THE DREYFUS CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11900, 25 May 1899, Page 5

THE DREYFUS CASE.

7“' THE “FIGARO’S” REVELATIONS. [From Our Corresponuent.] > LONDON, April 14, Quite undismayed by pin pricks in the. shape of a couple of £2O fines, the editorof “Figaro” has proceeded -with.the publication of tbe “ evidence ” tendered to the Court of Cassation upon the Dreyfus case. The further depositions, published this week render still more clear what has all along been abundantly plain to everybody untainted with Jewphobia, namely, that Dreyfus was convicted on evidence upon which it would be murder to hang a cat. Major Hartmann, a gunner, shows most conclusively that no gunner, as Dreyfus was, could have blundered about guns, as did tbe author of the bordereau* and that the portion of that document upon which the prosecution laid such stress might have been communicated by any army officer, or even by any civilian who had taken an intelligent interest in the army’s equipment. Moreover, one of the precious secrets of the bordereau had King before been divulged by a civilian who had been tried and punished for it. General Mercier’s evidence, like that of General Roget, was ridiculously inconclusive. Though the bordereau bears on its fane tbe stamp of ignorance on the part of its compiler of matters upon which Dreyfus—acknowledged to be a most competent artillery officer—was an authority, General Mercier accepted it as decisive proof of the Captain’s guilt. But he had other proofs in store of the “ moral ’ _ order. Dreyfus showed himself to be guilty by his “ attitude ” —so the Chief of the Secret Police informed Mercier. And lest anything should be wanting to convince the sceptical of Dreyfus’s guilt General Mercier brought forward another “ confession communicated to him by that pattern of military honour and general integrity, Colonel du Paty de Clam. This “ confession” commits Dreyfus to having said with out rhyme or reason, to Du Paty, that he “ would like to kill ” certain German and Italian military attaches for having, by their indiscretions, betrayed him. Yet Dreyfus, who, according to General Mercier, made two confessions for nothing at all, was, when asked after his trial to make a clean breast of it and so mitigate the rigours of bis punishment, pigheaded enough to refuse to make'a* third, which would have secured him a certain degree of comfort and hap?ines. General Billot’s evidence was even more exquisitely inconsequent. He was convinced of Dreyfus guilt from the first, and the verdict of the court-martial merely strengthened that conviction. The subsequent discovery of Colonel Henry’s forgery, the gallant warrior admitted “ startled and surprised ” him, but did not in the least disturb his belief iii Dreyfus’s guilt. .. Generals Zurlinden and Cbanome were equally certain that Dreyfus was properly condemned, but neither witness advanced anything in the nature of proof- General Zurlinden based bis conviction on an examination of the dossier, winch, as we all know now, contained several items mflisputably forged for tbe purpose of ensuring Dreyfus’s conviction. General Cbanome was convinced by the same means but, m addition, privately examined “ a . ber of persons who were acquainted with what tools place at the trial in 1834- - The next batch of depositions dealt with by “Figaro” contained those of General de Gallifet, M. Casimir Perier (the exPresident), and sundry small fry. To even summarise their evidence would occupy more space than can be spared in these columns, but it may truthfully be said that on the whole their testimony confirms the impression'that Dreyfus was the victim of a conspiracy on the part of the General Staff. General de Gallifet, an' officer of high distinction, fully confirmed tbe statement made in evidence that Colonel Picquart was told that his whole future depended on his conduct at the Zola trial; that he was given to understand in plain terms that his rum was certain if he refused to give evidence in accordance with the desires of the General Staff. Equally important was the General’s evidence regarding Esterhazy. He had, he said, never heard" a word about Dreyfus from the foreign military attaches, but General Talbot', who was six years British Military Attache in Paris, and was on terms of warm friendship with him, had expressed surprise at seeing Esterhazy at large, “ because all the foreign military attaches in France knew that for one or two bank notes Esterhazy would supply any information which could not be got direct from the War Office.” M. Casimir Perier, who prefaced his evidence with the remark that he regarded it his duty, in the state of dissension and trouble he saw in his country, to place himself entirely at the disposal of the Court, was not able to throw much light on the dark places of the Dreyfus affair, but he finally disposed of the story that he himself had heard from Captain Lebrien-Renaud’s lips the alleged confession of Dreyfus. M. Perier only heard of the confession from the Minister of War. General Gonse’s evidence was of some importance, as tending toj confirm the suspicions regarding the genesis of the bordereau. He told the Court that he received the bordereau from Colonel Saudherr, who had in turn received it from Colonel Henry. It was received in pieces, and was put together by Henry, with the assistance of other officers of the General Staff. It gave rise to a long inquiry, and, as the result of the dictum of certain experts in caligraphy, suspicion was directed to Dreyfus. Like the rest of the military witnesses examined by the Court, General Gonse refused to reply to questions on the subject of the communication of secret documents to the court-martial.