M. Albert Clemenceau.--“We are a little at sea. In the letters read, some witnesses declare that they will not come because they know certain facts, while others, like M. de Boisdeffre, declare that they will not come because they do not know any facts in this case. We do not know which of these two observations is sound, but it is impossible for both of them to be. It is interesting also to the jurors to know that former cabinet ministers, who are by no means the first comers, MM. Guérin and Trarieux, former keepers of the seals, and M. Raymond Poincaré, former minister of finance, have responded to the summons. It is certain that they would have had nothing to fear, if they had written to the court that they could not come. These former cabinet ministers come; yet among the military officers we cannot get a single witness. I believe it is well for the jurors to remember that.” The court announcing that ex-President Casimir-Perier would appear, the defence withdrew its motion for his further summons. But M. Labori then offered a formal motion that MM. d’Ormescheville, Ravary, General Mercier, Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Autant, Eichmann, de Boisdeffre, and Captain de Comminges be forcibly constrained to appear. And he submitted a further motion that Mlle. Blanche de Comminges be constrained to appear, unless it should be found that her illness was genuine, and that, in the latter case, a commission should be appointed to visit her and ask her the following questions: (1) Is she aware that her name has been used in writing to Colonel Picquart? (2) How did she become aware of it? (3) Did she not give the nickname “demigod” to Captain Lallement? (4) Does she know whether this name was used in a telegram which is said to have been a forgery? (5) Had Colonel du Paty de Clam any reason for entertaining a revengeful feeling toward her and her family? (6) Is it not within her knowledge that he resorted in 1892 to very serious manœuvres, notably the employment of anonymous letters? (7) Was not this matter put in the hands of M. Lozé, prefect of police, and did not General D---- have to intervene? (8) Did not Colonel du Paty de Clam arrange, for the restitution of a letter, a scene that took place at _cours la Reine_, in which a veiled lady appeared? After hearing these motions, the court adjourned for the day. SECOND DAY--FEBRUARY 8. The second day’s hearing began at half past twelve with the announcement of the court that, before proceeding to the hearing of the witnesses, there were new excuses to be read. The first was from Major Esterhazy, who wrote as follows: