Major Lauth.—“When I received it, I could not say that the origin was not the same, for I received it at second-hand.”
M. Labori.—“Has it ever been pretended that this dispatch was seized on Major Esterhazy’s premises?”
Major Lauth.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“That is sufficient for me. Then I would like to know how the dispatch, having the same origin as the bordereau, or as the fragments of paper mingled with the dispatch, could have been considered as coming from Major Esterhazy’s premises.”
Major Lauth.—“I do not understand you.”
M. Labori.—“I will explain. I asked Major Lauth what would have been the use, in any point of view, of placing a stamp on the dispatch. Major Lauth answered that the stamp would have shown that the dispatch reached its destination. Now, it is necessary that the jury should know that it has never been said that the dispatch was written in Major Esterhazy’s hand, and to know also that the writing to the origin of which Major Lauth was asked to certify was not the handwriting of Major Esterhazy. The dispatch was addressed to Major Esterhazy. Now I am inquiring as to the origin. Major Lauth says that the utility of the stamp was to show that the dispatch reached Major Esterhazy’s residence. Thereupon I ask: Was the bordereau, or the papers contained in the package that contained the dispatch, or the papers proceeding from the same source,—were any of these considered as coming from Major Esterhazy’s premises?”
Major Lauth.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Then how does Major Lauth reconcile the affirmation that the dispatch originated as Colonel Picquart had said, with the declaration that it had been placed in the cornucopia in which torn documents of this sort were placed?”
Major Lauth.—“It is not for me to explain what Colonel Picquart may have believed.”
M. Labori.—“All right. I take note of this declaration. What, now, was the use of strips placed upon the photograph to conceal traces of tear?”