M. Labori.--“M. Bertillon has just told us that he has no confidence in expert testimony in the matter of handwriting. Surely the witness must be able to explain to us how the document of which he speaks can have such importance in his mind. I will ask him, then, to point out in his little plan the spot where this document is to be found. I will ask M. Bertillon where we must look for the document from the blotting-pad. Where is it? In the arsenal, in the citadel, at the butts, or in the trench?” M. Bertillon.--“It seems to me that this matter is too serious for joking.” M. Clemenceau.--“What! you think that the reading of your paper constitutes a joke?” M. Labori.--“I simply ask where this document is to be placed in this plan.” M. Bertillon.--“Produce the document, and I will tell you.” M. Clemenceau.--“Will M. Bertillon give the court a list of the documents that he needs? We will try to get them, and then we shall see if M. Bertillon can make his demonstration. Do you remember what the documents are?” M. Bertillon.--“They were numbered from 1 to 30, including three or four letters from Mathieu Dreyfus and various notes regarding the service.” M. Labori.--“Is it for their writing that M. Bertillon needs these documents?” M. Bertillon.--“To answer that would be to enter into the substance of my demonstration. I have told you that I will give it entire or not at all. If some day I make this demonstration, you will see that I needed the documents to make it intelligible.” The Judge.--“This is a matter of judicial identity. Do you contend that your demonstration is absolutely certain?” M. Bertillon.--“I consider it superior in certainty to identification by anthropometric measurements. But I cannot go into such a matter off-hand and under such circumstances.” M. Labori.--“Well, if the witness needs time for preparation, we will adjourn until Monday.” The proposition was accepted, and the court adjourned. SEVENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 14. The proceedings of the seventh day began with the reading by the court of a letter from M. Le Provost de Launay, a member of the senate, and of a dispatch from M. Papillaud. The letter read as follows: I have read the testimony of M. Jaurès. He must be mistaken, for M. Papillaud, whom I saw the day before he met Major Esterhazy, and whom I saw again the day after, said to me a very different thing. I am ready to testify to it. Following is M. Papillaud’s dispatch: BEAULIEU (ALPES-MARITIMES).