M. Leblois.--“The comte de Comminges received in 1892 a certain number of very serious anonymous letters. He had reason to suspect that they were written by Colonel du Paty de Clam, who was then only a major. He consulted the prefect of police, M. Lozé, who, if I have been correctly informed, answered: ‘It is du Paty de Clam.’” The Judge.--“But you know nothing about it; this information is second-hand.” M. Labori.--“But the sequel is interesting.” M. Leblois.--“Thereupon the comte de Comminges went to General Davout, and asked him to insist that these conspiracies should cease. General Davout sent for Major du Paty de Clam, and, as a result, the anonymous letters stopped entirely. But there remained a letter in the hands of Major du Paty de Clam, and the comte de Comminges insisted upon its restitution. General Davout helped him to bring this about, if I am correctly informed. But, however that may be, Major du Paty de Clam restored the letter under the following circumstances. He said that this letter had fallen into the hands of a woman, and that she would not part with it unless the sum of 500 francs was paid to her. So he convoked certain members of the family on the bank of the Seine, near the Jardin de Paris, at ten o’clock in the evening. There came a woman, carrying an umbrella, whom Major du Paty de Clam approached. After conversing with her a few minutes, he came back, saying: ‘I have just handed this woman an envelope containing a 500-franc bill. In exchange, she has given me the letter that you desire, in another envelope. Here it is.’ They opened the envelope, and, to be sure, found the letter. It is evident that there was something very strange about all this,--something useless, to say the least.” The Judge.--“But what relation has all this to the charge against the defendants?” M. Labori.--“I am ready to explain at once. It is our contention that the veiled lady, far from being in relations with, or in the circle of, Colonel Picquart, as has been insinuated, was in relations with certain members of the war department, and that those who have aided Major Esterhazy in his campaign may well have been in relation with certain members of the war department. That is the bearing of the question.” The Judge.--“At what time did the events in connection with this letter occur?” M. Leblois.--“In the spring of 1892, and, if I am not mistaken, the restitution took place on Good Friday of that year.” _Testimony of M. Scheurer-Kestner._ The next witness was M. Scheurer-Kestner. M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, will you ask M. Scheurer-Kestner under what circumstances he was led to concern himself with the facts which revealed to him that the authorship of the _bordereau_, attributed in 1894 to Captain Dreyfus, was really to be attributed to Major Esterhazy, and what steps he took in the matter afterwards?” The Judge.--“Monsieur Attorney-General!” The Attorney-General.--“It is always the same question.”