THE DREYFUS CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 196, 19 August 1899, Page 4

THE DREYFUS CASE.

! COURT-MARTIAL AT EENNES. CRUSHING PROOF' OF' DREYFUS? INNOCENCE. A PRE-ARRANGED SCENE. CASSATION PROCEEDINGS IGNOEED. STARTLING DEVELOPMENTS. BERLIN, August 18.. j The "Cologne Gazette" in another inspired article protests against generals ignoring the crushing proof of Dreyfus' innocence contained in. ; Yon Bulow's, Schwartz', Koppens' and j Tortielli's declarations. PAEIS, August 18. The widow of Colonel Henry theatrically accused M. Bertullus of betraying her late husband with a Judas' kiss. M. Bertullus handed M. Jonaust a letter showng that this scene had been rehearsed, which caused laugh,-? ter in Court. M, Jonaust has declared the court martial will not recognise the Court of Cassation proceedings. M. Panizzardi has telegraphed to the "Figaro" denying that he had relations with Dreyfus. He states that he did not know the name of the accused till Dreyfus was arrested. The detectives are protecting General Mercier. M. Morard, counsel for Dreyfus' family, temporarily replaces M, ;Labori. General Eoget, in cross-examination, admitted that Esterhazy was guilty of suspicious conduct in several instances submitted. He believed Esterhazy's statement regarding the offer made to him of a bribe of £24,000 if he confessed to the aithorship of the bordereau. This statement caused great laughter. Eoget described Dreyfus' inquisitiveness in regard to the mobilisation plans. Dreyfus exclaimed, "Eoget's state* ments. are arguments. He produces no evidence. I had no acquaintance with concentration." M.' Bertulus, " examining magis« ' trate, repeated his former testimony. Witness discovered that Esterhazy had an accomplice in the Intelligence Department. Dreyfus was absolutelyinnocent. This statement caused a sensation. Witness insisted, in the absence of any evident motive, it was a magistrate's first duty to seek for the motive, and Col. Picquart's testimony produced a favourable impression on his mind. General Eoget testified th#]fc he. had received a letter from Sdntieldei',' Allstriari Attache in Paris, dated Novem» ber, 1897, which disproved the denials of Schwartzkoppen and Pannizardi, Therefore Drejrfus was guilty. M. Demange suddenly produced a declaration by Schneider made yesterday that the letter referred to by" Eoget was a" forgery. . ■ In the opinion of some judges some of the questions put are interpreted, to imply that the original bordereau written on heavy paper has reached Jonaust. Startling developments are ex* pected. Bertulus pointed to Henry as Esterhazy's accomplice, adding that the Court of Cassation had declared the bordereau was the work of Esterhazy. The Court of Cassation, he said, was supreme in matters of justice. This caused another sensation.