The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-09-09


fus was concerned any more than any one
else. The leakage ascribed to Dreyfus
could only refer to the plans OF fortresses.
and this leakage continued until lse& The
document containing the words "Cette
camille Dc D." only indicated . poor
devil. and II could be ascribed 70 a man
whom another letter described as a
friend In the second bureau. No credence
could be attached to some Of ths docu-
ments. while others could not be a<cribed
to the prisoner.
The sixth document was a letter written
by Count Won Munster Ledenburs. the
German ambassador 20 France. from Ger
many. to Col Schwarskoppen. the military
attache Of Germany at Paris, containing
the words, las regards Dreyfus, We are
easy
n. Demange pointed out that the Drey-
fus case was the universal TOPIC Of Ger
many at the time. and from the first the
German ofilciais might have been uneasy
but had evidently treasured themselves
Counsel was indignant that because Count
Won Munster Ledenbnrg had not express
ly declared Dreyfus was innocent the pros
scution had deduced from his words an
avowal OF his guilt.
In regard to the letters Of November
and November II. sent by Maj. Panixzardi
to hts chief. II has been alleged that they
proved Dreyfus had relations with Col.
Schwarzkoppen. whereas in reality Maj.
Panixzardi merely denied that Dreyfus had
any relations with Italy. 1t was impossi-
BILE to doubt the authenticity OK these facts.
1t was incredible that Col. Schwarzkoppen
81 Ypa aga IA hi
ments. The omission Of Esterhaxy's name
from these letters was Intentional.
Concluding his examination Of the secret
dossier. M. Demange remarked that he
felt compelled to refer to these documents
emanating from foreigners. as Gen. Mer-
cier relied upon them to support the guilt
Of Dreyfua The statements OF the mill
tary attaches that they had no relations
with Dreyfus had been confirmed by the
statement Of the minister in the reicnstag.
who could not have been deceived by his
attaches In Paris
II have finished" said n. Demange. my
examination Of the secret dossier. All
France knows the worthlessness OF the
contents Yet IL IN owing TO q that the
country has been distracted for months.
and Il has been thought there were docu-
ments and proofs in II which might bring
France TO blows with . neighborins pow
err You are now acquainted with II. The
secre, dossier has been exploded. You viii
pardon me for the loss OF time have I'M
posed upon you.
II viii now take up the circumstantial
evidence"
A brief adjournment OF the court was
here announced.
Counsel was warmly appiauded az lie
took his seat
InssMeseney 81 Prosecutions.
On resumption Of the session. N. DR.
mango discussed the c.rcumstantiai evil
dence adduced In 1894. He sad the per-
turbation OF Dreyfus at the dictation scene
had nothing 10 do with producing the idea
OF guilt In the minds Of those present Col.
ru Patty de Clam. NJ. Rochefort and NJ
Gribeln were all convinced beforehand Of
his guilt. as a result OF his evidence. which
they considered unimpeachable 70 muca
so that they wished Dreyfus to blow out
his brains. but Dreyfus declined. AZ he was
innocent.
NJ Demange successfully showed the
hollowness OF the stories OF Matthew ORGY
fus' attempt to corrupt Col. Sandherr, the
late Lieut. Henry's theatrical denuncia-
ton of Dreyfus as a traitor at the court
martial OF 1894 and the reports % the de-
tec,ives. He pointed out how the prosecu-
ton had advanced as proof alleged state
ments OF individuals who were not IN any
war office. but whom they carefully a.
stained from producing for examination.
especially dwelling upon Henry's state
ment IN 1894. which has since been admit
ted TO ~ false. that 4 certain war Office
empioye informed him that Dreyfus was
the cuIprit
~ Demanse then showed the emptiness
Of the gambling and hbertine charges
agains. the prisoner and that the sim
plest act Of Dreyfus was misconstrued
even his legitimate desire TO obtain
knowledge being imputed a. crime
Gould spy have maintained the
naughty demeanor Dreyfus always show
ed toward his comrades2"
After demonstrating the faIsisy OF the
evidence of NJ Beaurepaire's witnesses.
Muller. DubrfAui. yiiion and Coineshut.
counsel said the only proof left was the
bordereau. Who could have sent IL,
who wrote II. Complete light could
only be shed on II by the production Of
the notes enumerated in the bordereau
This had been said ov Gen. Zurffnden
himself But counsel asked the court
IN remember with reference % those
notes that all Ger. Deloye could ssy va.
that II was not impossible that Dreyffrs
could have possessed them. This was
all he could say when IL was a question
% high treason
NJ. Denangs added:
lyon will not find this phrase IN the
mouth % a witness entitled TO your re-
specf. and n In on the strength Of such
a sham tina. Dreyfns T. 20 be found
guilty. ! Will not attempt To obtain
light on documents. but since theories
have been promulgated l will suggest
one. ] will seek IN show that you must
even put aside the technical value 81
the borfereau ard the last effort af The
prosecution. will seek tn combat me
cirrums,snsiai evidence IL has invoked"
AZ the request ~ NJ p~rranxe the