M. Bertillon.--“I thought that there was a decree of the court
forbidding us to speak of that case.”
M. Clemenceau.--“It is not for the witness to tell the court the
meaning of its decrees.”
M. Labori.--“I will not insist, because it would take us a month.
But could M. Bertillon tell us the difference between dextrogyrate
writing and sinistrogyrate writing, and the consequences that he draws
therefrom as an expert?”
M. Bertillon.--“I know the theory of that matter, but I did not use it
in my expert examination.”
M. Labori.--“Without concerning ourselves with the Dreyfus case, I
take the words _A. Dreyfus_ and the word _adresse_, and I ask him what
scientific consequence he can draw from the possible superposition of
the words, both of which begin with _adr_, but the first of which has a
period between the A and the D. Will the witness explain to us by what
method these two writings can be compared?”
M. Bertillon.--“This question relates to my deposition of 1894, and,
moreover, is of no importance.”
M. Labori.--“Will the witness tell us if the _bordereau_ is written in
a running hand?”
M. Bertillon.--“It is absolutely impossible for me to answer that
question without entering into my deposition of 1894.”
M. Labori.--“Permit me, _Monsieur le Président_, I have not to occupy
myself with M. Bertillon’s demonstration of 1894. That did not place
an eternal gag in his mouth. I know but one thing. We have a witness
here,--I may say an official witness; he is bound to testify, and I
ask him a question of the first importance. It does not concern the
Dreyfus case, which for the moment I forget. I speak of the Esterhazy
_bordereau_. I know why the witness cannot answer, and I will give the
reason in my summing-up. But my question is: Is the writing of the
_bordereau_ in a running hand, or is it made up of traced words?”
M. Bertillon.--“It is impossible to answer that question without
entering into my deposition of 1894. It is neither one or the other. It
is in a running hand, and it is not. I will throw light upon all that.
I must go to the heart of the question, or say nothing at all.”
M. Labori.--“The jurors desire proofs. I shall furnish them by opposing
the three official experts of 1894 to the three official experts of
1898 who passed on the same _bordereau_, for it is impossible to
reconcile their testimony. That is why the witness will not answer. I
repeat: Is the _bordereau_--and here I pay no attention to Dreyfus;
call him Tartempion, if you will, but answer me--is the _bordereau_
written in a running hand, or is it made up of traced words?”