The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-08-29

borior6au was not fabricated document,
and pointed out important differences be-
tween y. Bertilionfs photographs and the
original.
While pointing fault in the applica-
tion OF the system M. Bernard aroused
mefrimens by remaFking that N. Bertii-
Ions system could nevertheless. be useful
seeing tsa6 it enabled the witness 20
show the bordsreau was q natural and
hot fabricated document.
In conclusion II. Barnard exhibited 20
the judges plate representing page Of
current handwriting and saidi
"if examined BY N. Bertilion's sys-
tenn, 1t will show certain peouliarities
which would not be found upon the ex-
animation Of fifty million other docrl-
inents. NJ. Bertillon would therefore say
the document was fabricated, but he
would be wrong, for borrowed the rage
from q report written BY III. Bertiilon
NJ Bertillon demanded permission to
reply to the vttnass and Col. Jouauet
replieds 81 cannot grant your request,
and | win not grant such permission 70
any Of the fourteen experts, except In the
case Of personal explanation"
~. Bertillon--'sI wish to speak OF the
manner In which reconstructed the
borderenu."
Col. Jouaust--"Why, you are discuss
ing the case. l cannot allow you 70 speak
except In regard to personal fact"
loud ianahtsr amidst which N. Herfii.
Ion, disconnected. resumed bis seat.
M. ley seonniers followed. He said he
adhered In all respects to his report dated
October 2, 1894, In which he expressed the
opinion that the bordereau was the work
Of the writer Of the document seized at
the prisoners residence. For purposes
OF comparison, the witness criticized the
bordereau letter by letter, pointing resem-
blances to the prisoners handwriting.
In conclusion NJ. Ieyssonniers said he
thought it was impossible to find more
tangible reasons than those which In
duced In him the belief which he hoped
the court would share.
Replying TO the court, NJ. Teyssonniers
said he hau not noticed that the prison.
er's handwriting was ille2ible and he had
never seen the document dictated to
Dreyfus.
The copy Of the bordereau made by
Dreyfus was then handed to the witness
who declared 1t had never been given to
him for purposes of comparison. sensa-
ton.
The witne IS added that he would re-
quire three days to give an opinion uton
It. Here q member of the court martial
giving the result of his examination Of
the hordereau, remarked; s'The letter
IL Is always isolated even at the begin
ming Of words"
10 this NJ. Teyssonniers replied shat
this popularity Was also found In the
prisoners handwriting.
When las was invited TO reply to the
witness, Dreyf us said that Tsyssonniers's
remarks seemed to him quite incorrect
and that in order to reply properly he, the
prisoner, must have thu documents under
his own eyes. AS regards the criticism
on the subject OF paragraphing, Dreyfus
added: 81 beg to reply that one does not
aaLa n ,.npn U.sa f,h ruh ha-
ginning new idea. Every time begin
a new idea In anything ! write. make
paragraph
The prisoner, in conclusion, asked the
president of the court to request the wit
ness before he retired to produce the doc
uments furnished to him for comparison.
of which the defence had no knowledge.
Colonel Certainly"
NJ. Teyssonniers thereupon added that
on referring 70 his report Of 1894 he found
that he had concluded that the writer had
attempted to disguise his handwriting
his ordinary handwriting. The witness
having begged leave to speak OF personal
fact addressed the judges, saying:
before you am only a witness, but
turning towards the defepsel before this
other tribunal l am, perhaps an accused
person.
Colonel Jouaust-"Not at all, you are
not accused. :"
NJ. Teyssonniers-''I am an accused
person. -
Here the witness picked up newspaper
which he had brought with him and
began to read the report of n. Ballot
Beaupre
Colonel Jouaust--sswe have no need to
consider the reports Of the judges. The
incident Is closed.
After brief suspension of the session
the court resumed the hearing of tssti-
mony, and III. Charavay tho archivist
and expert In ancient manuscript was
o allied 10 the witness bar.
Witness said among other things:
i must inform thu court, that in view
Of the fact thar the handwriting which
WAS NOT produced in 1894 and which Is
evidently akin to the handwriting OF the
bordereau and the handwriting Of Drey.
cannot maintain with the same degree Of
certainty the conclusions of my former
report, and / can only make one state
ment. namely that those two handwrit-
ings resemb lie tho bordereau."
In conol usion, NJ: Charvay energetical-
ly protested against General Mercier's
and added that what con-
WINGED him that ne had made mistake
In 1924 was the publication of Esterhazy's
letters; the discovery of the Henry for
gerry the enquiry Of the court of cassa-
tion and Esterhazyis confession.
~ 1848 EfC8t EC1tt1 W NY COnbClSnJca
M. Charayay added, "to be able to say
before him who Is the victim of mistake,
that the bordereau Is not the work OF
Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy."
An immense sensation was caused In
court by this staten emit.
Replying to Colonel Jouaust, the wit
ness said that the Meroier examination
Of the bordereau and the documents pre-
sented for comparison was sufficient to
convince him that the bordereau was not
written by Dreyfus.
The prisoner on being asked the GUS
toinary questions, requested NJ. Charayay
to give further particulars as to the rea-
sons which led him to modify his opin-
ions In regard to the writer of the bor-
dereau, whereupon the witness entered
into a technical explanation OF how he
10 und unmistakable resemhlances be-
tween the bordereau and Esterhazy's
After replying to. question or two
from the court, Nj. Pelletier, the next
witness said:
There remains nothing but to main
tain In their entirety my conclusions to
the effect that there is no likeness In the
writing of the bordereau and that of this