evidently depended very largely on the expert evidence as to the handwriting on the bordereau (memorandum). This document was neither signed nor dated and there is nothing to show for whom it was intended. Undoubtedly there is a strong resemblance between the writing on this document and that of Dreyfus, but. the court would hardly have convicted him solely on the opinion of two or three graphologists. What, then, was the other evidence? The report says Dreyfus made contradictory statements after he was arrested, but the only specimen given is hardly convincing, to say the least fit. The passage is worth translating When he [Dreyfus] was searched on the day of his arrest, he said: 'Take my keys and look everywhere: you will find nothing.' The search made at his residence gave very nearly the result he foretold. But, as nota single family letter nor even a tradesman''s bill was found, it may be assumed that everything of a compromising nature had been concealed or destroyed." The writer of the report ought to have explained how a tradesman's ill could have been compromising.
'The remainder of the case for the prosecution consists of the assertions of several ofjDreyfus' colleagues at the War Office that he put indiscreet questions to them about the work on which they were engaged, and Dreyfus' admission that he paid several secret visits to Alsace without being troubled by the German authorities, from which the reporter infers that they must have shut their eyes to his presence.
Such was the case against
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.