M. Labori [handing specimen of the _bordereau_ to the witness].--“Do
you know these?”
M. Charavay.--“They are writings connected with the Dreyfus case. That
is very far away.”
M. Labori.--“Certainly you cannot be very curious, if you have not
heard it spoken of in the last few months.”
M. Charavay.--“At any rate I am determined not to answer. I was one of
the experts in the first trial. I know nothing of the second.”
M. Labori.--“Would you ever condemn a person solely on the strength of
an expert examination of handwriting?”
M. Charavay.--“I answer with your authorization, _Monsieur le
Président_. I answer purely and simply that, as I do not believe in
my own infallibility, or in the infallibility of anybody under such
circumstances, never in my life would I condemn anyone on an expert
examination of handwriting in the absence of material or moral proofs.”
The Judge.--“That is a very natural opinion. But it does not affect the
situation at all.”
M. Labori.--“You add your impression, _Monsieur le Président_, to that
of the expert, and I shall have something to say about that in my
argument.”
Then the witness-stand was taken successfully by the two remaining
experts in the Dreyfus case,--M. Pelletier and M. Gobert, the latter
the expert of the Bank of France. Both of them testified that,
while there were commonplace analogies between the handwriting of
the _bordereau_ and that of Dreyfus, the dissimilarities were too
numerous to warrant the attribution to Dreyfus of the authorship of
the _bordereau_. The day’s proceedings ended with brief examinations
of the three experts in the Esterhazy case,--MM. Couard, Belhomme,
and Varinard. M. Couard refused to testify on the ground that he and
his colleagues had brought suit against M. Zola for 100,000 francs
damages, but nevertheless declared that he and his two colleagues,
working independently, had reached unanimously the conclusion that
the _bordereau_ was not the work of Major Esterhazy. M. Belhomme’s
testimony was virtually the same, and M. Varinard categorically refused
to answer, on the ground that his report had been read behind closed
doors.