M. Teyssonnière.--“No, but I felt that he was endeavoring to get me to
express a doubt as to the conclusions of my report. He buried that in
my brain as with a gimlet.”
On the demand of M. Labori, M. Trarieux was recalled for confrontation
with M. Teyssonnière.
M. Trarieux.--“When M. Teyssonnière, who had been sent to me by his
deputy, M. Descubes, came to tell me of his disgrace, he said that he
had been denounced by a Jewish magistrate. I asked the judge of the
civil court who had revoked him to restore him to his position. This
magistrate explained that M. Teyssonnière had asked of a client an
advance payment of 2,000 francs, that certain experts were in the habit
of making these demands, and that an example must be made of some one.
I fully approved, but I asked him if M. Teyssonnière was unworthy of my
interest. Receiving a negative reply, I went to the president of the
appellate court, and asked him to inscribe M. Teyssonnière on his list
of experts, which he did.”
M. Teyssonnière.--“And I shall always be grateful to you. Investigation
showed, however, that, far from having asked 2,000 francs too much, I
was a loser by 600 francs.”
M. Trarieux.--“I remained on excellent terms with M. Teyssonnière.
He came to see me several times. We talked of the Dreyfus case, and I
saw that he had been much more struck by the dissimilarities between
the writing of Dreyfus and the _bordereau_ than by the similarities.
In the course of one of our discussions M. Bertillon was mentioned.
‘Bertillon!’ exclaimed M. Teyssonnière; ‘he nearly spoiled everything.
He made an incomprehensible report. Fortunately I was there.’ I sent
M. Teyssonnière to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who, though at first convinced
by his demonstration, soon afterwards was impressed, as I was, by
certain dissimilarities, especially by certain double _ss_, which were
written _fs_ in the Dreyfus writing and _sf_ in the _bordereau_. M.
Teyssonnière maintained that these dissimilarities were intentional.
“Last June M. Teyssonnière came to me to tell me of a strange
occurrence. The night before, as he was leaving his house, he found on
the table in his vestibule a package that had been left there by an
unknown hand. He opened it, and was astonished to find the photographs
of Dreyfus’s handwriting that had been given to him to report upon in
1894. ‘How is it,’ he asked, ‘that these documents, which I surely
returned, have been left at my house? It is the work of the Jews. They
are trying to compromise me.’ I advised him to return the documents
to the minister of war, or put them in a safe place. I do not know
whether it was the same day or later that he told me that he had had
occasion to go to the war offices for a certain piece of information,
and had been received very unfavorably, the officer to whom he applied
saying to him that he was astonished that M. Teyssonnière dared to show
himself there. M. Teyssonnière was at a loss to understand such an
attitude toward an expert whose testimony in the Dreyfus case had won
him the congratulations of the staff.
“Last November I was told that M. Teyssonnière was suspected by the
government of having communicated to ‘Le Matin’ the _bordereau_
of which ‘Le Matin’ gave a _fac-simile_ in November. Till then my
confidence in M. Teyssonnière had been complete. But, beginning now to
entertain doubt, I wrote about the matter to his deputy, M. Descubes,
who sent my letter to M. Teyssonnière. Nevertheless I heard nothing
more from him.”
_Testimony of M. Charavay._
The second expert was succeeded on the witness-stand by the third, M.
Charavay.
M. Labori.--“Can M. Charavay tell us whether the _bordereau_ was
traced, or written in a running hand?”
M. Charavay.--“I refuse to answer. It is a custom among experts never
to give an opinion while a trial is pending.”