The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-09-13
Of HUMbERT MYSTERY
Review of the Most Famous
Case of Century.
HARD TO COMPREHEND
Points That Jury Never Did
Decide.
COMPREHEND
.tter 10 New YORK Post.l

L
tice, and perhaps all judicial tribunals
have a way OF not answering and often o
not asking, the questions which most in
terest the public. The Dreyfus affair is
case in point, and the Humbert case i
another Seventeen months of ceaseles
agitation by the press, six months siftin;
of all available testimony by eXamin:
judges, and two weeks of open trial befor'
a Partisan jury, who were asked to an
swer 81 pertinent questions, have en-
lightened public opinion only on points OF
which peoples minds were made up from
the start. a new trial, even if granted, i!
not likely to do more to SATISFY genera
curiosity We must do like history, ash
our own questions and look for answer:
TO the sidelights thrown on the case while
justice has been narrowing the illumina-
ton to her own particular ends
First, briefly what is the exact story
as far as known, of the Humbert swim
die from its first faint beginnings TO the
verdict which has condemned its perpe-
traitors?
Second, was there ever a foundation OF
fact on which the gigantic swindle grew!
Third, how far did the swindle profit by
the completely, conscious or unconscious.
OF high political personages?
Fourth, was it political complaisance on
the part of the courts or simply blind adj
herence to cut and dried procedure which
bolstered up the swindle through more
than twenty years of constant litigation?
Fifth what about the curious under
world Of international money lenders and
gO-betweens, at whose expense the swim
die has been mainly perpetrated? And
what about handwriting experts and 9TH
erwise credible witnesses, whose positive
testimony has been overborne by estab-
lished facts?
Last. but not least, every one can draw
his own conclusions about the possibilities
OF living out in real life a wild romance
concocted by ones own imagination, in
stead of publishing it in book.
Four persons were finally brought to
trial for the great swindIe: Therese Hum
bert. nee Daurignac. who is the central
figure, and her husband. Frederic Hum
bert; and her two brothers, Emile and
Roman Daurignac. BY a detailed answer
to each Of the PSI questions which related
one by one the facts against the accused,
the jury declared Frederic and Therese
Humbert guilty of forgery. and use of
forged documents. of executing false pow
er Of attorney. and of swindling in eight
cases which the public prosecutor had
chosen out from the many instances of
borrowing money on false pretences; the
Daurignac brothers were acquitted of all
completely in forgeries or use of forged
documents or in the cases of swindling
In the case of the Rente Viagere. or Life
Annuity company, which the Humberts
had created in later years on a gambling
risk of making good their desperate con-
dition. all four Of the accused were
brought in guilty of swindling. and all
four were given the benefit of extenuat-
ing circumstances. Each part of the ver-
dict was expressly stated to be the result
of a majority vote, unanimity not being
required in a French jury 1t is under
stood that five of the jury were for the
acquittal of all the accused.
On the strength Of this verdict the court
condemned Frederic and Therese Hum
bert TO five years of solitary confinement
(reclusionl. and 100 francs fine; the Dau-
rignac brothers to simple prison, Roman
for three, and Emile for two years. And
the four are held conformity for costs,
which must be considerable
This ends the jury's judgment of a story
I'm which they are probably as much puz-
zled as any one else to say where fact
and fiction separate. They did learn that
the closest calculation which is now pos
sible on all documents in the case shows
that the Humbert couple. within the
space Of twenty years. had signed paper
to the amount of more than 100000 600
francs (seven hundred million this is ia
be read. and not seventy, as many news
papers have published with mistaken eau
tom. 1t is evident that only a portion
of this stupendous sum was ever actually
pocketed by the Humberts. a great part
OF if going for usurious commissions pre
miums, fees. and renewals. When the
crash came, in 1902. the Humberts were
still owing nominally at least 100000
francs, other accounts which are known
TO exist for several not having been pre-
scented. OF this sum fifty or even sixty
million francs are estimated to have ac-
tually been received by the Humberts.
The story which justified all this Dor
held its interest by ever new developments
up to the moment when the jury were to
retire to consider It, Only then a last
chapter which Therese Humbert chose 10
add somewhat broke the effect of the
whole; but even this has left muddled
sense of mysterious possibilities.
1t is not story simply Of raising the
wind on a pretended Inheritance trick
which has often been practiced The bor
rowing was done on securities which were
supposed TO constitute the inheritance
which were supposed TO be actually in the
possession of the Humherts and which
We're shown to men of money and nracti-
cally certified 70 exist by courts that wear
after year admitted suits and cross-s,its |
ana sraFeiy gave legal decisions about |
Their proper disposition. The prosecution
has gone on the theory that there we're
never any real securities. ana that tho /
courts were jugsled into admitting suits /
with imaginary personages. invented nv /
The Humberts for the purpose. It has
however. brought unity into the story and !
done away with much of the incoberenca 1
OF the first newspaper reports. which were 1
oased on conjecture and chance gossip.
Therese was straight from the beginning. /
and her defense certainly leaves uvs- /
tery sim lowering over the Phantom Nil /
Hons.
The story Of the inherited millions began
when Teerese was a child Of thirteen and
can therefore scarcely be attributed "a he
genius for romantic invention. Her father
Augusfe Daurignac, was q founding who
night have been the heir OF any one. he