M. Labori.--“In view of the questions of the attorney-general, I would
like to ask if a fortnight ago a case was not heard before the court
of Paris, in which the court refused to recognize the testimony of M.
Varinard and M. Couard.”
Testimony to the same effect as that given by the preceding witnesses
was then given by M. Bourmon, a paleographer, who in turn was succeeded
by M. Louis Franck, a Belgian lawyer.
_Testimony of M. Franck._
A blackboard was furnished to the witness, upon which he illustrated
with much detail the similarities between Major Esterhazy’s handwriting
and the _bordereau_. Among other things he showed that Major
Esterhazy’s writing and the _bordereau_ were alike in the fact that
each line was begun a little to the right of the beginning of the
preceding line, whereas the writing of Dreyfus showed the precisely
opposite characteristic, each line beginning a little to the left
of its predecessor; that the _t_’s in the _bordereau_, like Major
Esterhazy’s _t_’s, were crossed horizontally, while in the writing of
Dreyfus the crosses are made in an upward direction from left to right;
that in the _bordereau_ 68 per cent. of the _t_’s are crossed and 32
per cent. uncrossed,--a proportion almost exactly paralleled in Major
Esterhazy’s letters, where 65 per cent. are crossed and 36 per cent.
are uncrossed. After pointing out these and many other similarities,
the witness said; “The _bordereau_ can have been written only by Major
Esterhazy. M. Bertillon has told us that, though a hundred French
officers should have the same handwriting, he would not infer that the
_bordereau_ was written by Major Esterhazy. Well, M. Bertillon could
not show us among all the officers of the French army a single one
whose writing approaches the writing of the _bordereau_ and contains
all the elements of similarity with an arithmetical rhythm so decisive.”
The Judge.--“Who asked you to make this examination?”
M. Clemenceau.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I beg your pardon for
repeating always the same thing, but it seems to me impossible to allow
witnesses for the defence to be continually interrupted when they are
testifying.”
M. Franck.--“Two months ago I was called to Paris in connection with
the case of Mlle. Chauvin. The Dreyfus case had just begun to attract
attention. When I read in ‘Le Figaro’ Mme. de Boulancy’s letters and
the _bordereau_, I had an intuition that the writer of the _bordereau_
was identical with the writer of the letters. Expressing this opinion
in the presence of a journalist, he tried to prove to me that I was
wrong. His explanation being unsatisfactory, I began to look into
the matter more thoroughly, and, after my return to Belgium, made a
complete study of it. When this trial came on, I wrote to a friend of
M. Zola that this study was at M. Zola’s service, if it was of any use
to him. Hence my presence here.”
The Judge.--“How did the witness come into possession of original
letters from Esterhazy?”