THE DREYFUS CASE. MORE REVELATIONS. PARIS, April 4.

Otago Witness, Issue 2355, 13 April 1899, Page 13

THE DREYFUS CASE. MORE REVELATIONS. PARIS, April 4.

From the depositions taken before the Court of Cassation, published in Figaro, it appears that M. Caviagnac laid streps on the alleged confession by Dreyfus, and displayed intense bias.

The Figaro's daily publication of the evidence that was taken before the Criminal section of the Court of Cassation shows that the General Military Staff (the Etat Major) were cognisant of Esterhazy's guilt, but shielded him lest Dreyfus should be exonerated.

April 6.

Le Voltaire, a daily paper, publishes the evidence of M. Paleologue, the writing expert, given before the Court of Cassation. It is entirely favourable to Dreyius. The paper says that there are documents in the possession of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, disproving any relations between Dreyfus and Signor Panizswirdi, the Italian attache, and Schwartzkoppen, the German .military attache.

M. Drummont, editor and proprietor of La Libre Parole, an anti-Semitic paper, asserts that the Jews bribed the magistrates to communicate to Le Figaro the evidence taken by the court, and that their poverty is silencing the defenders of the army.

Le Figaro publishes 20 columns of General Roget's depositions. General Roget abandoned the support he gave to Paty dv Clam, and maintained the authenticity of the bordereau. He expressed his conviction that Dreyfus was its author. He argued that Colonel Henry was unconscious of the .enormity ,of the crime he committed to reassure conscientious chiefs.

M. Lebrefc believes Le Figaro only poseesses the uncorrected proofs of part of the evidence.

! April 7. Le Figaro has published evidence which shows that M. Bertullus, the examining magistrate, deposed that while examining Colonel Henry he discovered documents showing that Esterhazy was an accomplice at the War Office. Henry confessed that Esterhazy and Paty dv Clam were the authors of the Blanche Speranza telegrams, and begged permission to inform M. Rogefc of M. Bertullus's discovery. M. Bertullus exclaimed, " Suppose Paty dv Clam blew his brains out to-night and Esterhazy was prosecuted for forgeiy, you would still be in danger." Henry collapsed, and wept bitterly, crying despairingly, " Save the honour of the army before' all !" He neither affirmed not denied when M. Bertullus suggested that Esterhazy was the author of the bordereau. M. Roget has admitted that Paty dv Clam impei-sonated " the veiled lady." General Gouse asked M. Bertullus to warn Colonel Picquart that his career depended on the attitude he took up. M. 'Zola declares that the trial depositions -have caused a profound and painful sensation, reviving the ivorst suspicions in regard to the army staff. The Figaro's publication of the evidence shows that three letters, dictated by Colonel Paty dv Clam, were sent by Major Esterhazy' to the late President Faure, in which he (Esterhazy) threatened to appeal for protection by, and the intervention j of, the Kaiser, his heraldic chief, unless j the prosecution against him was withdrawn. April 8. Le Figaro's publication of depositions taken before the Court of Cassation shows that Esterhazy was present at a trial of the gun mentioned in • the bordereau. Major Hartmann, the specialist, considered the bordereau did not implicate Dreyfus. The depositions show that General Roget assured the Court of Cassation that M, Bertulus was a liar and a gambler. He said Mermalzy (sic) attempted to blackmail the general staff, and was apparently the agent of a Dreyfus syndicate. M. Bertulus demanded to be confronted with General Roget, saying he was confident he could confound his calumniator.

Major Hartmann, a specialist, deposed that the information contained in the bordereau was widely known to officers.

Le Figaro has been fined 500fr (about £21) for publishing the evidence given before the criminal section of the Court of Cassation.

April 10. M. Dupuy, the Premier, speaking at a banquet at Puy, said the tension of Republican factions' anent the Dreyfus case liad relaxed, thus promoting union. After the verdict in the case had been delivered, the Government were ready to determine the responsibilities and punishment of indi-

vidual faults. This would not affect the Aimy^ whereto the country looked witH gratitude and confidence. Le Figaro publishes Mercier's evidence.in. which he testified that Paty dv Clam^ in investigating the Bordereau, dictated the text to Dreyfus. The latter's visible dismay betokened his guilt. Dreyfus, in ad- , milting the resemblance to his writing, j exclaimed: "My handwriting has been t stolen !" General Billot testified that the trend of the secret documents showed Dreyfus to be guilty. INTERROGATING DREYFUS. The special correspondent of the Daily Telegraph at Cayenne, writing on January 28, : says: — "The chief doctor entrusted with the j care of Dreyfus's health ha« declared to me that the ex-captain, who is very aged by his 1 closo confinement and the torrid climate, was j seriously attacked by desentery. At the preI sent time the prisoner's condition is much imj proved. I "On January 14, the Court of Cassation ordered that a freah examination of Dreyfus . should take place as regards the statements ■ that he made to Captain Lebrun-Renault. M. Darius, tho Public Prosecutor, at once went to the He dv Diable in order to address to th» prisoner the questions submitted by the CouriJ of Cassation. I have been able to see ML, Darius on his return to Cayenne. The magistrate has been good enough to give me a few particulars. The prisoner persists in main!- ! taiuing that the famous phrase, addressed to j Captain Lebrun-Renault, "If I have given some documents it was in order to obtain some more important," has been utterly misconstrued, but he refuses to enter into fuller detail. He does not wish for a moment to make any written declaration, reserving himself, as he says, to' reply and to furnish argu- , ments when before the Court of Cassation at Paris, and in the presence 1 of his accusers, with whom he is most anxious to be' brought face to face. Dreyfus remains absolutely mute upon certain .questions, always in. fear lest his replies Bhould be misrepresented, saying that he does not doubt the perfect integrity of .the magistrate, but that telegraph transmissions may cause misunderstandings, and that he would not be able in any way to supplement his depositions in the presence of tho Court of Cassation. The Supreme Tribunal is without any doubt handicapped by the attitude of the prisoner of the He dv Diable, but it continue* to cause him l-o be interrogated. "On January 24, the Froeureiir-General was instructed by telegram to question Dreyfus, this time on the subject of the depositions of Commandant Esterhazy. The magistrate went off to the He dv Diable, and examined Dreyfus on certain points concerning iliin matter, and notably with regard to the role played by the late Colonel Henry. This attempt to procure information from the prisoner had no better results than the earlier onea, and the Procureur-General gave me to understand that Dreyfus persisted in his poUcy of denial and reticence. " ' When I was charged to proceed with the interrogations, and to transmit them by cable,' said the Procureur-General to me, 'I perceived the difficulty of sending the replies in a necessarily abbreviated form. It seemed to mo (he continued) proferable that Dreyfus should be taken back to France, in order to furnish detailed explanations, tho more bo as his confrontation with various witnesses might be of great utility, and — I insist upon this pomt — from these confrontations might proceed light. But in keeping the prisoner at the lies dv Solut, this source of information is closed.' "