The San Francisco call., 1899-08-29

ment to make and mounted the platform.
But he had hardly uttered halt-dozen
merely regrinding his evidence, and to
the great satisfaction of the audience
curtly told the specialist to leave the
platform which ne did discounted.
NJ Trissonieres' testimony against Drey-
fus followed. Then NJ. Charavay, the eX-
pert who had previously declared Drey-
called to the witness bar. His testimony
proved to be of the greatest interest, as
he came to confess he had made an error
and he was now convinced that Ester
hazy and not Dreyfus wrote the borde-
reau. This announcement made deep
impression on the court, and was greeted
The next witness, NJ. Pellier, also testi-
fed favorably to the prisoner.
NJ. Cordier, another expert, deposed that
as result of his examination he had
become convinced that the bOrdereau was
not written by Esterhazy, but he could
not say it was written by Dreyfus, be-
cause he had not seen the prisoner writ
ing. This witness kept the court in a
continual roar of laughter by the extra
ordinary modulations OF his voice, mis-
placed emphasis and gestures.
The hnal witness, NJ. Varlnaud, main
tanned the declaration he had made be-
fore the Court of Cessation, that the
bordereau was not written by EsterhaZy.
Colonel Jouast then announced that Nj.
de Freycinet. who resigned the Ministry
Of War on May of this year, and who
was succeeded by NJ. Krantz who in turn
Gallifet on the downfall of the Dupuy
ministry, would be among the witnesses
tomorrow, and the session was closed
with the request that rogatory commls-
sion be sent to Colonel Du Patty de Clam,
whose illness prevents his attendance in
court, In which Colonel .Jouast agreed
This step does not satisfy the defense,
but they acquiesced TO the commission
taking Du Patty de CLAIMS testimony on
the principle that half loaf is better
The Following is the more important tes-
timony in detail:
NJ. Paray-Javal, draughtsman, resumed
his testimony at the opening Of the court
this morning, and with the assistance OF
a blackboard, proceeded to show the fal-
lacy Of calculations of NJ. Bertillon ana
the latters unfairness in not submitting
the handwriting of Esterhazy to the same
tests as the prisoners. He declared, how
ever, that even If NJ. Bertillon had sdone
so the results would not have proved any
thing The witness, however, insisted
that NJ Bertillon had shown a vicious
method in only making partial expert
ment.
Continuing. NJ Paray-JavaI proceeded
to show. that the geometric regularities
alleged by NJ. Bertillon did not in reality
exist. He pointed out number of irreg-
uarities in the handwriting of the border
eau and said the same Irregularities were
particularly noticeable in EsterhaZy's call
irregularity of the key word interest
was only approximate and proceeded TO
illustrate his arguments on on the tn+IIin black
proofs applied as equally to EsterhaZy as
Dreyfus. Finally, NJ. Paray-Javal de-
clared that, NJ. Bertilion's measurement
of the word interest" which served as
the basis for the whole system, was en-
tirely false and therefore NJ. Bertillon's 5
entire system falls to the ground al ana
no longer exists" Great senSation.) This
witness, who had awakened the interest
of his hearers, maintained that the bor-
dereau could not have been traced, add
ing that il was an utter impossibility. He
then proceeded to illustrate why this was
the case and to prove the falSeness of NJ.
BertillOn's deductions
In conclusion NJ. Paray-Javal said that
he thought that NJ. Bertillon was very
intelligent man. but that his system was
false and he: the witness. was convinced
that only self-esteem prevented NJ. Ber-
tilon admitting his error.
NJ. Bernard. an inspector of mines. who
took high honor at the polytechnic school.
who followed NJ. Paray-Javal at the wit
ness bar. said he appeared to refute por-
tion of NJ. Bertillon's evidence, which was
based on false calculations. AS a matter
of fact he added, it was on such basis
that the whole system rested. Witness
said he was greatly surprised that NJ. Ber-
tillon thought fit TO have recourse to psy-
Geological arguments to prove;
First. that the bordereau was fabri-
Gated
Second, that the methods which might
have been employed in writing certain
words were such as to constitute proof
against DreYfuS.
NJ. Bernard also said he was astonished
at the fact that NJ. Bertillon had under
taken to account for the shape of letters
and the space between words. There was
not 1.25 millimetre as alleged by NJ. Ber-
tillon, but 156 Moreover. the writing of
the bordereau was natural and rhythmic,
which it's character and size showed it
was not written by either a short-sighted
or a long-sighted person. The witness
then proceeded to illustrate photographic
ally his contention that the bordereau was
not a fabricated document and also
pointed out important differences between
NJ Bertillons photographs and the orig
inal.
M. Trissonieres followed. He said he ad-
hered in all respects to his report dated
October 29 1894, in which he expressed the
oninion that the bordereau was the work
~ the writer of the documents seized at
the prisoners residence For the purpose
of compa rison the witness lengthly criti-
cized the bordereau letter by letter, point
ing out resemblances in the prisoner 8
handwriting.
In conclusion NJ. Trissonieres said he
thought il was impossible to find more
Tangible reasons than those which in
duced in him the belief, which he hoped
the court would share. (Sensation.)
Replying to the court. NJ. Trissonieres
said he had not noticed the prisoner S
handwriting was illegible. and he had
never seen the document dictated to Drey-
fus. The copy of the bordereau made by
Dreyfus was then handed TO the witness,
who declared it had never been given to
him for purposes of comparison. (Sensa-
tion) The witness added that he would
,aDrira three dayS TO give an opinion upon