have been an interesting study throughout the Dreyfus agitation. Only three—the Temps, the Journal des Débats, and the Matin, which are all in favour of revision make any pretence of discussing Loth ides of the question. All the others are violently partisan. Nothing is too outrageous for the Soir and other anti-revision organs to say of their antagonists, who are not slow to return the compliment. The most absurd and baseless rumours are daily act before the public as solemn truth. The most elementary principles of logic and common sense are entirely ignored. Yesterday's Patric contained a typical example. About two years ago the Figaro published an article in which it was stated, on the authority of some-one who was said to have returned from French Guiana, that Dreyfus had admitted having disclosed secrets with a view to obtaining others. The author of this reportage décisif, as the Patric calls it, was interviewed by a repro-entative of that paper, to whom he anid that the remarks attributed to Dreyfus were repeated to him as rumours current in French Guiana, Yet in the face of this the Patric says: Lo fait ext done matdriellement exact. Un voyager, retour des lies clu Saint, a recweilli sur place les propos de Dreyfus avouant ses pratiques d'amorcage. This, of course, is either wilful poryer ness or hopeless idiocy. Yet this kind of thing is quite common in the Patrie—which, by the way, has a daily circulation of over 100,000—and other so-called organs of public opinion.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.