it was inadvertently found,
torn in pieces, by French spy and pro
duced at the French war office. 1t had
to be taken cognizance Of. 1t was