The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-20
CONVINCED THAT DREYFUS
IS Guilty OF TREASON
Major Cuignet and General Boisdefre Give Testimony
Meant to Be Damaging to the Accused-Demange
Succeeds in Pointing Out Contradictory
Statements in Their Evidence

French staff officer He then endeav-
ored to show that traffic with foreign
military attaches could only have been
carried on by probationer in the de-
partment occupied by Dreyfus. The
witness especially referred to the Paniz-
zardi telegram of Nov 2, 1894, which,
he explained. left an impression on
him that in 1894 Dreyfus was an old
friend of the Italian government. An
other document Of the dossier, accord
ing to Major Cuignet showed beyond
dispute that the bordereau actually
passed through the hands of Colonel
Schwartzkoppen This, to the witness,
established the authenticity Of the bor-
dereau, an examination of which, he
pointed out. proved Schwartzkoppen
had the closest relations in all the mat
ters of espionage
Referring next to the dispatch of
Colonel Schneider, former Austrian
military attache at Paris, denouncing
as forgery a letter purporting to have
been written by the attache in which
he was represented as referring to eff
forts being made by SchwartZkoppen
and PaniZZardi to conceal their rela-
tions with Dreyfus, witness maintained
that General Merciers statements on
the subject We're frequent and that the
authenticity of the latter had been
proved. The intelligence department.
he added, had other documents from
the same attache in its possession. Ma
jor Cuignet pointed out that the
Schneider document was included in
the dossier and that M. Chamoin, who
had the secret documents in his charge,
had shown it to the court in behalf of
the ministry of war. Therefore, witness
claimed, Colonel Schneider's contradic-
ton was really addressed to the French
government. tSensation).
Besides" added Cuignet, Il wish to
point out that the attache issuing the
denial is person of somewhat less con-
sequence than his allies. 1t is therefore
possible that this denial was imposed
upon him." tRenewed sensation).
The witness dwelt admiringly on the
conclusions of M. Bertillor that Ester
hazy had learned to initiate the hand
writing of the bo~iereau after its pub
lication in the Matin.
1t Was Dramatic.
New York. Aug. 19.-The Rennes cor
respondent of the Tribune, discussing
yesterdays session of the Dreyfus trial,
says: Colonel Picquart has formulated
the most discriminating indictment of
the former chiefs of the general staff
yet brought to light and, in the opin-
ion of eminent jurists, his evidence.
which for five consecutive hours held
the attention of the court and public,
and was delivered without consulting
a note and without hesitation or repe-
tition of single word or phrase, con-
stitutes the most remarkable specimen
of oral testimony ever recorded in
French court of justice. The narra-
tive, not once interrupted or aided by
a question of Maitre Demange, remov-
ed one by one the tissue of lies elabor-
ately woven by Henry and Du Patty de
Clam to fix Esterhazy's crime upon
Captain Dreyfus.
Neither Mercier nor Roget, in their
dramatic confrontations with Colonel
Picquart, dared deny any substantial
element of his testimony, which, to any
impartial observer, sets forth as clearly
as sunshine the overwhelming pre-
sumption that it was Esterhazy and
not Dreyfus who wrote the bordereau
and delivered to Germany the docu-
ments enumerated in it. 1t is painfully
evident that Colonel Picquart is Cap
tain Dreyfus' sole defender. Maitre De-
mango seems as if glued to his seat his
questions submitted to the court with
a view to cross-eXamining the wit
nesses for the prosecution are perfume
tory, while he never aids nor draws out
favorable developments from his own
witnesses. 1t is scarcely possible for
any one not following the proceedings
here in court to appreciate the terrible
loss the defense has sustained by the
shot fired by Maitre Labori's would-be
assassin.
He then reviewed the police reports
on Dreyfus. Replying to question of
the court, Cuignet described the cir
cumstances of the discovery of the Hen
ry forgery and how it was that the
probationers did not participate in the
maneuvers of 1894, although they had
long believed they would attend.
Does Not Indorse Statement.
Major Carriere, the governments
commissary, at this juncture said he
thought it desirable to remark to the
representative of the government that
he must not be understood to indorse
all Major Cuignet had said with refer
ence to a foreign military officer, who
at the present moment held a diplo-
matte appointment in France" (Sensa-
tion).
Replying to NJ. Demange, Major
Cuignet insisted that if Henry COM
mitted forgery 1T was in the interests
counsel retorted: You did not say
that to the court of cessation" At the
request of M. Demange, the majors
deposition before the court of Cassa-
ton relating to Henry's motives and
de CLAIMS share in the preparation of
the forgery was read. 1t showed that
Cugnet emphatically declared before
the court of cessation that he was con-
WINGED an investigation would easily
show that de Clam was the principal
author of the Henry forgery. Witness
claimed he thought he was doing his
duty lin saying all that is on my mind"
DO you adhere" asked counsel. ito
all you have said before the court of
cassation?"
Cuignet Greatly Confused.
This question greatly confused the
witness. who attempted to explain by
saying he was only arguing at that
time" and that it was not for him to
judge Patty de Clam.
NJ. Demange pointed out that in spite
of the many arguments Major Cuignet
had advanced against de Clam. the
military judge, Tavernier, threw out
the case. Nov" added NJ. Demange,
Major Cuignet has advanced as much