192 —_—____. FRENCH CLUB LECTURE. MW. d@Audiffret Tells How Dreyfus’ Treachery Was Discovered. On Friday night, Feb. 17, M. d’Au- diffret delivered before the French Club, an exceedingly interesting and in much of its contents quite novel, lecture en- titled ““Choses de France’ the purport of which was as follows: At no time has the history of France been more interesting than to-day. The events of the day are, however, for a Frenchman painful; witness the sudden death of President Faure. M. Faure’s’ great popularity was due to his pretended affiliation with the working classes, a pretence that was encouraged by car- toons and by all means, He was, how- ever, in reality without any proletarian connections, being a typical representa- tive of the rich “haute bourgeoisie.” To-day affairs in France are in very nearly the same condition as in 1851, at the time of the famous “coup d’état,” which was not as republicans would make out a crime, but a necessity, which was for the good of France, and was upheld by a tremendous majority in the popular vote. Now as then things have been going ill, and the people are weary. It is only the lack of a fitting man that prevents another “coup d’état” to-day. Even as it is the Bona- partists have very bright~ prospects. The army of 1851 was hated by the republicans because of its participation in the “coup d’état’; but the army then was really a mercenary one as only one out of a hundred Frenchmen was obliged to serve. But to-day everyone is obliged to serve, and a campaign, like the present one, directed against the army is an attack on the French people themselves. The Dreyfus affair was started by the wonderful solidity of the Jews who will not see one. of their number condemned. They were aug- mented by all the malcontents of ’48 and of the seekers of notoriety. Drey- fus was not condemned because he was a Jew, but is defended for that reason. Had he been a Christian, there had been no powerful: and solid party to try to whitewash his character. DISCOVERY OF DREYFUS”: TREACHERY. Dreyfus’ treachery was discovered in a singular way. A number of officers were dining in the apartments of an officer attached to a foreign legation, who, after dinner, boasted that he had in his safe, documents furnished him by an army officer. This remark reached the Minister of War, who had the attaché kept under the’ strictest police surveillance. In a few days a fire started in his apartments by one of those fortunate occurrences that are called chances; the firemen were called in, among whom was an agent of the Minister of War, who, under the pre- text of saving it, had the safe or rather strong box taken out and carried to the War Ministry, where all available per- sons were set to work photographing, tracing and copying the documents. The attaché returning and seeing his documents. gone, immediately com- plained to his ambassador, who went directly to President Casimir Perier, threatening him with a declaration of war within twenty-four hours if the documents were not instantly returned. The President telephoned to the War Ministry where the papers were re- turned to the attaché. Among the documents of which they had not had time to make a complete tracing was the famous “borderau.” Consequently the officer who was making the tracing, copied the remainder in his own hand. This accounts for a portion of the “borderauw”’ not being in Dreyfus hand writing, also for the difficulty with all the documents, as there are none that are original, all being tracing, photo- graphs or mere copies. [This account is absolutely accurate for it comes from a person in high position, whose name can not of course, by very reason of his position, be given. ] PROOFS CANNOT. BE MADE PUBLIC; The manner of obtaining the proofs of Dreyfus’ guilt is the reason why they cannot be made public, as the French government cannot acknowledge, with- out causing a war, that they were stolen YALH ALUMNI from an attaché of a foreign govern- ment. All the documents forged by Colonel Henry are of date subsequent to Drey- fus’ condemnation, and did not form a part of the evidence upon which he was condemned. Dreyfus said that his innocence would be proved in three years, because he knew that three of the judges whose turn it would be to sit at the time on the bench of the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation, before which his case would come, were of Jewish connection, and could be influenced by the great Jewish party. ; In concluding M. d’Audiffret said that it was almost impossible to con- vince Americans, on account of the in- fluence of the papers; but these papers’ accounts of the Dreyfus affair come directly and and practically unchanged from London, where the press is con- trolled by men who are Jews, and are therefore working for Dreyfus. —_———— > > As To The Union. [Yule News.] The controversy over the Union goes on actively, and even if the society, as many claim, is dead, it seems to cause great interest in debating—on paper. The opinions of the supporters of the several opposing policies are as vari- ous and interesting as can be conceived. The conservatives prefer the present state to any change whatever because they fear any change will completely abolish the Union as an _ individual society. The propositions of a ‘“De- bater”’ are radical—highly radical; so much so that it seems hardly possible that the members of the Union will consent to vote their own society out of existence as a separate debating body; and so leave themselves entirely out of a society unless they happen to belong to one of the class organiza- tions. But the scheme proposed by. Mr. C. W. Wells seems to. have litle more chance of success. The probability that the. various societies—the Wigwams, Kent, Wayland, Windy, clubs—can be induced to debate against each other once a month seems small to those who know the opposition they have made to even more moderate proposals of a similar nature. The pro- ject proposed by Mr. Wells is attrac- tive. But the fact remains that the Kent Club does not care to debate with the Sopohomore Wigwam; not does the Sopohomore Wigwam wish to meet the Leonard Bacon Club, and so on. The fear, which Mr. Wells expresses that his scheme will be so successful as to seriously injure intercollegiate debat- ing by entirely absorbing the energies of the best men in club debates, does not seem to be founded on sufficient reasons. There are desirable elements in both schemes—that of Mr. Wells and that of “Debater.” But neither seems to stand much show of immediate adoption. The conservative Union policy is ap- parently the most practical; but it fails to show any adequate remedy for the apathy in the Union, which still con- tinues—witness the lack of a quorum at a third of the meetings this year, even though the discussion over the Union is lively enough. — ee Yale “News” Elections. The following elections to editorial positions on the Yale Daily News were announced Saturday, February 18: 1901—Henry Stiles Curtiss of Cleve- land, Ohio; Warren Hoysradt of Hud- son, New York. 1902—William Edwards Day of In- dainapolis, Ind.; Henry William Ham- lin of Canandaigua, New York; Payson McLane Merrill of New York City. ——______§§—_ “* Record” Elections. The following men were elected to the editorial board of the Record, February 5: Keyes Winter, 1900 of Indianapolis, Ind.; Webster, i900 8. of Chicago,