NormalizeHEADmain

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 17173 deletions

diff --git a/old/68561-0.txt b/old/68561-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 306e4e9..0000000
--- a/old/68561-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,17173 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg eBook of The trial of Emile Zola, by Emile Zola
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
-www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
-will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
-using this eBook.
-
-Title: The trial of Emile Zola
-       containing M. Zola's letter to President Faure relating to the
-       Dreyfus case, and a full report of the fifteen days' proceedings
-       in the Assize Court of the Seine, including testimony of
-       witnesses and speeches of counsel
-
-Author: Emile Zola
-
-Release Date: July 18, 2022 [eBook #68561]
-
-Language: English
-
-Produced by: Emmanuel Ackerman, Thomas Frost and the Online Distributed
-             Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was
-             produced from images made available by the HathiTrust
-             Digital Library.)
-
-*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF EMILE ZOLA ***
-
-
-
-
-
-  FULL REPORT, FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES.
-
-  THE TRIAL
-  OF
-  EMILE ZOLA
-
-  A DETAILED REPORT
-  OF THE
-  Fifteen Days’ Proceedings in the
-  Assize Court at Paris
-
-  NEW YORK
-  BENJ. R. TUCKER, 24 GOLD STREET
-  1898
-
-
-
-
-  THE TRIAL
-  OF
-  EMILE ZOLA
-
-  CONTAINING
-
-  M. ZOLA’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT FAURE RELATING TO
-  THE DREYFUS CASE, AND A FULL REPORT OF THE
-  FIFTEEN DAYS’ PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSIZE
-  COURT OF THE SEINE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY
-  OF WITNESSES AND SPEECHES OF COUNSEL
-
-  NEW YORK
-  BENJ. R. TUCKER, PUBLISHER
-  1898
-
-
-
-
-  COPYRIGHT
-  BY BENJ. R. TUCKER
-  1898
-
- ☞ The advantages of the method of typography employed in the
- composition of this volume, in which the “justification” of lines is
- dispensed with, are undeniable. From the standpoint of æsthetics it is
- an improvement, because by it absolutely perfect spacing is secured.
- From the standpoint of economy it is almost a revolution, since it
- saves, in the case of book work, from twenty to forty per cent. of the
- cost of type-setting, according to the grade of the work. If adopted
- in all printing-offices, it would effect a daily saving of the labor
- of about two hundred thousand men.
-
-
-
-
-THE OFFENCE.
-
-
- On January 10, 1898, some three years after the secret trial and
- conviction, by a council of war, of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, then a
- staff officer of the French army, of having sold French military
- secrets to a foreign power, in consequence of which he was stripped
- of his uniform in a degrading public ceremony and sent for life to
- Devil’s Island, a French penal settlement situated off the coast
- of French Guiana, where he is now confined under guard, a second
- council of war convened in Paris for the trial of Major Marie Charles
- Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a French infantry officer temporarily
- relieved from active service on account of poor health, the charge
- against him--preferred by Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of Captain Alfred
- Dreyfus--being that he was the real author of the _bordereau_, or
- itemized memorandum, supposed to have been written by Captain Dreyfus,
- and on the strength of which the latter was convicted.
-
- The trial was conducted publicly until the most important witness,
- Lieutenant-Colonel Georges Picquart, of the Fourth Algerian
- Sharpshooters, was reached, when the council went into secret session,
- remaining behind closed doors until the evening of January 11, when
- the doors were thrown open and General de Luxer, the president of the
- council, announced a unanimous vote in acquittal of the defendant.
-
- Two days later--January 13--“L’Aurore,” a daily paper published in
- Paris under the directorship of Ernest Vaughan and the editorship of
- Georges Clemenceau, and having as its _gérant_, or legally responsible
- editor, J. A. Perrenx, published the following letter from Emile Zola,
- man of letters, to Félix Faure, president of France:
-
-
-I ACCUSE...!
-
-LETTER TO M. FELIX FAURE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC.
-
-_Monsieur le Président_:
-
-Will you permit me, in my gratitude for the kindly welcome that you
-once extended to me, to have a care for the glory that belongs to you,
-and to say to you that your star, so lucky hitherto, is threatened with
-the most shameful, the most ineffaceable, of stains?
-
-You have emerged from base calumnies safe and sound; you have
-conquered hearts. You seem radiant in the apotheosis of that patriotic
-_fête_ which the Russian alliance has been for France, and you are
-preparing to preside at the solemn triumph of our Universal Exposition,
-which will crown our great century of labor, truth, and liberty. But
-what a mud-stain on your name--I was going to say on your reign--is
-this abominable Dreyfus affair! A council of war has just dared to
-acquit an Esterhazy in obedience to orders, a final blow at all truth,
-at all justice. And now it is done! France has this stain upon her
-cheek; it will be written in history that under your presidency it was
-possible for this social crime to be committed.
-
-Since they have dared, I too will dare. I will tell the truth, for I
-have promised to tell it, if the courts, once regularly appealed to,
-did not bring it out fully and entirely. It is my duty to speak; I
-will not be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the spectre
-of the innocent man who is atoning, in a far-away country, by the most
-frightful of tortures, for a crime that he did not commit.
-
-And to you, _Monsieur le Président_, will I cry this truth, with
-all the force of an honest man’s revolt. Because of your honor I
-am convinced that you are ignorant of it. And to whom then shall I
-denounce the malevolent gang of the really guilty, if not to you, the
-first magistrate of the country?
-
-First, the truth as to the trial and conviction of Dreyfus.
-
-A calamitous man has managed it all, has done it all--Colonel du Paty
-de Clam, then a simple major. He is the entire Dreyfus case; it will
-be fully known only when a sincere investigation shall have clearly
-established his acts and his responsibilities. He appears as the most
-heady, the most intricate, of minds, haunted with romantic intrigues,
-delighting in the methods of the newspaper novel, stolen papers,
-anonymous letters, meetings in deserted spots, mysterious women who
-peddle overwhelming proofs by night. It is he who conceived the idea of
-dictating the _bordereau_ to Dreyfus; it is he who dreamed of studying
-it in a room completely lined with mirrors; it is he whom Major
-Forzinetti represents to us armed with a dark lantern, trying to gain
-access to the accused when asleep, in order to throw upon his face a
-sudden flood of light, and thus surprise a confession of his crime in
-the confusion of his awakening. And I have not to tell the whole; let
-them look, they will find. I declare simply that Major du Paty de Clam,
-entrusted as a judicial officer with the duty of preparing the Dreyfus
-case, is, in the order of dates and responsibilities, the first person
-guilty of the fearful judicial error that has been committed.
-
-The _bordereau_ already had been for some time in the hands of
-Colonel Sandherr, director of the bureau of information, who since
-then has died of general paralysis. “Flights” have taken place; papers
-have disappeared, as they continue to disappear even today; and the
-authorship of the _bordereau_ was an object of inquiry, when little by
-little an _a priori_ conclusion was arrived at that the author must be
-a staff officer and an officer of artillery,--clearly a double error,
-which shows how superficially this _bordereau_ had been studied, for a
-systematic examination proves that it could have been written only by
-an officer of troops. So they searched their own house; they examined
-writings; it was a sort of family affair,--a traitor to be surprised
-in the war offices themselves, that he might be expelled therefrom. I
-need not again go over a story already known in part. It is sufficient
-to say that Major du Paty de Clam enters upon the scene as soon as
-the first breath of suspicion falls upon Dreyfus. Starting from that
-moment, it is he who invented Dreyfus; the case becomes his case; he
-undertakes to confound the traitor, and induce him to make a complete
-confession. There is also, to be sure, the minister of war, General
-Mercier, whose intelligence seems rather inferior; there is also the
-chief of staff, General de Boisdeffre, who seems to have yielded to
-his clerical passion, and the sub-chief of staff, General Gonse, whose
-conscience has succeeded in accommodating itself to many things. But
-at bottom there was at first only Major du Paty de Clam, who leads
-them all, who hypnotizes them,--for he concerns himself also with
-spiritualism, with occultism, holding converse with spirits. Incredible
-are the experiences to which he submitted the unfortunate Dreyfus, the
-traps into which he tried to lead him, the mad inquiries, the monstrous
-fancies, a complete and torturing madness.
-
-Ah! this first affair is a nightmare to one who knows it in its real
-details. Major du Paty de Clam arrests Dreyfus, puts him in close
-confinement; he runs to Madame Dreyfus, terrorizes her, tells her
-that, if she speaks, her husband is lost. Meantime the unfortunate was
-tearing his flesh, screaming his innocence. And thus the examination
-went on, as in a fifteenth-century chronicle, amid mystery, with a
-complication of savage expedients, all based on a single childish
-charge, this imbecile _bordereau_, which was not simply a vulgar
-treason, but also the most shameless of swindles, for the famous
-secrets delivered proved, almost all of them, valueless. If I insist,
-it is because here lies the egg from which later was to be hatched the
-real crime, the frightful denial of justice, of which France lies ill.
-I should like to show in detail how the judicial error was possible;
-how it was born of the machinations of Major du Paty de Clam; how
-General Mercier and Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse were led into
-it, gradually assuming responsibility for this error, which afterward
-they believed it their duty to impose as sacred truth, truth beyond
-discussion. At the start there was, on their part, only carelessness
-and lack of understanding. At worst we see them yielding to the
-religious passions of their surroundings, and to the prejudices of the
-_esprit de corps_. They have suffered folly to do its work.
-
-But here is Dreyfus before the council of war. The most absolute
-secrecy is demanded. Had a traitor opened the frontier to the enemy
-in order to lead the German emperor to Notre Dame, they would not
-have taken stricter measures of silence and mystery. The nation
-is awe-struck; there are whisperings of terrible doings, of those
-monstrous treasons that excite the indignation of History, and
-naturally the nation bows. There is no punishment severe enough; it
-will applaud even public degradation; it will wish the guilty man
-to remain upon his rock of infamy, eaten by remorse. Are they real
-then,--these unspeakable things, these dangerous things, capable of
-setting Europe aflame, which they have had to bury carefully behind
-closed doors? No, there was nothing behind them save the romantic and
-mad fancies of Major du Paty de Clam. All this was done only to conceal
-the most ridiculous of newspaper novels. And, to assure one’s self of
-it, one need only study attentively the indictment read before the
-council of war.
-
-Ah! the emptiness of this indictment! That a man could have been
-condemned on this document is a prodigy of iniquity. I defy honest
-people to read it without feeling their hearts leap with indignation
-and crying out their revolt at the thought of the unlimited atonement
-yonder, on Devil’s Island. Dreyfus knows several languages--a crime; no
-compromising document was found on his premises--a crime; he sometimes
-visits the neighborhood of his birth--a crime; he is industrious, he is
-desirous of knowing everything--a crime; he does not get confused--a
-crime; he gets confused--a crime. And the simplicities of this
-document, the formal assertions in the void! We were told of fourteen
-counts, but we find, after all, only one,--that of the _bordereau_. And
-even as to this we learn that the experts were not in agreement; that
-one of them, M. Gobert, was hustled out in military fashion, because
-he permitted himself to arrive at another than the desired opinion. We
-were told also of twenty-three officers who came to overwhelm Dreyfus
-with their testimony. We are still in ignorance of their examination,
-but it is certain that all of them did not attack him, and it is to be
-remarked, furthermore, that all of them belonged to the war officers.
-It is a family trial; there they are all at home; and it must be
-remembered that the staff wanted the trial, sat in judgment at it, and
-has just passed judgment a second time.
-
-So there remained only the _bordereau_, concerning which the experts
-were not in agreement. It is said that in the council-chamber the
-judges naturally were going to acquit. And, after that, how easy to
-understand the desperate obstinacy with which, in order to justify the
-conviction, they affirm today the existence of a secret overwhelming
-document, a document that cannot be shown, that legitimates everything,
-before which we must bow, an invisible and unknowable god. I deny this
-document; I deny it with all my might. A ridiculous document, yes,
-perhaps a document concerning little women, in which there is mention
-of a certain D---- who becomes too exacting; some husband doubtless,
-who thinks that they pay him too low a price for his wife. But a
-document of interest to the national defence the production of which
-would lead to a declaration of war tomorrow! No, no; it is a lie; and a
-lie the more odious and cynical because they lie with impunity, in such
-a way that no one can convict them of it. They stir up France; they
-hide themselves behind her legitimate emotion; they close mouths by
-disturbing hearts, by perverting minds. I know no greater civic crime.
-
-These, then, _Monsieur le Président_, are the facts which explain how
-it was possible to commit a judicial error; and the moral proofs, the
-position of Dreyfus as a man of wealth, the absence of motive, this
-continual cry of innocence, complete the demonstration that he is a
-victim of the extraordinary fancies of Major du Paty de Clam, of his
-clerical surroundings, of that hunting down of the “dirty Jews” which
-disgraces our epoch.
-
-And we come to the Esterhazy case. Three years have passed; many
-consciences remain profoundly disturbed, are anxiously seeking, and
-finally become convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus.
-
-I shall not give the history of M. Scheurer-Kestner’s doubts, which
-later became convictions. But, while he was investigating for himself,
-serious things were happening to the staff. Colonel Sandherr was dead,
-and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart had succeeded him as chief of the
-bureau of information. And it is in this capacity that the latter,
-in the exercise of his functions, came one day into possession of a
-letter-telegram addressed to Major Esterhazy by an agent of a foreign
-power. His plain duty was to open an investigation. It is certain that
-he never acted except at the command of his superiors. So he submitted
-his suspicions to his hierarchical superiors, first to General Gonse,
-then to General de Boisdeffre, then to General Billot, who had
-succeeded General Mercier as minister of war. The famous Picquart
-documents, of which we have heard so much, were never anything but the
-Billot documents,--I mean, the documents collected by a subordinate
-for his minister, the documents which must be still in existence in
-the war department. The inquiries lasted from May to September, 1896,
-and here it must be squarely affirmed that General Gonse was convinced
-of Esterhazy’s guilt, and that General de Boisdeffre and General
-Billot had no doubt that the famous _bordereau_ was in Esterhazy’s
-handwriting. Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart’s investigation had ended in
-the certain establishment of this fact. But the emotion thereat was
-great, for Esterhazy’s conviction inevitably involved a revision of the
-Dreyfus trial; and this the staff was determined to avoid at any cost.
-
-Then there must have been a psychological moment, full of anguish.
-Note that General Billot was in no way compromised; he came freshly to
-the matter; he could bring out the truth. He did not dare, in terror,
-undoubtedly, of public opinion, and certainly fearful also of betraying
-the entire staff, General de Boisdeffre, General Gonse, to say nothing
-of their subordinates. Then there was but a minute of struggle between
-his conscience and what he believed to be the military interest. When
-this minute had passed, it was already too late. He was involved
-himself; he was compromised. And since then his responsibility has
-only grown; he has taken upon his shoulders the crime of others, he
-is as guilty as the others, he is more guilty than they, for it was
-in his power to do justice, and he did nothing. Understand this; for
-a year General Billot, Generals De Boisdeffre and Gonse have known
-that Dreyfus is innocent, and they have kept this dreadful thing to
-themselves. And these people sleep, and they have wives and children
-whom they love!
-
-Colonel Picquart had done his duty as an honest man. He insisted in
-the presence of his superiors, in the name of justice; he even begged
-of them; he told them how impolitic were their delays, in view of the
-terrible storm which was gathering, and which would surely burst as
-soon as the truth should be known. Later there was the language that
-M. Scheurer-Kestner held likewise to General Billot, adjuring him in
-the name of patriotism to take the matter in hand, and not to allow
-it to be aggravated till it should become a public disaster. No, the
-crime had been committed; now the staff could not confess it. And
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart was sent on a mission; he was farther and
-farther removed, even to Tunis, where one day they even wanted to
-honor his bravery by charging him with a mission which would surely
-have led to his massacre in the district where the marquis de Morès
-met his death. He was not in disgrace; Gen. Gonse was in friendly
-correspondence with him; but there are secrets which it does one no
-good to find out.
-
-At Paris the truth went on, irresistibly, and we know in what way
-the expected storm broke out. M. Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Major
-Esterhazy as the real author of the _bordereau_, at the moment when
-M. Scheurer-Kestner was about to lodge a demand for a revision of the
-trial with the keeper of the seals. And it is here that Major Esterhazy
-appears. The evidence shows that at first he was dazed, ready for
-suicide or flight. Then suddenly he determines to brazen it out; he
-astonishes Paris by the violence of his attitude. The fact was that
-aid had come to him; he had received an anonymous letter warning him
-of the intrigues of his enemies; a mysterious woman had even disturbed
-herself at night to hand to him a document stolen from the staff,
-which would save him. And I cannot help seeing here again the hand of
-Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, recognizing the expedients of his
-fertile imagination. His work, the guilt of Dreyfus, was in danger, and
-he was determined to defend it. A revision of the trial,--why, that
-meant the downfall of the newspaper novel, so extravagant, so tragic,
-with its abominable _dénouement_ on Devil’s Island. That would never
-do. Thenceforth there was to be a duel between Lieutenant-Colonel
-Picquart and Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, the one with face
-uncovered, the other masked. Presently we shall meet them both in the
-presence of civil justice. At bottom it is always the staff defending
-itself, unwilling to confess its crime, the abomination of which is
-growing from hour to hour.
-
-It has been wonderingly asked who were the protectors of Major
-Esterhazy. First, in the shadow, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam,
-who devised everything, managed everything; his hand betrays itself in
-the ridiculous methods. Then there is General de Boisdeffre, General
-Gonse, General Billot himself, who are obliged to acquit the major,
-since they cannot permit the innocence of Dreyfus to be recognized,
-for, if they should, the war offices would fall under the weight of
-public contempt. And the beautiful result of this prodigious situation
-is that the one honest man in the case, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart,
-who alone has done his duty, is to be the victim, the man to be derided
-and punished. O justice, what frightful despair grips the heart! They
-go so far as to say that he is a forger; that he manufactured the
-telegram, to ruin Esterhazy. But, in heaven’s name, why? For what
-purpose? Show a motive. Is he, too, paid by the Jews? The pretty
-part of the story is that he himself was an anti-Semite. Yes, we
-are witnesses of this infamous spectacle,--the proclamation of the
-innocence of men ruined with debts and crimes, while honor itself, a
-man of stainless life, is stricken down. When a society reaches that
-point, it is beginning to rot.
-
-There you have, then, _Monsieur le Président_, the Esterhazy case,--a
-guilty man to be declared innocent. We can follow the beautiful
-business, hour by hour, for the last two months. I abridge, for this
-is but the _résumé_ of a story whose burning pages will some day be
-written at length. So we have seen General de Pellieux, and then
-Major Ravary, carrying on a rascally investigation whence knaves come
-transfigured and honest people sullied. Then they convened the council
-of war.
-
-How could it have been expected that a council of war would undo what a
-council of war had done?
-
-I say nothing of the choice, always possible, of the judges. Is
-not the superior idea of discipline, which is in the very blood of
-these soldiers, enough to destroy their power to do justice? Who
-says discipline says obedience. When the minister of war, the great
-chief, has publicly established, amid the applause of the nation’s
-representatives, the absolute authority of the thing judged, do you
-expect a council of war to formally contradict him? Hierarchically
-that is impossible. General Billot conveyed a suggestion to the judges
-by his declaration, and they passed judgment as they must face the
-cannon’s mouth, without reasoning. The preconceived opinion that they
-took with them to their bench is evidently this: “Dreyfus has been
-condemned for the crime of treason by a council of war; then he is
-guilty, and we, a council of war, cannot declare him innocent. Now,
-we know that to recognize Esterhazy’s guilt would be to proclaim the
-innocence of Dreyfus.” Nothing could turn them from that course of
-reasoning.
-
-They have rendered an iniquitous verdict which will weigh forever
-upon our councils of war, which will henceforth tinge with suspicion
-all their decrees. The first council of war may have been lacking
-in comprehension; the second is necessarily criminal. Its excuse, I
-repeat, is that the supreme chief had spoken, declaring the thing
-judged unassailable, sacred and superior to men, so that inferiors
-could say naught to the contrary. They talk to us of the honor of the
-army; they want us to love it, to respect it. Ah! certainly, yes, the
-army which would rise at the first threat, which would defend French
-soil; that army is the whole people, and we have for it nothing but
-tenderness and respect. But it is not a question of that army, whose
-dignity is our special desire, in our need of justice. It is the sword
-that is in question; the master that they may give us tomorrow. And
-piously kiss the sword-hilt, the god? No!
-
-I have proved it, moreover; the Dreyfus case was the case of the war
-offices, a staff officer, accused by his staff comrades, convicted
-under the pressure of the chiefs of staff. Again I say, he cannot
-come back innocent, unless all the staff is guilty. Consequently
-the war offices, by all imaginable means, by press campaigns, by
-communications, by influences, have covered Esterhazy only to ruin
-Dreyfus a second time. Ah! with what a sweep the republican government
-should clear away this band of Jesuits, as General Billot himself calls
-them! Where is the truly strong and wisely patriotic minister who
-will dare to reshape and renew all? How many of the people I know are
-trembling with anguish in view of a possible war, knowing in what hands
-lies the national defence! And what a nest of base intrigues, gossip,
-and dilapidation has this sacred asylum, entrusted with the fate of the
-country, become! We are frightened by the terrible light thrown upon
-it by the Dreyfus case, this human sacrifice of an unfortunate, of a
-“dirty Jew.” Ah! what a mixture of madness and folly, of crazy fancies,
-of low police practices, of inquisitorial and tyrannical customs, the
-good pleasure of a few persons in gold lace, with their boots on the
-neck of the nation, cramming back into its throat its cry of truth
-and justice, under the lying and sacrilegious pretext of the _raison
-d’Etat_!
-
-And another of their crimes is that they have accepted the support of
-the unclean press, have suffered themselves to be championed by all the
-knavery of Paris, so that now we witness knavery’s insolent triumph
-in the downfall of right and of simple probity. It is a crime to have
-accused of troubling France those who wish to see her generous, at the
-head of the free and just nations, when they themselves are hatching
-the impudent conspiracy to impose error, in the face of the entire
-world. It is a crime to mislead opinion, to utilize for a task of death
-this opinion that they have perverted to the point of delirium. It is a
-crime to poison the minds of the little and the humble, to exasperate
-the passions of reaction and intolerance, while seeking shelter
-behind odious anti-Semitism, of which the great liberal France of the
-rights of man will die, if she is not cured. It is a crime to exploit
-patriotism for works of hatred, and, finally, it is a crime to make the
-sword the modern god, when all human science is at work on the coming
-temple of truth and justice.
-
-This truth, this justice, for which we have so ardently longed,--how
-distressing it is to see them thus buffeted, more neglected and more
-obscured. I have a suspicion of the fall that must have occurred in
-the soul of M. Scheurer-Kestner, and I really believe that he will
-finally feel remorse that he did not act in a revolutionary fashion,
-on the day of interpellation in the senate, by thoroughly ventilating
-the whole matter, to topple everything over. He has been the highly
-honest man, the man of loyal life, and he thought that the truth was
-sufficient unto itself, especially when it should appear as dazzling
-as the open day. Of what use to overturn everything, since soon the
-sun would shine? And it is for this confident serenity that he is now
-so cruelly punished. And the same is the case of Lieutenant-Colonel
-Picquart, who, moved by a feeling of lofty dignity, has been unwilling
-to publish General Gonse’s letters. These scruples honor him the more
-because, while he remained respectful of discipline, his superiors
-heaped mud upon him, working up the case against him themselves, in
-the most unexpected and most outrageous fashion. Here are two victims,
-two worthy people, two simple hearts, who have trusted God, while the
-devil was at work. And in the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart we
-have seen even this ignoble thing,--a French tribunal, after suffering
-the reporter in the case to publicly arraign a witness and accuse him
-of every crime, closing its doors as soon as this witness has been
-introduced to explain and defend himself. I say that is one crime more,
-and that this crime will awaken the universal conscience. Decidedly,
-military tribunals have a singular idea of justice.
-
-Such, then, is the simple truth, _Monsieur le Président_, and it is
-frightful. It will remain a stain upon your presidency. I suspect that
-you are powerless in this matter,--that you are the prisoner of the
-constitution and of your environment. You have none the less a man’s
-duty, upon which you will reflect, and which you will fulfill. Not
-indeed that I despair, the least in the world, of triumph. I repeat
-with more vehement certainty; truth is on the march, and nothing
-can stop it. Today sees the real beginning of the affair, since not
-until today have the positions been clear: on one hand, the guilty,
-who do not want the light; on the other, the doers of justice, who
-will give their lives to get it. When truth is buried in the earth,
-it accumulates there, and assumes so mighty an explosive power that,
-on the day when it bursts forth, it hurls everything into the air.
-We shall see if they have not just made preparations for the most
-resounding of disasters, yet to come.
-
-But this letter is long, _Monsieur le Président_, and it is time to
-finish.
-
-I accuse Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam of having been the
-diabolical workman of judicial error,--unconsciously, I am willing to
-believe,--and of having then defended his calamitous work, for three
-years, by the most guilty machinations.
-
-I accuse General Mercier of having made himself an accomplice, at least
-through weakness of mind, in one of the greatest iniquities of the
-century.
-
-I accuse General Billot of having had in his hands certain proofs
-of the innocence of Dreyfus, and of having stifled them; of having
-rendered himself guilty of this crime of _lèse-humanité_ and
-_lèse-justice_ for a political purpose, and to save the compromised
-staff.
-
-I accuse General de Boisdeffre and General Gonse of having made
-themselves accomplices in the same crime, one undoubtedly through
-clerical passion, the other perhaps through that _esprit de corps_
-which makes of the war offices the Holy Ark, unassailable.
-
-I accuse General de Pellieux and Major Ravary of having conducted a
-rascally inquiry,--I mean by that a monstrously partial inquiry, of
-which we have, in the report of the latter, an imperishable monument of
-naive audacity.
-
-I accuse the three experts in handwriting, Belhomme, Varinard, and
-Couard, of having made lying and fraudulent reports, unless a medical
-examination should declare them afflicted with diseases of the eye and
-of the mind.
-
-I accuse the war offices of having carried on in the press,
-particularly in “L’Eclair” and in “L’Echo de Paris,” an abominable
-campaign, to mislead opinion and cover up their faults.
-
-I accuse, finally, the first council of war of having violated the
-law by condemning an accused person on the strength of a secret
-document, and I accuse the second council of war of having covered
-this illegality, in obedience to orders, in committing in its turn the
-judicial crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty man.
-
-In preferring these charges, I am not unaware that I lay myself liable
-under Articles 30 and 31 of the press law of July 29, 1881, which
-punishes defamation. And it is wilfully that I expose myself thereto.
-
-As for the people whom I accuse, I do not know them, I have never seen
-them, I entertain against them no feeling of revenge or hatred. They
-are to me simple entities, spirits of social ill-doing. And the act
-that I perform here is nothing but a revolutionary measure to hasten
-the explosion of truth and justice.
-
-I have but one passion, the passion for the light, in the name
-of humanity which has suffered so much, and which is entitled to
-happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my soul. Let
-them dare, then, to bring me into the assize court, and let the
-investigation take place in the open day.
-
-I await it.
-
-Accept, _Monsieur le Président_, the assurance of my profound respect.
-
-  EMILE ZOLA.
-
- At the sitting of the French chamber of deputies on the day of the
- appearance of the foregoing letter, Comte de Mun, a member of the
- chamber and representing the monarchical party, questioned the
- government “as to the measures which the minister of war intends to
- take, in consequence of the article published this morning by M. Emile
- Zola.” After a stormy debate and a suspension of the sitting, M.
- Méline, the prime minister, reluctantly declared the intention of the
- government to prosecute the author of the article.
-
- Accordingly, on January 20, the assize court of the Seine served
- notice on M. Zola and M. Perrenx to appear before it at the Palais
- de Justice on the following February 7, and there answer to a charge
- of having publicly defamed the first council of war of the military
- government of Paris, the charge being based on the following passages
- from the incriminated article:
-
- “A council of war has just dared to acquit an Esterhazy in obedience
- to orders, a final blow at all truth, at all justice. And now it is
- done; France has this stain upon her cheek; it will be written in
- history that under your presidency it was possible for this social
- crime to be committed.”
-
- “They have rendered an iniquitous verdict which will weigh forever
- upon our councils of war, which will henceforth tinge all their
- decrees with suspicion. The first council of war may have been lacking
- in comprehension; the second is necessarily criminal.”
-
- “I accuse the second council of war of having covered this illegality,
- in obedience to orders, in committing in its turn the judicial crime
- of knowingly acquitting a guilty man.”
-
-On January 22 “L’Aurore” published a second letter from M. Zola,
-addressed to the minister of war, in which he complained that the
-government had based its charge of defamation exclusively on those
-passages of his first letter which related to the trial of Major
-Esterhazy, carefully refraining from specification of those passages
-relating to the trial of Captain Dreyfus, lest thereby the truth about
-the latter should come to light and compel a revision of his case. This
-second letter concluded as follows:
-
-Why were you afraid to take notice of all my charges? I will tell you.
-
-Fearing an open discussion, you have resorted, in order to save
-yourself, to the methods of a prosecuting attorney. They have called
-to your attention, in the law of July 21, 1881, an Article 52 which
-permits me to offer proof concerning only the matters “set forth and
-complained of in the summons.”
-
-And now you are quite at your ease, are you not?
-
-Well, you are mistaken; I warn you in advance; you have been
-ill-advised.
-
-The first thought was to bring me before the police court, but they did
-not dare, for the court of appeals would have upset the whole procedure.
-
-Then they conceived the idea of delaying matters by greatly prolonging
-the preliminary examination; but they were afraid that this might give
-a new development to the case, and pile up against you a crushing mass
-of evidence, methodically recorded.
-
-Finally, in desperation, they decided to impose upon me an unequal
-struggle, tying my hands in advance, to assure you, by the methods of a
-lawyer’s clerk, the victory that undoubtedly you did not expect from a
-free discussion.
-
-You have forgotten that I am to have for judges twelve French
-citizens, in possession of their independence.
-
-I shall find a way to win by the force of justice; I shall illuminate
-consciences with the effulgence of truth. At the first words we shall
-see the methods of the quibblers swept away by the imperious necessity
-of proof. This proof the law bids me give, and the law would be a liar
-if, imposing on me this duty, it should refuse me the means of doing it.
-
-How could I prove the charges of which you complain, if I were not
-allowed to show the concatenation of facts and were prevented from
-placing the whole matter in the fullest light?
-
-Liberty to prove,--that is the power on which I depend.
-
- On January 24 M. Zola’s counsel served notice on the attorney-general
- of a long list of witnesses whom he intended to summon, in which
- notice he called on the attorney-general to produce in court all the
- papers relating to the trials of Captain Dreyfus and Major Esterhazy,
- and made formal offer to prove, not only the matters set forth in the
- summons, but also, as inseparable from them, the charges preferred
- in the letter to President Faure against Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty
- de Clam, General Mercier, General Billot, General de Boisdeffre,
- General Gonse, General de Pellieux, Major Ravary, the three experts in
- handwriting,--Belhomme, Varinard, and Couard,--the war offices, and
- the Dreyfus council of war.
-
- On February 7 M. Zola and M. Perrenx appeared for trial, and the
- record of the court proceedings here follows.
-
-
-
-
-THE TRIAL.
-
-
-
-
-FIRST DAY--FEBRUARY 7.
-
-The first day’s proceedings began with the entrance of the presiding
-judge, M. Delegorgue, the other members of the court being Councillors
-Lault and Bousquet. Attorney-General Van Cassel appeared for the
-prosecution, M. Fernand Labori for M. Zola, and M. Albert Clemenceau,
-assisted by his brother, M. Georges Clemenceau, for M. Perrenx, the
-_gérant_ of “L’Aurore.” The court-room of the assize court of the Seine
-was crowded to its utmost capacity; wherefore the judge, on taking his
-seat, addressed those present as follows:
-
-“I notify the public that we shall not begin until all are seated. I
-likewise warn the public that every sort of manifestation, whether for
-or against the accused, is formally forbidden, and that at the first
-sign of disorder I shall order the court-room cleared. Please consider
-this said once for all, for I shall not repeat it.”
-
-The usual dialogue then ensued between the judge and M. Zola.
-
-“Your name?”
-
-“Emile Zola.”
-
-“Your profession?”
-
-“Man of letters.”
-
-“Your age?”
-
-“Fifty-eight years.”
-
-“Your residence?”
-
-“21 _bis_, Rue de Bruxelles.”
-
-The drawing of the jury was then proceeded with. Three challenges were
-used by the prosecution, and seven by the defence, the jurors finally
-selected being as follows:
-
-Foreman, Auguste Dutrieux, merchant; Auguste Leblond, roof-builder;
-Pierre Emery, merchant; Bernier, molder in copper; Edouard Gressin,
-clerk; Bouvier, proprietor; Albert Chevanier, wine merchant; Nigon,
-leather-dresser; Charles Fouquet, seedsman; Joseph Moureire,
-wire-drawer; Charles Huet, market-gardener; Brunot, linen-draper.
-Supplementary jurors: Antoine Jourde, tradesman; Alfred Boucreux,
-butcher.
-
-Then began the reading of the documents in the case by the clerk, the
-only one of interest being the complaint of Gen. Billot. Referring to
-M. Zola’s letter, the complainant declared:
-
- This article contains a series of insults and slanders directed
- against two ministers of war, general officers, and army officers
- of all grades under their orders. Chiefs and subordinates are above
- such outrages, and the opinion of parliament, of the country, and of
- the army has already placed them beyond reach of attack. Though the
- minister of war does not consider it his duty to lodge a complaint for
- the persons above referred to, any more than for the council of war
- which rendered the verdict of 1894, the authority of which must remain
- intact, we cannot admit any suspicion of the independence of military
- justice or any accusation that it rendered on January 11 in obedience
- to orders an iniquitous sentence and committed a judicial error in
- knowingly acquitting a guilty man. Consequently I have the honor to
- lodge a complaint against the _gérant_ of “L’Aurore” and M. Emile Zola
- on account of the defamation directed against the first council of war
- of the military government of Paris, which at its sessions of January
- 10 and 11, 1898, declared the acquittal of Major Esterhazy.
-
-After the reading of the documents, Attorney-General Van Cassel took
-the floor to make what he described as “a statement of the case,”
-speaking as follows:
-
-“The minister of war has taken notice, in his complaint, of the
-imputation cast by M. Emile Zola upon the first council of war of
-having acquitted Major Esterhazy in obedience to orders. The summons
-could not go beyond the terms of the complaint. It is natural that
-every complainant should circumscribe the grievances for which he
-demands reparation. Otherwise it would be too easy for the accused to
-turn the discussion from its proper course, and create a diversion
-for the audience, which is the great art in the assize court. A
-single question is submitted to you, gentlemen of the jury: _Did the
-first council of war act in obedience to orders in acquitting Major
-Esterhazy?_ The other imputation contained in M. Zola’s article the
-minister of war holds in contempt. Nevertheless the accused assert the
-right to discuss all the allegations contained in the article. Their
-avowed plan is to make you judges of the legality of the sentence
-passed upon Dreyfus. We shall not permit it. I warn them that any
-attempt on their part to provoke a sort of indirect revision of the
-Dreyfus case would be illegal and futile. No one has a right to
-indirectly call in question the thing judged. Our legislation, in its
-desire to avoid judicial error, has laid down rules for revision. These
-rules were broadened by the law of 1895. This law was passed prior to
-the trial of Dreyfus. Why have the accused not availed themselves of
-it? Why have they not attempted revision by the legal methods? They
-have not done so. They have tried to secure the conviction of a second
-officer on account of the crime of which Dreyfus was convicted. They
-have failed in their undertaking. Since then no new fact has been
-produced; no unknown document of such a nature as to establish the
-innocence of the condemned has been revealed to justice. In the absence
-of material wherewith to secure a legal revision, they wish--I use the
-words of M. Emile Zola--to provoke a revolutionary revision. The court
-will not lend itself to this manœuvre. Respect for the thing judged
-requires that the discussion be circumscribed to the single matter of
-which the minister of war takes notice in his complaint. Therefore no
-evidence can be admitted here except such as tends to prove the charges
-relating to the pretended iniquity committed in obedience to orders in
-1898 by the military judges of Major Esterhazy. Accusations foreign to
-this special matter must remain outside of the discussion. I ask, then,
-that the accused may not be authorized to attempt proof thereof, either
-by documents or by testimony. The charges preferred by them against
-the officers, the witnesses, the experts, the members of the council
-of war of 1894, which convicted Dreyfus, have no connection with the
-defamation of the council of war of 1898.”
-
-To this contention M. Labori made the following reply:
-
-“I am not much astonished, gentlemen, at the difficulties which M.
-Zola meets in this affair, and I expect that this incident, which is
-the first, will not be the last. We expected that they would offer to
-you and impose upon us a restricted discussion. Such was the desire
-of the minister of war, and it was his right. It will be ours, at a
-certain moment, to ask what could have been the underlying reasons
-for the exercise of this right under the circumstances in which the
-minister of war has made use of it. However that may be, it was his
-right, and I do not deny it. But, gentlemen, I do not believe that the
-form of the complaint within which he confines himself involves the
-consequences which he has hoped for.”
-
-Reading then all the charges made at the end of M. Zola’s letter, M.
-Labori continued:
-
-“You know, gentlemen, what was the reply. It began on the day when,
-after five days and five nights of deliberation and uncertainty, the
-minister of war preferred this complaint, the bearing of which you now
-know, and it continues today in the motions which the attorney-general
-now makes in the name of the complainant and in his own name. Do you
-think that that is going to strangle the discussion? Absurd! It is as
-if one should place himself in the middle of a torrent to prevent it
-from flowing. The discussion is open. If they wanted to stifle it,
-they need not have prosecuted either Perrenx or Zola. They had the
-right to refrain; and, in fact, public opinion, to which, gentlemen,
-I shall speak,--public opinion, which is not enlightened, and which,
-admirable in generosity and in faith, but blind, most faithfully
-supports the ruling powers,--public opinion perhaps would have given
-its sanction to such a course. But they have chosen to prosecute M.
-Zola. Being accused, he will defend himself. Are they, then, serious
-when they say to us today that the three paragraphs cited from this
-letter of two thousand lines have nothing to do with the intention
-of M. Zola on the one hand, or, on the other, with the article as a
-whole and the other charges contained in it? Can the court accept
-that? Between the three matters taken notice of by the minister of
-war and the sum total of the matters which I have read to the court
-there is a connection not only close, but indivisible. In the first
-place, gentlemen, Major Esterhazy was prosecuted for the same crime of
-treason for which Captain Dreyfus had been prosecuted. The document
-of the trial was the _bordereau_; the _bordereau_ concerning which
-the first experts testified; the _bordereau_ concerning which, at the
-second trial, experts testified again. And it is not strange to read
-that the experts of both trials, not being the same, feel no desire
-to meet at this bar in contradiction of each other in a discussion
-where the light is to be complete. But it is certain that the document
-in question, and which was the object of discussion in the Esterhazy
-trial and in the Dreyfus trial, is the _bordereau_. The two crimes were
-the same. M. Mathieu Dreyfus had denounced Major Esterhazy. If Major
-Esterhazy had been condemned, the setting aside of the verdict against
-Captain Dreyfus would have followed as a matter of necessity. Major
-Esterhazy was acquitted. The question remains open, and we are to deal
-with it. The question takes the form of a dilemma. Either we are to
-be prevented from offering any proof, and in that case we shall see;
-or, on the contrary, we are to be permitted to examine the situation
-of Captain Dreyfus as well as that of Major Esterhazy, since both
-are closely connected, and it would not be possible for us to prove
-here the guilt of Major Esterhazy and his acquittal in obedience to
-orders, if we had not the right to prove at the same time the innocence
-of Captain Dreyfus. To say nothing of the fact, gentlemen, that the
-minister of war, in drawing up his complaint, perhaps not perceiving
-this dangerous detail, allowed a little paragraph to slip in, in which
-it was said that the second council of war covered the illegality
-to which the first had committed itself. Now, gentlemen, how are we
-to demonstrate that they have covered an illegality, unless we are
-allowed to demonstrate first that an illegality has been committed?
-Unless, indeed, they mean--and I confess that that would seem to me a
-really curious preliminary to this discussion--to acknowledge that the
-illegality has been committed, and that it is recognized in the face of
-France and the civilized world. If not, then on this point as on others
-we must be permitted the opportunity of proof. You know, gentlemen,
-what the authorities say. It is a matter of doctrine and of law that,
-outside of the matters set forth in the summons, it is permissible to
-prove matters connected with them by close and indivisible ties. I have
-shown you that the matters which it is our right to prove are closely
-bound up with the other matters of which we likewise offer proof. It
-remains only to say a single word in answer to a last objection of
-the attorney-general,--the thing judged. The thing judged! What will
-be left of it, gentlemen, if we succeed in showing that it has been
-irregularly and illegally judged, this thing, in which public opinion
-has such faith that it considers as public malefactors those who dream
-for a second of doubting it, even though they have declared that they
-are ready to furnish the proof? Citizens respect this thing judged.
-It is their right and their duty to respect it. But only, I repeat,
-because they believe it to have been regularly and legally judged.
-Where there is no right, there is no legality, no justice, no thing
-judged, Mr. Attorney-General, and let us say no more of exceptions.”
-
-In reinforcement of the position of M. Labori, M. Albert Clemenceau
-then addressed the court:
-
-“I wish to speak simply of two points made by the attorney-general. He
-has told us that his hands are tied by the minister of war, that he
-is unable to broaden the discussion, and that it must take the form
-that the minister of war desires. We suspected it, but I believe that
-it will be interesting to the jury to know that, if he had desired a
-general discussion, the minister of war perhaps would have done as
-all French citizens do when they believe themselves injured,--namely,
-would have lodged a complaint with the attorney-general. The
-attorney-general is supposed to know something about law. He would have
-read M. Zola’s article, and it is probable that he would have had us
-indicted on grounds much more numerous than those which this complaint
-specifically alleges. So much for the first point. The second is
-this. The attorney-general, who knows the meaning of words, began his
-observations by saying: ‘Gentlemen, I am going to make a statement of
-the case’; but he made an argument, and he finished in a way of which
-the jury had had no warning, asking the court to limit the discussion
-which we desire to carry on at this bar.”
-
-M. Labori then submitted a formal motion that the court authorize the
-introduction of evidence on all the matters referred to in M. Zola’s
-letter.
-
-Before the court had passed upon this motion, the three experts in
-handwriting, Couard, Belhomme, and Varinard, intervened through their
-counsel, M. Cabanes, asking that, in view of the fact that they had
-prosecuted M. Zola and “L’Aurore” in the police courts, no introduction
-of their names into the case now on trial should be permitted.
-
-The Judge.--“The purpose of this motion is to enable the experts,
-in case it is granted, to prosecute M. Zola in the assize court for
-outrages upon witnesses because of their testimony before the council
-of war.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“We accept any discussion before the assize
-court.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If that is the motive of the intervention of the experts,
-I ask the court to suspend judgment on the motion, until that point
-in the discussion is reached which concerns the experts and their
-testimony. And, if it is a matter of reserving to these gentlemen a
-special right, which will end, I imagine, in one facility more for the
-production of the explanations that we have to furnish, we can only
-congratulate ourselves in so far as we are concerned. I speak in the
-name of M. Zola and M. Perrenx.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Complete light!”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Whatever motions may be made in this court, and from
-whatsoever persons they may come, if their object is to bring about a
-public discussion in the assize court, we second them. In fact, I do
-not care even to know whether these motions are well founded in law;
-you warn us that their tendency would be to bring us here again on
-another charge; we accept every sort of discussion before the assize
-court.”
-
-Without passing upon the motion of M. Cabanes, the court then rendered
-an adverse decision on M. Labori’s motion for the introduction of
-evidence concerning all the charges preferred by M. Zola, claiming that
-they were not indivisibly connected with the matter on trial.
-
-The time having arrived for the calling of the witnesses, the court
-announced that it had received letters from several of them, in
-explanation of their absence.
-
-The Judge.--“I have a letter from the keeper of the seals, saying
-that the minister of war, General Billot, has not been authorized to
-respond to the summons. M. Labori and M. Clemenceau, do you forego this
-witness’s evidence?”
-
-M. Labori.--“In regard to him we make a reservation.”
-
-The Judge.--“Here is a letter from General Gonse. He asks to be heard
-among the first, because of his service.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We shall be able to hear General Gonse among the first. It
-was our intention to do so. But, in spite of our great desire to hear
-him, we cannot take his personal convenience into consideration.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“Nor his service?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Nor his service.”
-
-The Judge.--“Here is a letter from Major d’Ormescheville, declaring
-that, having been the reporter for the council of war, he does not
-believe it his duty to respond to the summons.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I make a reservation, as in the case of General Billot.”
-
-The Judge.--“Here is a letter from M. Gibert, cited as a witness by
-M. Zola. ‘I have left Havre, and have retired to.... In view of the
-gravity of my condition, it is impossible for me to come to testify in
-person, and I have just sent what I have to say to M. Labori.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have not yet received it.”
-
-The Judge.--“Then you make a reservation?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“Here is a letter from M. Casimir-Perier, in which he says:
-‘I am unable to enlighten justice on any matter that has occurred
-since my resignation of the presidency of the republic. I add that, if
-I were questioned concerning matters which occurred when I held the
-presidency, personal responsibilities would impose silence upon me. Out
-of deference for the court, I am ready to appear before it, if it deems
-it necessary that I repeat this declaration verbally.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“I make a reservation in regard to M. Casimir-Perier.”
-
-The Judge.--“Here is a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam.
-He says: ‘In the Dreyfus case I performed the functions of an officer
-of judicial police. My only part in the Esterhazy trial was to testify
-behind closed doors, and in the matter of this testimony I am bound to
-professional secrecy. Under these circumstances I have the honor to
-pray you to excuse me from appearing in court, where I should be unable
-to furnish any information concerning the matters mentioned in the
-summons.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Zola and M. Perrenx deem Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty
-de Clam a witness of the highest importance, not only in matters
-relating to the Dreyfus trial, but in matters relating to the
-Esterhazy trial. Furthermore, the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel du
-Paty de Clam is necessary, because it bears upon the good faith of
-the accused, for, if certain information that has come to M. Zola,
-and the production of which he will call for before this court, is
-to be believed, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam has been mixed
-up in matters which concerned Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, certain
-of which are very curious. Furthermore, a complaint has been lodged
-against Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, the consideration of
-which has been entrusted to Examining Magistrate Bertulus. For all
-these reasons the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam is
-indispensable. We cannot produce here certain evidence that concerns
-him, unless he is called to explain himself in person. And under these
-circumstances I believe it my duty to make formal motion that all
-legal means be employed to make Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam
-come here and testify concerning his relations with the de Comminges
-family, concerning the scene with the mysterious lady in 1892, and
-concerning the telegrams signed ‘Speranza’ and ‘Blanche,’ addressed to
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart at Tunis.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“M. du Paty de Clam declares in his letter, like
-all the members of the council of war, the hearing of whom has been
-abandoned because it was evident that it could not be exacted, that
-professional secrecy prevents him from giving any information whatever.
-Consequently there is no reason for rejecting his excuse. But M. Labori
-points out that Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam was interested as a
-witness in an examination not yet finished, but opened on the complaint
-of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The reply to this is manifest and
-direct. There can be no confusion here between M. Zola and the _gérant_
-of ‘L’Aurore’ on the one hand, and Colonel Picquart on the other. The
-latter has lodged a complaint which is being regularly examined, and it
-is for him alone to intervene if he sees fit. But his proceeding is the
-proceeding of a third party, so far as these defendants are concerned.
-From no point of view, then, do the arguments that have just been
-presented seem to me well founded.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will the court permit me to indicate the matters
-concerning which M. Zola desires to hear Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de
-Clam, and the connection between them and the verdict of January 11?
-In 1892 Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, who had not then risen to
-his present office, was in very close relations with the de Comminges
-family, whose society Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart also frequented.
-Mlle. Blanche de Comminges and her brother, Captain de Comminges, have
-been summoned here as witnesses.”
-
-The Judge.--“I regret to inform you that Mlle. de Comminges is sick,
-and that she has sent a doctor’s certificate.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We hope that she will be well again within forty-eight
-hours. There are many sick people in this case. We shall have something
-to say concerning the things that are happening in this matter to
-prevent witnesses from coming, and we shall expose all intimidations
-and threats. Mlle. de Comminges knew Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart and
-Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam. At the beginning of the campaign in
-relation to Major Esterhazy, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart received at
-Tunis two singular dispatches. One of them read: ‘All is discovered.
-Speranza.’ The court will remember that this is a signature which
-has been met already in the Esterhazy trial. The other dispatch
-said in substance: ‘It is known that Georges (that is the name of
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart) is the author of the telegram. All is
-discovered. Blanche.’ By Blanche was meant Mlle. Blanche de Comminges,
-and that this was understood by the military authorities is proved
-by the fact that they demanded of Mlle. Blanche de Comminges certain
-specimens of her handwriting. She protested, and lodged a complaint,
-as did Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. These dispatches, then, were
-forgeries. It would be interesting to find out who the forgers are.
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart attributes one of them to the police agent,
-Souffrain, and we have summoned him. We hope that he will come, and
-then we shall have an explanation. As for the other telegram, we are
-curious to know how there could have started from certain circles
-which must be in touch either with the minister of war or with Major
-Esterhazy a dispatch signed Blanche which Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
-was expected to consider as coming from Mlle. Blanche de Comminges. We
-should like to hear Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam concerning these
-matters, and others of an earlier date in which he has been mixed up,
-and which relate exclusively and very closely to Major Esterhazy. They
-happened in 1892, and we shall have need also of the testimony of Mlle.
-de Comminges on the same subject.”
-
-The Judge.--“There is no question here of Mlle. de Comminges. The
-question is of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But it is Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam whom
-these matters concern. He was induced at a certain moment, on the
-intervention of one of his most eminent superiors, General Davout,
-to restore to the de Comminges family certain correspondence. I
-cannot be more precise on this point, and the court understands why;
-but the matter is in the hands of the prefect of police. One day
-Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam said that a certain letter belonging
-to this correspondence was not in his hands, and that he could not
-give it up directly, because it had fallen into the hands of a woman,
-but that it was not very difficult to see her, and that the only thing
-necessary was to hand her a 500-franc bill in exchange for the letter.
-Then, it seems, on the demand of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam,
-a meeting was appointed at the _cours la Reine_, at the very spot to
-which came the singular veiled lady of Major Esterhazy. There, in the
-presence of witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam entered
-into conversation with the veiled lady, with whom he remained a long
-time, and to whom he pretended to have given a 500-franc bill, which,
-however, no one had sent to him. Then he brought back the letter to
-transmit it anew to the de Comminges family. These are facts concerning
-which I can say nothing more, in presence of the interested parties. I
-can furnish only indications.”
-
-The Judge.--“But I do not see the relation between what you have just
-said and the matter for which your client is prosecuted.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You shall see. M. Zola does not hesitate to think that the
-veiled lady, far from being in relations with Colonel Picquart, as they
-have not feared to state in official reports, and as Major Esterhazy
-loudly and audaciously charges, belongs to the circle of certain
-members of the staff, or to the circle of Major Esterhazy himself. Now,
-concerning this veiled lady we shall have to have explanations. For
-how can you expect us to prove that a guilty man has been acquitted in
-obedience to orders, if we do not begin by proving that he is guilty,
-and by establishing consequently the various circumstances which could
-culminate in his guilt? Under these circumstances it is for us to
-examine in detail, in order to get complete light, points that in no
-way concern the national defence, which has been abused. It is our
-indisputable right to seek light on Major Esterhazy’s means of defence,
-which have been welcomed in another place with a facility that they
-will not meet at the hands of this jury.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“At the trial of Major Esterhazy, and in the
-course of his examination, reference was made to the veiled lady,
-and this mysterious person was taken so seriously that the president
-of the council of war asked the accused if he could not give some
-indications concerning this lady, who had given him the mysterious
-rendezvous. I conclude therefrom that in the Esterhazy trial, with
-which we are necessarily concerned, the veiled lady was in question,
-and that therefore all that concerns her is well within our case.
-Again, Major du Paty de Clam, in his letter, says that he cannot come
-here to testify, because he was a judicial officer of police in the
-first examination. The court perhaps remembers that in this very place,
-in the case known as the Prado case, they heard Examining Magistrate
-Guillot, who came to testify concerning facts that took place in his
-private office. The presiding judge was a Paris magistrate. Now, what
-was done in the Prado case can be done in this case, and I do not see
-that the fact that Major du Paty de Clam played a part in another
-inquiry is a reason why we should not hear him here.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Another thing. This is the first time that I have known
-witnesses to be judged according to the utility of their evidence. M.
-du Paty de Clam is not sick, nor is he detained, so far as I know, by
-the duties of his military office. He does not know upon what points he
-is to be examined, or what we shall ask him. It is his duty to appear
-in this case. We have to question him as well on matters of fact as
-on matters of morals pertaining exclusively to the Esterhazy case,
-and not at all to the Dreyfus case. Under these circumstances it is
-indispensable that M. du Paty de Clam should appear at this bar. If we
-question him upon points in regard to which he can take shelter behind
-professional secrecy, he will take such shelter, and will not answer.
-And even then it will be our right to make a motion before the court,
-asking whether, as a matter of law, M. du Paty de Clam can cut himself
-off behind professional secrecy. M. du Paty de Clam refers to closed
-doors. Well, if closed doors are necessary in this assize court, we
-will have them. With a jury, closed doors have no terrors for us. But
-we shall ask no questions concerning the national defence. None are
-involved in this affair.”
-
-M. Zola.--“None.”
-
-M. Labori.--“They have put forward the plea of the nation’s defence.
-But that is a jest.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“The defence of the nation a jest?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Ah! really, that is not worthy of you, Mr.
-Attorney-General. I do not accept that. No, no! I will suffer no one,
-not even you, to suspect my patriotism. No! I repeat, gentlemen of the
-jury, if there is any question here that concerns the national defence,
-we shall not approach it. If closed doors are necessary, let the doors
-be closed; we are willing. But we will not permit them to say, in
-placing us at the mercy of all calumnies and all insults, that we are
-paid men, when, in fact, in a trial like this, we are fighting a battle
-in which we risk our life and honor. We will allow no one to say that
-we are triflers, and that contempt is the most that we deserve. It will
-be seen later whether we deserve it.”
-
-The Judge.--“I have a letter from Mme. de Boulancy in which she says:
-‘I am kept in bed by an affection of the heart, which gives me much
-pain just now. I enclose the certificate of my doctor, M. de Basse, 4,
-Rue de Berlin. I beg to refer you to my evidence before M. Bertulus.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“We must hear Mme. de Boulancy. She cannot lapse into a
-state of perpetual silence simply because she testified before M.
-Bertulus. From the standpoint of authenticity Major Esterhazy’s letters
-belong to this discussion. Major Esterhazy, realizing how terrible a
-blow the letter in which he styled himself a Uhlan would be to him, in
-spite of his numerous protectors, has denied its genuineness; now, it
-is genuine, it is, I declare it! And, if Mme. de Boulancy were here,
-we would prove it. In the presence of all these obstacles, I have the
-right, in the name of my client, who, I am sure, will approve me” ...
-
-M. Zola.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“... and it is my duty, to tell the whole. Mme. de Boulancy
-has other letters” ...
-
-M. Zola.--“That is absolutely true.”
-
-M. Labori.--“... which are authentic and still more serious. For weeks
-she has been the object of all sorts of threats. Major Esterhazy visits
-her house daily, with the support and protection of the police, who
-do not prevent him. And Major Esterhazy threatens her with death,
-if she gives up the letters. Mme. de Boulancy has also in her hands
-telegrams from Major Esterhazy of a later date, in which he begs her
-to give him the letters, and this is a fact known to more than one
-witness. For instance, there is M. Tysse. We shall be told directly
-that he will not come because, it seems, the Crédit Lyonnais threatens
-him with discharge if he comes, and promises to pay his fine if he
-does not come. We submit these facts to the jurors, and we ask them
-whether it is M. Zola, or the minister of war by his complaint and his
-limitations, who is creating in France a situation which, whatever may
-be said, is really revolutionary.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“It was not until this morning that Mme. de
-Boulancy became afflicted with heart trouble, but for two days we
-have known that she would not come, and that, in the fear that the
-court will send an expert physician to examine her, she will remain in
-bed all day. I must add that Mme. de Boulancy has informed the court
-that she lives in the Rue de Berlin. I beg the court to send either a
-doctor or a sheriff’s officer to that address. He will not find Mme. de
-Boulancy there.”
-
-The Judge.--“She lives in the Boulevard des Batignolles, No. 22.”
-
-M. Zola.--“She is not there either.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“You will not find Mme. de Boulancy at 22,
-Boulevard des Batignolles. I have the honor to offer a motion drawn up
-forty-eight hours ago, in which we foresaw that Mme. de Boulancy would
-be afflicted with heart trouble, and here, according to the terms of
-her letter, she is suffering with an affection of the heart. We were
-not mistaken.”
-
-M. Clemenceau then offered a formal motion that, whereas Mme. de
-Boulancy had declared on several occasions that she possessed letters
-from Major Esterhazy no less insulting to the French army than those
-already known, and that she would produce them in the assize court, and
-whereas it was known to the defence that Mme. de Boulancy had recently
-received three dispatches from Major Esterhazy demanding a return of
-these letters, and threatening her with death if she should produce
-them in court, and whereas, because of these threats, Mme. de Boulancy
-had moved, concealing her new address, a physician be sent to examine
-her physical condition, and that a police officer be sent to seize the
-letters and dispatches referred to, wherever he might find them.
-
-The Judge.--“M. Lebrun-Renault writes: ‘I am summoned only because of
-the special service that I performed January 5, 1895, at the parade in
-which Captain Dreyfus was disgraced. I can report what took place in
-the course of this service only to my hierarchical chiefs, and that is
-what I did. It is for them to make such use of my report as may seem to
-them proper. As for me, outside of them, I am bound to silence by my
-professional duty. Wherefore it is impossible for me to testify before
-the jurors. Under these circumstances I shall not respond.’”
-
-M. Labori then offered a motion that, whereas there had been for
-some weeks a question in the press and at the tribune of the chamber
-of deputies of pretended confessions made by ex-Captain Dreyfus to
-Captain Lebrun-Renault on the day of the former’s degradation, the
-court order the hearing, first, of M. Lebrun-Renault, who will be asked
-to state whether he received the confession from Dreyfus and under
-what conditions, whether he reported the confession officially and
-under what circumstances, and whether he has spoken to various persons
-concerning them, and especially to M. Forzinetti, the baron de Vaux, M.
-P..., M. Fontbrune, and M. Dumont, and, second, of any other witness
-who can be usefully questioned concerning these matters.
-
-The judge then read the following letter from Major Ravary:
-
- My presence at the trial would be absolutely useless. I abstain, then,
- from appearing.
-
-  RAVARY.
-
-M. Labori.--“Major Ravary was the first to establish officially, in
-a report that has been read publicly, the existence of what is known
-as the secret documents in the Dreyfus case. This is a point wholly
-pertinent to the discussion, since M. Zola and his fellow-defendant
-are authorized to prove that an illegality was committed in 1894 and
-covered in 1898. Therefore it is indispensable that M. Ravary be heard,
-and I shall have the honor to make a motion to that effect.”
-
-The Judge.--“I have received a letter from General Mercier, in which
-he says that the prosecution of M. Zola deals only with the Esterhazy
-verdict, with which he had nothing do. He says that he has received
-from General Billot an authorization not to appear.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am greatly surprised that General Mercier, like so
-many others, should constitute himself judge of the question whether
-it is incumbent upon him to appear before the court. The minister of
-war may confine his complaint within limits, but he has no right as
-complainant to pursue the shocking and monstrous course of interposing
-an obstacle, not juridical, but material to the facts that we wish
-to establish. General Mercier is a witness of the first importance.
-Perhaps he will read tomorrow in the newspapers what has occurred at
-this first hearing, which is given in the presence, not of fifteen
-hundred persons simply, but of all France. M. Zola declares that in
-1894 General Mercier, then minister of war, constituting himself judge
-in a council of war, did, after the hearing was over, outside of the
-discussion, without the knowledge of the accused, without examination
-of the accused upon the matter, and without even submitting it to his
-counsel, communicate to the council of war a secret document, and a
-document, for that matter, of no significance. If that is not true, let
-General Mercier come here tomorrow and say so. If it is true, I have no
-further use for him.”
-
-The judge then announced that Major Rivals and the court clerk,
-Vallecalle, had notified him that they would not appear.
-
-M. Labori.--“The complainant is represented here by the
-attorney-general. We should like him to inform us whether the
-minister of war has given to all these witnesses, as to General
-Mercier, an authorization which to them would have been more than an
-authorization,--that is, an order. If the attorney-general does not
-know, I would like him to put the question to the minister of war
-between now and tomorrow, in order to give us an answer.”
-
-M. Zola.--“In short, we should like to know whether these persons have
-received orders from Billot, or are acting on their own initiative.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Have they been ordered not to come? If so, let it be
-stated frankly, and the court tomorrow will pass upon our motion, which
-possibly will ask for a postponement of the case, in order that it may
-be judged when we are in full possession of the facts.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The president of the republic refused to sign
-the decree of the minister of justice summoning M. Billot; then M.
-Billot authorized General Mercier not to appear in the assize court.
-Knowing the beginning of the story, we are interested in knowing
-the sequel, and I ask the attorney-general to inform us at the next
-hearing if the other officers, of a lower grade than that of General
-Mercier, have likewise been authorized by their superiors not to appear
-in court. If so, I may be permitted to express my astonishment that
-there has not been found a person in all this hierarchy to understand
-that there is one thing which is above the minister of war,--namely,
-justice. We thought so until today.”
-
-The court then presented the refusals of Colonel Maurel, president of
-the council of war of 1894, M. Autant, architect, and M. Eichmann, who
-sat in the first council of war; and the defence, as in the previous
-cases, insisted upon their appearance.
-
-The Judge.--“A letter from General de Boisdeffre reads as follows: ‘I
-do not need to tell you that, out of respect to the jury and deference
-to the court, I would willingly appear, but I have been in no way
-connected with the Esterhazy case, which was conducted entirely by
-the military government of Paris. Outside of professional secrecy,
-therefore, I could furnish no useful information.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“All these witnesses seem to imagine that they constitute
-a caste apart and independent, and that it is permissible to them to
-rise above the law, above justice itself, and personally constitute
-themselves judges of the question whether they are useful or not
-as witnesses in a trial. Consequently in the case of General de
-Boisdeffre, as in the other cases, we insist and we protest.”
-
-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:
-
- I have been accused by M. Mathieu Dreyfus of the crime of high
- treason, and my judges have acquitted me by a unanimous decree of
- the council of war. Today I receive, at the instance of a simple
- individual, M. Emile Zola, a summons to appear as a witness in his
- trial in the assize court. It is plain, on the other hand, that in
- this trial the object of M. Zola is at the same time to revise by a
- revolutionary method the decree of acquittal rendered in my favor,
- and to sully, by representing them as criminals, the judges whom
- I respect. Such is the work in which M. Emile Zola invites me to
- participate. Under such circumstances I consider that I am not obliged
- to respond to M. Zola’s summons.
-
-M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy was present yesterday. It does not become
-me to inquire what suggestions he obeys today. I have not consulted
-M. Emile Zola, but I can say this for myself: it was a feeling of
-high discretion that led us to summon Major Esterhazy. He will not
-be here as an accused person, since he has been acquitted, and we
-consider his case a thing judged. But we have a right to the testimony
-of Major Esterhazy for the purpose of proving M. Zola’s good faith.
-Major Esterhazy refuses. So be it. I do not insist. We will discuss his
-_rôle_ without him.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Pardon me. For my part, I do not give up his
-testimony. I have some questions to put to Major Esterhazy in the name
-of the _gérant_ of ‘L’Aurore.’ I demand that he be summoned again, and,
-if need be, forced to come.”
-
-The next letter was from a widow Chapelon, who declared herself
-afflicted with influenza.
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Mme. Chapelon appeared at the office of
-‘L’Aurore’ a week ago; it was after she had been notified. She asked
-that her name be struck from the list of witnesses. She was asked
-why. She replied that she was soliciting for her son a scholarship at
-Chaptal, and that, if she were to testify, they would not give it to
-her. M. Perrenx informed her that this was not a good reason, and that
-she was required to come to the assize court and tell the truth. She
-went away, slamming the doors, and saying: ‘If you force me to come, I
-will tell the opposite of the truth.’ I insist that this witness shall
-come, and I demand that, as in the case of Major Esterhazy, she be
-brought to court after a second summons.”
-
-The Judge.--“There is a doctor’s certificate.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask that an expert physician be sent to her. The one
-who is to see Mme. de Boulancy can see her too.”
-
-The court then rendered its decision on the motions of the day before,
-ordering that Dr. Socquet be sent to examine Mme. de Boulancy,
-Mlle. Blanche de Comminges, M. Autant, and the widow Chapelon,
-and that a second summons be served upon Captain Lebrun-Renault,
-Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, Major d’Ormescheville, Major
-Ravary, General Mercier, MM. Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Eichmann,
-General de Boisdeffre, and Major Esterhazy, directing them to appear on
-February 9.
-
-
-_Testimony of Mme. Dreyfus._
-
-The calling of the witnesses was then begun, the first to take the
-stand being Mme. Lucie Dreyfus, wife of ex-Captain Dreyfus.
-
-M. Labori.--“I would like Mme. Dreyfus to have the goodness to tell
-us what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith, and in this connection to
-make known to us under what circumstances in 1894 she learned of her
-husband’s arrest, and what was the attitude at that time of Colonel du
-Paty de Clam, who was then only a major.”
-
-The Judge.--“What has that to do with the case?”
-
-M. Labori.--“It concerns M. Zola’s good faith.”
-
-M. Zola.--“I ask to be allowed here the liberty that is accorded
-thieves and murderers. They can defend themselves, summon witnesses,
-and ask them questions; but every day I am insulted in the street; they
-break my carriage windows, they roll me in the mud, and an unclean
-press treats me as a bandit. I have the right to prove my good faith,
-my probity, my honor.”
-
-The Judge.--“Do you know Article 52, of the law of 1881?”
-
-M. Zola.--“I do not know the law, and at the present moment I do not
-want to know it. I appeal to the probity of the jurors. I make them
-judges of the situation in which I am placed, and I entrust myself to
-them.”
-
-The Judge.--“I remind you of the terms of the decree rendered
-yesterday by the court, the provisions of Article 52 of the law of
-1881, and the terms of your summons. Let us not depart therefrom. Any
-question outside of these limits will not be put by me. Let that be
-well understood. It is useless to recur to the matter.”
-
-M. Zola.--“I ask to be treated here as well as thieves and murderers.
-All accused persons are entitled to prove their probity, their good
-faith, and their honor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you permit me to point out the bearing of my
-questions? M. Zola has made two assertions. He has asserted that the
-council of war of 1894 convicted, in the person of ex-Captain Dreyfus,
-an innocent man by illegal methods.”
-
-The Judge.--“He is not prosecuted for that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, he is prosecuted for having said that the
-second council of war knowingly acquitted a guilty man by covering, in
-obedience to orders, the illegality committed by the first.”
-
-M. Zola.--“It is in the summons.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Zola asks to prove this illegality, and the elements
-out of which it grew, from the standpoint of his good faith. This
-illegality is not confined to the moment of the verdict of the council
-of war, but extends over the very period of inquiry in which occurred
-facts of the highest gravity which M. Zola asks to produce. If the
-court considers that Mme. Dreyfus can not be heard on this point, I
-shall be obliged to offer a motion.”
-
-The Judge.--“Offer your motion. The question will not be put by me.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask to make a simple observation, addressed
-especially to the jurors. I am of the opinion that the law must be
-complied with, whatever it may be. But I beg you to remember, gentlemen
-of the jury, that M. Zola has written an article which fills sixteen
-pages of the pamphlet in my hands. Out of these sixteen pages the
-public prosecutor, at the order of the minister of war, complains of
-only fifteen lines, and, when we come to court, it transpires that, in
-spite of a judicious selection of fifteen lines from sixteen pages,
-the prosecution is still embarrassed by one of these fifteen lines.
-They tell us in these fifteen lines there are still six which must be
-put aside, because, were we to leave them there, embarrassing evidence
-would be put in.”
-
-The Judge.--“I repeat that no question will be put which would be a
-means of arriving at the revision of a case sovereignly judged.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then the court will put no question concerning good
-faith?”
-
-The Judge.--“Concerning anything that relates to the Dreyfus case. No.
-Offer your motions. I repeat that I will not put the question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you permit me, _Monsieur le Président_, in our common
-interest, to ask you, then, what practical means you see by which we
-may ascertain the truth?”
-
-The Judge.--“That does not concern me.”
-
-M. Labori then made a formal motion that, whereas the matters upon
-which the testimony of Mme. Dreyfus was required bore directly upon the
-matters expressly set out in the complaint, and especially upon the
-illegality charged, and whereas the defendants maintained, in spite of
-the court’s decree, the right to prove their good faith, and whereas
-the refusal to hear the witnesses summoned would constitute the highest
-violation of the defendants’ rights, the court order the following
-questions to be put to Mme. Dreyfus:
-
- (1) What do you think of M. Zola’s good faith?
-
- (2) What are the reasons that have led you to believe in his good
- faith?
-
- (3) Do you consider from what you know that the measures taken against
- your husband were legal or illegal?
-
- (4) Will you describe the first visit of Major du Paty de Clam at your
- house? Who were present?
-
- (5) Did not M. du Paty de Clam utter the grossest insults against your
- husband?
-
- (6) Did he not pretend to demonstrate his guilt geometrically and by
- drawing concentric circles?
-
- (7) Did he not speak of the Iron Mask?
-
- (8) Did he not expressly forbid you to speak of the arrest to anyone
- whomsoever, even to his family?
-
- (9) After how long a time were you allowed the right to write to your
- husband?
-
- (10) After how long a time did you again see your husband?
-
- (11) Did not M. du Paty de Clam say to you: “He denies, but I shall
- succeed in making him spit out all that he has in his body”?
-
- (12) Did not M. du Paty de Clam nevertheless lead you to hope that
- perhaps there had been an error, and that up to November?
-
- (13) Did not M. du Paty de Clam try, by the most irregular means, and
- even by insidious means, to tear confessions from you throughout the
- trial and after the verdict?
-
- (14) What do you think of your husband’s character and morals? What
- was the nature of your life with him after your marriage?
-
- (15) Did not your husband steadily declare, during the trial and
- after, that this whole matter was incomprehensible, and that he was
- the victim of a conspiracy?
-
-The reading of these questions being received with a hostile
-manifestation from those present in the court-room, M. Labori turned to
-the audience, and shouted: “If you think you can prevent me from doing
-my duty, you are mistaken. I am embarrassed only when I am applauded.
-Let them howl! It is all one to me.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“I simply call attention to this,--that these
-incidents are rehearsed before the audience, but they are always the
-same, and that the jurors whom you have just addressed will remember
-that you have for the thing judged yesterday the same respect that
-you have for the thing judged on a previous occasion. I said at the
-beginning that a plan had been fixed upon; it is being carried out,
-and you have just given us the formula: ‘I do not know the law, and
-I do not want to know it.’ Well, we know it, and we will see that it
-is respected, with the aid of the jurors, in whom I have absolute
-confidence.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Zola will answer in a moment, and it is to assure him
-the means of doing so that I take the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“Take it once for all, and do not renew this scene with
-each witness.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, I am much grieved if the line of conduct
-which I follow is in any way inconvenient or disagreeable to anyone
-whomsoever. But I know very well that it is dictated to me by a
-conviction so profound and a resolution so fixed that nothing, nothing,
-shall force me to deviate from it by a line. That said, I answer the
-attorney-general in a word. The attorney-general, who, after a firm and
-energetic beginning, preserved a profound silence throughout the last
-part of yesterday’s hearing” ...
-
-The Attorney-General.--“To the point of self-denial.”
-
-M. Labori.--“To the point of self-denial, ... rises today to tell us
-that we are confronted with a fixed plan, and that the same incidents,
-starting from the same preconceived idea, are being rehearsed. Very
-well, but the plan that we have fixed is the plan that leads to the
-light. There is another plan which is being rehearsed at the other side
-of the bar,--the plan which leads to obscurity and darkness. Reference
-has been made to the thing judged. We respect it. We respect the thing
-judged yesterday, but between that and the other the difference is that
-the thing judged yesterday was legally judged, and that the other was
-judged illegally.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Gentlemen of the jury, to you will I address myself. I am
-not an orator, I am a writer; but unfortunately” ...
-
-The Judge.--“You should address the court.”
-
-M. Zola.--“I ask your pardon. I thought that I had permission to
-address the jurors. But I will address myself to you. What I have to
-say will be as well said. I am a writer; I am not accustomed to public
-speaking; moreover, I am an extremely nervous being, and am liable to
-use words that ill express my thought. Undoubtedly I have expressed it
-ill, since I have been misunderstood. I am quoted as saying that I have
-placed myself above the law. Did I say that?”
-
-M. Labori.--“You said: ‘I have not to know the law at this moment.’”
-
-M. Zola.--“I meant to say, at any rate, that I do not revolt against
-this grand idea of the law. I submit to it completely, and from it I
-expect justice. I meant to say that my revolt was against the processes
-that find expression in all these quibbles raised against me, against
-the way in which I am prosecuted, against the limitation of the
-complaint to fifteen lines from my long letter of accusation; and these
-things I declare unworthy of justice. I say that these few lines are
-not to be taken and passed upon without regard to all that I have said.
-A writing is consecutive; phrases lead to phrases, ideas lead to ideas;
-and to fix upon a single thing therein because it brings me under
-the law is, I say, unworthy. That is what I say, and that is what I
-meant. I do not place myself above the law, but I am above hypocritical
-methods.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Bravo!”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“So, M. Labori, you give the signal for these
-bravos?”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is true, I said ‘Bravo;’ but frankly, it was the cry of
-my conscience.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“There is one point beyond dispute,--that we
-are authorized to prove that M. Zola has accused the council of war of
-having committed an illegality. Well, I ask you how it is possible for
-us to prove this, if we do not begin by establishing that an illegality
-has been committed.”
-
-The court denied the motion of M. Labori, and the second witness was
-called,--M. Leblois, a lawyer of the appellate court.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Leblois._
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, what question do you desire me to put to the
-witness?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you ask M. Leblois at what date and under what
-circumstances he came into possession of the facts now within his
-knowledge concerning the Esterhazy case?”
-
-The court interposing no objection, M. Leblois made the following
-statement:
-
-“I have been for many years the friend of Colonel Picquart. We made all
-our studies together, and we have remained faithful to this friendship.
-In 1890 Colonel Picquart was made professor in the School of War, and
-since then I have seen him more or less frequently. Then he entered
-the war department, to which he had already been attached for several
-years, and finally, about the middle of 1895, if I am not mistaken,
-he was appointed chief of the bureau of information. It would have
-been natural at that time for him to consult me occasionally upon the
-legal difficulties that he met, since I was his intimate friend and had
-belonged to the magistracy for ten years. Nevertheless he spoke to me
-of only two cases,--a case of criminal procedure that was under way at
-Nancy, and a batch of documents relating to carrier pigeons, which was
-nothing but a collection of ministerial decrees upon that question.
-When, on November 16, 1896, Colonel Picquart was suddenly obliged to
-quit the war department, he had never said a word to me, either of the
-Dreyfus case or of the Esterhazy case, and I was absolutely unaware
-that he was concerning himself with either of them. All who know
-Colonel Picquart will not be astonished at this reserve.
-
-“In June, 1897, I received a visit from Colonel Picquart, who had come
-to pass a fortnight’s leave of absence in Paris. On June 3, he had
-received at Sousse a threatening letter, which had been written to him
-by one of his former subordinates, and thus he found himself under the
-necessity of consulting a lawyer. For purposes of his defence he made
-known to me some of the facts in the cases of Dreyfus and Esterhazy. I
-say, gentlemen, some of the facts, for Colonel Picquart never revealed
-to me any military secret, in that sense of the term secret in which it
-is employed in military language. Colonel Picquart had become convinced
-of the innocence of Captain Dreyfus, and he explained to me the facts
-upon which his conviction rested. I had too much confidence in his
-intelligence and honesty not to admit the materiality of the facts
-that he made known to me, and from them I came to the same conclusion
-that he had arrived at. I was profoundly disturbed by what I had just
-learned, for I not only deplored the possibility of so grave an error,
-and the submission to undeserved torture of a man who seemed to be
-innocent, but I was anxious lest such revelations might agitate the
-country; and so I determined to exercise the greatest prudence.
-
-“First, I collected all the information that I could procure. I
-consulted certain persons who had been familiar with other facts,
-making my study more precise by reading documents published in 1896.
-I gathered information as to the Dreyfus family, and as to Captain
-Dreyfus, whom I did not know, and finally I studied the various
-questions of law to which the case might give rise. In the course of
-these inquiries I learned that M. Scheurer-Kestner had been concerning
-himself with the Dreyfus case for a year, and had collected facts of
-some interest. About the same time I met M. Scheurer-Kestner at a
-dinner, and an interview was arranged between us for a subsequent day.
-When he found that I was in possession of important information, he
-urged me strongly to tell him more. He was so insistent, and showed
-so keen anxiety, that I could not refrain from enlightening him more
-completely. My original plan, the only one that seemed possible to
-me, was to promptly put the government in possession of the facts
-that I had learned through Colonel Picquart. M. Scheurer-Kestner,
-vice-president of the senate, seemed to me the best person that I
-could find through whom to approach the government. For these reasons
-I thought it my duty to yield to M. Scheurer-Kestner’s solicitations,
-and I gave him the desired enlightenment. Especially I spoke to him
-of letters that General Gonse had written to Colonel Picquart. M.
-Scheurer-Kestner begged me to show him these letters immediately,
-and he accompanied me to my house to get them. From that moment he
-was convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus, and his conviction has
-never since been shaken. He will never abandon the cause that he has
-undertaken.
-
-“Meanwhile, the vacation season was approaching, and it seemed very
-difficult to institute proceedings at that time. It seemed to me that
-an affair of this sort should not be entered upon, unless there was a
-possibility of pursuing it to the end. Furthermore, M. Scheurer-Kestner
-deemed it necessary to have in his hands certain material proofs
-which both he and I lacked,--proofs in the shape of examples of
-Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, which was supposed to be identical
-with that of the _bordereau_. Nevertheless, I thought it my duty to
-submit to M. Scheurer-Kestner at that moment the idea of presenting
-to the keeper of the seals a petition for the cancellation of the
-verdict of 1894, because it seemed to me a settled fact that a secret
-document had been communicated to the judges, and that consequently
-the judgment was void. M. Scheurer-Kestner thought that it was too
-early to take such a step in the absence of material proofs. He made
-arrangements to get examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting as soon
-as possible, and toward the end of July started on his vacation. In
-the course of the following months he succeeded in procuring examples
-of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, on returning to Paris, he
-entered into communication with the government. Concerning that, he
-will testify himself. For my part, I have nothing more to say upon
-this point. Nevertheless I add that, when M. Scheurer-Kestner made his
-interpellation in the senate on November 7, 1897, it seemed to him that
-this should be the end of his personal participation in the matter. In
-fact, the declarations of the government pointed to an honest and full
-investigation, and it did not seem to M. Scheurer-Kestner that there
-was any occasion for him to interfere in the working-up of a criminal
-case. So about Christmas time he thought himself entitled to take a few
-days’ rest, of which he was in great need.
-
-“At that moment I had been informed by Colonel Picquart of the
-conspiracies against him,--conspiracies of extreme gravity, the
-most serious and important point of which is found in two telegrams
-addressed to him from Paris on November 10, 1897, and reaching him at
-Sousse, the first on November 11, the second on November 12 in the
-morning. These telegrams were forgeries. It seemed plain that they
-could not have been drawn up, except upon information emanating from
-the bureau of information, and this it would be easy to demonstrate;
-but Colonel Picquart will demonstrate it better than I. As the jury
-and the court will see, this was a new incident in an extremely
-serious matter, since these telegrams were dated November 10, 1897.
-Nevertheless it was a conspiracy which had long been in preparation,
-for in December, 1896, false letters had been addressed to the minister
-of war signed with the same name, ‘Speranza,’ that appeared at the
-foot of the two telegrams of November 10, 1897. It seemed to me it was
-my first duty to inform the government of this situation. But, having
-with the government no easy and direct means of communication, I asked
-M. Trarieux, senator and former keeper of the seals, whom I had met
-several times at the house of a friend, and who, moreover, had taken
-part in the senate discussion of M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation,
-to give me the benefit of his sanction by acting as an intermediary
-between myself and the government. He will tell you what steps he took.
-For my part I could do but one thing,--lodge, on behalf of my client,
-a complaint with the government attorney, which complaint is under
-examination by M. Bertulus, who has already taken the deposition of
-Mlle. Blanche de Comminges.
-
-“I said just now that Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart suddenly left
-the war department on November 16, 1896, on the eve of the Castelin
-interpellation in the chamber of deputies. His friends were unaware
-of his departure, and I in particular went several times, and during
-several weeks, to see him, and failed to find him. One of his
-friends wrote to the minister of war a letter which should be among
-the documents in the hands of M. Bertulus, and which, at any rate,
-constitutes one of the papers in the investigations made by General
-de Pellieux and Major Ravary. This letter was insignificant, but in
-it there was a brief allusion to a personage who, in the _salon_ of
-Mlle. de Comminges, had been nicknamed the ‘demigod.’ The letter
-contained this sentence: ‘Every day the demigod asks Mme. the Countess
-[that is Mlle. de Comminges] when he will be able to see the good
-God.’ In this circle, where Colonel Picquart was very popular, he was
-known as ‘the good God,’ and the name ‘demigod’ had been given to a
-certain Captain Lallement, who was the orderly of General des Garet,
-commanding the sixteenth army corps at Montpellier. This letter was
-intended for Colonel Picquart, but reached him only after it had been
-secretly opened and copied at the war department. The following month
-there came to the bureau of information a letter which was intercepted
-entirely, and of which no knowledge came to Colonel Picquart. This
-letter is surely the work of a forger. It is signed ‘Speranza.’ That
-was the beginning, in December, 1896, of the attempt to compromise
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The existence of the second letter was
-concealed for more than a year, and he learned of it for the first time
-in the course of General de Pellieux’s investigation. But it was made
-the basis of all the conspiracies for the ruin of this officer. Be not
-astonished, then, that last November, when this matter came to public
-attention and enlisted the interest of parliament, new conspiracies
-came to light. In the evening of November 10, 1897, two telegrams
-started from Paris together. The first read thus: ‘Stop, demigod.
-Affair very serious. Speranza.’ From this telegram it seemed that
-the demigod must be a very important personage, probably a political
-personality, perhaps M. Scheurer-Kestner. The second telegram read: ‘We
-have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche.’
-This second telegram, which was evidently a part of the same conspiracy
-to which the first belonged, tended to destroy the authenticity, and
-consequently the force as evidence, of a certain dispatch on which
-rested the investigation opened by Colonel Picquart in the spring of
-1896 concerning Major Esterhazy. Thus they endeavored to represent
-Colonel Picquart as the tool of a politician and the author of a
-forgery. I should add that it is certain that Colonel Picquart was not
-acquainted with M. Scheurer-Kestner, and that he had no communication
-with him, direct or indirect. As for the charge of forgery brought
-against Colonel Picquart, it has been completely abandoned, for,
-although there were some insinuations to that effect in Major Ravary’s
-report, Colonel Picquart recently appeared before a council of inquiry,
-and among the things with which he was reproached there was not the
-slightest allusion to the possibility of a forgery in the case of the
-document in question.”
-
-The Judge.--“What do you know about it?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I know it in the most certain
-and natural way, because I was myself a witness before the council of
-inquiry.”
-
-The Judge.--“Were you there throughout the hearing?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“No, but I have knowledge of the facts with which the
-colonel was reproached.”
-
-The Judge.--“You say that you have knowledge of them, but you do not
-know them of your own knowledge, since you were not there.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Permit me to observe, _Monsieur le Président_, that
-the witnesses should have the advantage of the right to give their
-testimony without being interrupted, according to the terms of Article
-315 of the code of criminal examination. I claim this right for M.
-Leblois. As to the fact which he affirms, the question is not how he
-knows it, but whether it is true.”
-
-The Judge.--“Permit me, Maître Labori; I suppose that the court is
-entitled to question witnesses.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is not entitled to interrupt them.”
-
-The Judge.--“I did not interrupt M. Leblois. I asked him for
-indications on a point which it is necessary to throw light upon. I
-will continue to do so, rest assured.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not pretend to discuss with you the duties of the
-judge of the assize court. You know them better than I do. I add that
-I am ready to render homage to the great impartiality with which
-you endeavor to direct the debate. But, on the other hand, this is
-a matter in which it is impossible for us to part with the smallest
-particle of our rights. They deprive us here of all the faculties that
-they can deprive us of. We are here face to face with testimony which
-is entitled to be heard; we ask that it shall be heard freely and
-independently. Now, Article 315 of the code of criminal examination
-authorizes witnesses to give their testimony without interruption,
-without prejudice to the right of the court to ask them, after their
-deposition, whatsoever questions it sees fit.”
-
-The Judge.--“That is what I have just done.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The deposition of M. Leblois is not finished. He was in
-the course of it when you interrupted him.”
-
-The Judge.--“Pardon, M. Leblois had finished. I asked him a question to
-throw light upon his deposition.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I will answer you in the clearest fashion. In the first
-place, I declare that I know that Colonel Picquart was asked but four
-questions. As to the source of this knowledge, I do not think that I
-am bound to give it, and for a good reason; I am Colonel Picquart’s
-lawyer.”
-
-The Judge.--“You should have said so at the beginning.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I did say so.”
-
-The Judge.--“I did not hear it.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I said just now that I was first introduced to this
-affair in June, 1897, when Colonel Picquart came to ask my aid and
-protection against written threats that he had received on June 3 from
-one of his former subordinates. It was for purposes of his defence that
-Colonel Picquart related to me a portion of the facts, but not those
-concerning military secrets, and it was for purposes of his defence
-that he gave me General Gonse’s letters. I consider that you are now
-reassured as to the source of my information.
-
-“I add that nothing is easier than to establish materially the proof
-of what I have just said, for information telegraphed by a provincial
-agency on February 2, and not contradicted since by any newspaper or
-otherwise, specifies the points raised in the debate before the council
-of inquiry. Furthermore, Colonel Picquart has received, in conformity
-with military regulations, a clear notification of the questions
-concerning which he was examined. In fact, if a single question is to
-be put in a council of inquiry, the law requires that the person to be
-questioned shall receive a notice of the points on which the discussion
-will turn. Then Colonel Picquart, being in possession of such notice,
-emanating from the reporter in the case, is clearly in a position to
-prove what I have just said.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Permit me to ask a question. Just now the
-witness said this second letter, which was a forgery, was so drawn
-up as to prove that it emanated from a personage familiar with the
-documents of the war offices. But the witness did not explain this
-declaration. I should like to ask him what there was in this letter
-that enables him to make this declaration, and to say that it came from
-the war offices.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I prefer not to give any explanations in regard to
-this letter, for I should run a risk of altering the version that
-you will soon hear from Colonel Picquart. [Laughter.] I think there
-is some misunderstanding. I said that the text of the two telegrams
-was a certain proof that they emanated from a man familiar with all
-the secrets of the war department, but I can say that only of the
-telegrams, because I have seen them and am in possession of their text.
-I cannot speak so certainly of a letter which I have not seen, and
-concerning which I have only information.”
-
-M. Labori.--“From the standpoint of the conspiracies to which M.
-Leblois has referred, what was the bearing of the false letter
-intercepted in the war offices?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I said just now that I considered this false letter
-signed ‘Speranza’ another stone on which to erect, little by little,
-the edifice of the conspiracies against Colonel Picquart. Regarding the
-two telegrams, must I give details?”
-
-The Judge [hastily].--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, we are very desirous that he
-should.”
-
-The Judge [sadly].--“Since the defence demands it, speak.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“The following telegram: ‘We have proofs that the
-dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche,’ suggests to me this
-reflection: Who, outside of the war department, could then know that
-an inquiry was in progress concerning Major Esterhazy, and especially
-that the basis of this inquiry was a dispatch? That was an absolute
-secret. The two telegrams of which I have spoken were not the only
-elements of this complicated plot against Colonel Picquart. There were
-many other telegrams sent by third parties. For instance, an individual
-sent from Paris a telegram signed ‘Baron Keller’ and addressed to a
-pretended Baroness Keller at Sousse. All these telegrams were intended
-to compromise Colonel Picquart. The two which I have cited are the
-only ones that reached him, but they are only the centre of a very
-complicated network. He referred to all of this in an article in ‘La
-Libre Parole’ of November 16, 1897.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Leblois has told us that Colonel Picquart left the war
-department November 16, 1896. Could he tell us what was the attitude
-of his superiors, and especially of General Gonse, toward him at that
-time? Did Colonel Picquart go in disgrace, and how has he been treated
-since, up to the time of his recall to Paris, under circumstances with
-which the jurors must be familiar, at the beginning of the Esterhazy
-inquiry?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“Colonel Picquart’s superiors behaved toward him in
-the most kindly manner throughout his inquiry concerning Major
-Esterhazy,--an inquiry which began toward the end of spring and
-continued until September. According to Colonel Picquart, it was
-not until the moment had come for a decision in this matter that a
-difference of opinion was revealed between his superiors and himself.
-This difference did not assume an acute form at first. In the beginning
-it was simply an exchange of opposite views, such as often takes place
-between inferiors and superiors. The solution of the matter, clearly
-stated in a letter from Colonel Picquart bearing date of September 5,
-1896, remained in suspense until November, 1896. At that moment things
-were growing worse under influences which I do not exactly know myself.
-Perhaps the government, upon the question being laid before it, decided
-that there was no occasion to review the Dreyfus case. I know nothing
-about it; I can only form hypotheses. Answering M. Labori’s question,
-I will say this: when Colonel Picquart left the war department, they
-gave him not the slightest hint that he was sent away in disgrace.
-On the contrary, they represented to him as a favor the rather vague
-mission with which he was entrusted. They said to him: ‘You are to go
-away for a few days. You will go to Nancy, to do certain things.’ When
-once he was at Nancy, they said to him: ‘Go elsewhere.’ Thus from day
-to day they gave him new orders, continually prolonging his mission;
-and the colonel, who had left Paris without extra clothing, was told,
-when he asked permission to return to get his linen, that his mission
-was too important to warrant a diversion of even a few hours; and they
-sent him to Besançon. Thus, without suspecting the fate that was in
-store for him, he was sent along the frontier, and then to Algeria and
-Tunis, where, in March, 1897, he was made lieutenant-colonel of the
-Fourth Sharpshooters. They pretended that he was given this appointment
-as a favor. General Gonse told him positively, in a letter, that the
-regiment was a very select one, and that he should consider himself
-fortunate in belonging to it. The general’s letters are full of
-expressions of sympathy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Leblois referred just now to a threatening letter which
-intervened at a certain moment, and which apparently modified the state
-of mind prevailing in the office of the minister of war. Could he tell
-us when this letter was addressed to Colonel Picquart, from whom it
-came, and in what spirit it was conceived?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“I have already said that this letter was dated June 3,
-1897. It came from Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, who had been Colonel
-Picquart’s subordinate, and it was couched in terms almost insulting.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The witness has said that at the same time when
-Colonel Picquart’s letters were being seized in the war department he
-was suffered to receive forged telegrams, and that at the same time
-also General Gonse, sub-chief of the general staff, acted in a very
-kindly manner toward him. I ask him if these three matters were really
-contemporaneous.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“The reply is simple enough. You must distinguish between
-two utterly distinct orders of events,--the events at the end of 1896,
-which was the time of Colonel Picquart’s departure, and the events at
-the end of 1897. I know of only one letter intercepted at the bureau of
-information in 1896,--namely, the letter signed ‘Speranza.’ It was at
-that time that General Gonse showed the greatest sympathy for Colonel
-Picquart. Coming to the conspiracy of 1897, it is my opinion that
-letters were then intercepted, but I prefer that the testimony on this
-point should come from Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Yet the witness said just now that they sent a letter
-to Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart after having opened it.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“That was in 1896. It was in December of that year that
-the Speranza letter was sent.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then my question was appropriate. All these things
-happened at the same time.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does M. Leblois know of certain facts in the relations
-that prevailed in 1892 between M. du Paty de Clam and the de Comminges
-family that offer a singular analogy with the participation of the
-veiled lady in the Esterhazy case?”
-
-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.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It _is_ always the same question, and I understand why you
-are always ready to welcome it in the same manner.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Scheurer-Kestner, you are to tell us of Major
-Esterhazy, but I beg you not to say anything of the Dreyfus case,
-concerning which we will not hear a word. Tell us of the Esterhazy
-case, but not of the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I note what you say, _Monsieur le Président_.
-Last July I learned that, at the office of the general staff, in the
-bureau of information, in September, 1896, Colonel Picquart, who was
-then a major and the chief of this bureau, had discovered, in the
-course of investigations undertaken _à propos_ of other matters, but
-relating to Major Esterhazy, that there had been a mistake in 1894 in
-attributing the _bordereau_ to M. Alfred Dreyfus. I learned at the
-same time that, as soon as Colonel Picquart had made his discovery, he
-made haste to consult M. Bertillon, who had been one of the experts
-consulted in 1894, and who, without any hesitation, had attributed
-the _bordereau_ to Alfred Dreyfus. Colonel Picquart, showing him the
-_bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, but without telling
-him whose handwriting it was, asked him what he thought of it, and
-M. Bertillon said to him: ‘Ah! the forgers have succeeded. It is no
-similarity; it is identity.’ Colonel Picquart came back with this
-reply, and asked his chief to continue an investigation in this
-direction. He proposed to General Gonse, among others, to submit the
-documents to a new expert examination, and General Gonse dissuaded him.
-There is in existence a correspondence which was then exchanged between
-General Gonse and Colonel Picquart. I took pains to become acquainted
-with this correspondence, for it was of great value to me, being of
-a nature to settle my opinion. The correspondence being communicated
-to me, I was convinced by reading it that General Gonse accepted the
-opinion of Colonel Picquart, who was paving the way for a revision of
-the trial. It seems to me indispensable, in order to enlighten the
-jurors, that I should read this correspondence to them.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, that is not possible.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We must have the light, and I consider it indispensable
-that these letters should be put in evidence.”
-
-The Judge.--“The law requires that witnesses shall testify without the
-aid of any document. However, if the attorney-general is not opposed to
-it, I shall not oppose it.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“General Gonse and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
-have been summoned. They will testify concerning the letters, if they
-see fit.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I suggest that M. Scheurer-Kestner be authorized to hand
-the letters to the court.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“It is not possible. The government should have
-been notified of them at the proper time.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Zola could not do so, as he did not then have the
-letters in his possession; but he called upon the attorney-general,
-as the representative of the complainant, to put these letters in
-evidence, thereby complying as far as possible with Article 52 of the
-law of 1881; therefore I have the honor to offer a motion” ...
-
-The Judge.--“Oh!”
-
-M. Labori.--“Oh! _Monsieur le Président_, if you knew how much pain it
-gives me, as a man of the world, to thus make you suffer.”
-
-The Judge.--“Permit me to tell you, before you offer your motion, that
-it is impossible. Article 52 of the law concerning the press does not
-permit the production of documents not previously announced.”
-
-M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The law obliges us to announce documents.
-We ought to have announced the letters of General Gonse. Why did we
-not do so? It is well that the jurors should know. We did not do so,
-because these letters have already been produced at one hearing,--the
-hearing of the council of war,--and under the following circumstances.
-Colonel Picquart was asked: ‘Have you General Gonse’s letters?’ He
-answered: ‘They are in my pocket.’ The president of the council of war
-then asked: ‘Will you give them to me?’ Colonel Picquart handed him
-the letters. The president of the council of war took them and placed
-them with the documents of the case, without having them read. So
-that, in order to conform to the law, we had to give notice of letters
-which had been confiscated, as it were, by a president of the council
-of war,--letters which were not at our disposal, and which only the
-attorney-general could produce.”
-
-The Judge.--“Offer your motion. But, after all, if M. Schemer-Kestner,
-instead of reading them, wishes to say what they contain, he may do so.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Very well; so be it.”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I greatly regret that I cannot read these
-letters. I regret it from the standpoint of the manifestation of
-truth. I considered this reading indispensable, but I see that it is
-forbidden. Since, however, I am authorized to say what they contain, I
-will do so in a manner necessarily incomplete, but sufficient perhaps
-to enlighten the jurors.”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner then repeated the substance of the letters, but, as
-the full text of the letters was printed in “L’Aurore” of the following
-day, February 9, they are given here in place of the description of
-them made to the jury by M. Scheurer-Kestner, although legally the full
-text of the letters forms no part of the evidence placed before the
-jury.
-
-  CORMEILLES-EN-PARISIS (SEINE-ET-OISE),
-  SEPTEMBER 7, 1896.
-
-  _My dear Picquart_:
-
- I have received your letter of the 5th, and, after reflecting upon
- all that you say. I hasten to tell you that it seems to me useful
- to proceed in this matter with great prudence, distrusting first
- impressions. The thing necessary now is to determine the nature of
- the documents.[1] How could they have been copied? What requests for
- information have been preferred by third parties? You may say that in
- this order of ideas it is rather difficult to reach a result without
- making some stir. I admit it. But in my opinion it is the best way
- of making sure progress. To the continuation of the inquiry from
- the standpoint of the handwritings[2] there is the grave objection
- that it compels us to take new people into our confidence under bad
- conditions, and it seems to me better to wait until we are more firmly
- settled in our opinions before going further in this rather delicate
- path. I return September 15, and we can better discuss an affair of
- this nature in conversation. But my feeling is that it is necessary to
- proceed with extreme prudence. I shake your hand most affectionately,
- my dear Picquart. Devotedly yours,
-
-  A. GONSE.
-
-[1] The reference here is to the documents that accompanied the
-_bordereau_ attributed to Dreyfus.
-
-[2] The reference here is to the comparison of Major Esterhazy’s
-handwriting with that of the bordereau.
-
-  PARIS, SEPTEMBER 8, 1896.
-
-  _My General_:
-
- I have read your letter carefully, and I shall scrupulously follow
- your instructions, but I believe it my duty to say this to you.
- Numerous indications, and a serious fact of which I shall speak
- to you on your return, show me that the time is near at hand when
- people who have the conviction that there has been an error in this
- matter are going to make a great effort and create a great scandal.
- I believe that I have done all that was necessary to give ourselves
- the opportunity of initiative. If too much time is lost, that
- initiative will be taken by others, which, to say nothing of higher
- considerations, will not leave us in a pleasant position. I must add
- that the people to whom I refer do not seem to be as well informed
- as we are,[3] and that in my opinion they will make a mess of it,
- creating a scandal and a great uproar without furnishing light. There
- will be a sad and useless crisis, which we could avoid by doing
- justice in season. Be good enough, etc.,
-
-  PICQUART.
-
-[3] The reference here is to the relatives of Dreyfus.
-
-  CORMEILLES-EN-PARISIS (SEINE-ET-OISE),
-  SEPTEMBER 10, 1896.
-
-  _My dear Picquart_:
-
- I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th, after having given it
- careful consideration. In spite of the disturbing fact stated therein,
- I persist in my first feeling. I believe that it is necessary to act
- in the most circumspect manner. At the point at which you have arrived
- in your investigation there is no question, of course, of avoiding the
- light, but we must ascertain what course should be taken in order to
- arrive at a manifestation of the truth. This granted, it is necessary
- to avoid all false manœuvres, and especially to guard against
- irreparable steps. It seems to me necessary to arrive silently, and in
- the order of ideas that I have pointed out to you, at as complete a
- certainty as possible before compromising anything. I know very well
- that the problem is a difficult one, and may be full of unexpected
- elements. But it is precisely for this reason that it is necessary
- to proceed with prudence. You are not lacking in that virtue; so my
- mind is easy. Remember that the difficulties are great, and that wise
- tactics, weighing in advance all possibilities, are indispensable. I
- have occasion to write to General de Boisdeffre; I say to him a few
- words of the same tenor as this letter. Prudence! Prudence! That is
- the word that you must keep steadily before your eyes. I return on the
- morning of the 15th. Come to see me at my office early, after you have
- been through your mail. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear
- Picquart. Yours devotedly,
-
-  GONSE.
-
-  PARIS, SEPTEMBER 14, 1896.
-
-  _My General_:
-
- September 7 I had the honor to direct your attention to the scandal
- that certain people were threatening to precipitate, and I permitted
- myself to say to you that, in my opinion, if we do not take the
- initiative, we shall have much trouble on our hands. The article
- from “L’Eclair” which you will find enclosed confirms me unhappily
- in my opinion. I shall try to find out who has succeeded so well in
- preparing the bomb. But I believe it my duty to affirm once more that
- it is necessary to act without delay. If we wait longer, we shall be
- run over, and imprisoned in an inextricable situation, where it will
- be impossible for us to establish the real truth. Be good enough, etc.,
-
-  PICQUART.
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner, after repeating the substance of the foregoing
-letters, continued his testimony as follows:
-
-“Such, gentlemen, is the _résumé_ that I have been able to make from
-memory of these fine letters, which honor their author, both as a
-soldier and as a man. After reading them, I was convinced that there
-had been an error. I saw that General Gonse, Colonel Picquart’s
-superior, shared his ideas, and looked upon revision as a possibility.
-What had I to do? My first duty was to inform the minister of war,
-and show him the documents which proved that the handwriting of the
-_bordereau_ was the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, and not that of
-Captain Dreyfus. That was what I did. I had a long conversation with
-General Billot, and showed him the documents that I possessed, though
-I did not speak at that time of the correspondence between General
-Gonse and Colonel Picquart, thinking it better not to do so. But I
-was not slow in offering this correspondence to the government, and
-naturally I was authorized to keep a copy of it. Unhappily new events
-had taken place, and the government perhaps had changed its attitude;
-I do not know; in any case, my offer was refused. It seemed to me that
-the honor of the government, of the republic, of democracy, and of the
-army required that the initiative in such a reparation should come from
-above, and not from below.
-
-“Then what happened? The day after my visit to the minister of war, in
-which I spoke to him of the documents and showed them to him (that was
-October 31),--on the day after, November 1, though it had been agreed
-between us that our conversation should be secret, that it should not
-be noised abroad, that there should be no mention of it, what did I see
-in the newspapers inspired, so I was told, by the minister of war,--my
-visit to the minister related with false comments. It was said that
-I had shown nothing, that I had refused to give the minister of war
-proof of the innocence of Dreyfus, when, in fact, I had been with him
-three hours, begging him to make the proof public, and offering to cry
-it from the house-tops. He either would not, or could not, do it. He
-confined himself to saying: ‘He is guilty.’ ‘Prove to me that he is
-guilty,’ I said. ‘I cannot prove it to you.’ That was General Billot’s
-answer when I had brought important documents, and when my heart was
-full of all that I knew through the reading of the letters of which I
-had just spoken. That is how I came to my present conviction, and that
-is the way in which I gained courage to take up a cause which is a
-cause of humanity, truth, and justice.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Scheurer-Kestner has told us of his conversation
-with General Billot. Will he now be good enough to tell us if he has
-interviewed the prime minister?”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I had several interviews with the prime minister
-in the early days of November. To him I told all that I knew, all that
-I had learned. I offered to him the letters that passed between General
-Gonse and Colonel Picquart, for to him I could speak of what had
-happened at the bureau of information.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Whence and under what circumstances came M. Mathieu
-Dreyfus’s denunciation of Major Esterhazy? Did not M. Mathieu Dreyfus
-have a conversation with you in which he revealed to you the name of
-Major Esterhazy,--a name which had come to his knowledge by a path
-wholly different from that by which it had come to your ears?”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I had not uttered the name of Major Esterhazy
-in the presence of a single private individual. I had mentioned it
-only to the government when, on November 12, I received a message from
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus, asking me to receive him at my house. I had no
-relations with him; he had never been at my house; I had never seen
-him; I was not acquainted with him. He came, and this is the story that
-he told. A certain M. de Castro, whom he did not know, was walking on
-the boulevards, at the time when they were selling the placards which
-contained the proof of treason,--placards which bore portraits on
-both sides, and in the middle a _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_. M.
-de Castro, who is a foreigner, and who theretofore had not been much
-interested in this matter, bought one of these placards simply to pass
-away the time, and, as soon as he had it in his hands,--I make use
-of a word which he used himself when he told me the story later,--he
-was dazed. ‘I went home,’ he said, ‘took out the package of letters
-from Esterhazy that I had in my desk,--thirty or forty of them,--and
-made sure that I was not mistaken. The _bordereau_ was really in his
-writing.’ M. de Castro hurried to the house of M. Mathieu Dreyfus,
-and it was after this visit that M. Mathieu Dreyfus came to me in the
-evening to say this: ‘You must know the author of the _bordereau_. It
-is said that you have been occupying yourself with this matter for
-a long time, with an earnestness really feverish, and that you are
-searching for information everywhere. Then you must know whom they
-have substituted, or tried to substitute, for M. Alfred Dreyfus as
-the author of the _bordereau_, since I know that you are convinced,
-from the examination of handwritings, that Alfred Dreyfus is not the
-author of it.’ And, as I refused to give him the name, he said: ‘Well,
-if I speak the name, and if the name that I speak has come under your
-eyes in your investigations, will you tell me so?’ I answered: ‘In
-that case I shall consider myself unbound, and will say yes.’ Then M.
-Mathieu Dreyfus spoke the name of Major Esterhazy, and I said to him:
-‘Under the circumstances in which you find yourself, it is your duty
-to state this immediately to the minister of war.’ For at that moment,
-thanks to the newspapers, a certain number of superior officers were
-under suspicion, and I was very glad that, under the circumstances in
-which this fact appeared, these superior officers would be placed out
-of the question. Thus it was that M. Mathieu Dreyfus pointed out Major
-Esterhazy to the minister of war as the author of the _bordereau_.”
-
-M. Zola.--“I beg M. Scheurer-Kestner to give us further details
-regarding his interview with General Billot, in order to emphasize a
-thing which I consider of great importance. You know, _Monsieur le
-Président_, that they accuse us, and that they accuse me personally,
-of having been the cause of the frightful crisis that is now dividing
-the country. They say that we have produced this great trouble
-which is disturbing business and inflaming hearts. Well, I should
-like it to be clearly established that General Billot was warned
-by M. Scheurer-Kestner of what would take place. I would like M.
-Scheurer-Kestner to say that he is an old friend of General Billot,
-that he addresses him with the utmost familiarity, that he almost wept
-in his arms, and that he begged him, in the name of France, to take the
-matter up. I would like him to say that.”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“The conversation that I had with General
-Billot, who has been my friend for twenty-five years, was a long one.
-Yes, I begged him to give his best attention to this matter, which
-otherwise was likely to become extremely serious. ‘It is incumbent
-upon you,’ I said to him, ‘to take the first steps, make a personal
-investigation; do not trust the matter to anyone. There are bundles
-of documents in certain offices. Send for them. Use no intermediary.
-Make an earnest investigation. If you will promise to make this earnest
-personal investigation. I pledge myself to maintain silence until I
-shall know the result.’ As I left, General Billot asked me to say
-nothing to anyone. I agreed, but on one condition. ‘Two hours,’ I
-said, ‘are all that is necessary for this investigation. I give you
-a fortnight, and during that fortnight I will not take a step.’ Now,
-during that fortnight I was dragged in the mud, pronounced a dishonest
-man, treated as a wretch, covered with insults, and called a German and
-a Prussian.”
-
-M. Zola.--“As they call me an Italian.”
-
-M. Scheurer-Kestner--“It was during that fortnight that I wrote to
-General Billot: ‘We have made a truce, but I did not think that this
-truce would turn against me, thanks to the people who are about you,
-and whom you either cause to act or suffer to act.’ I even pointed
-out to him the names of officers who had been indicated to me as the
-bearers of the articles to the newspapers. I told him that I did not
-guarantee the accuracy of this information, but I asked him to inquire
-into the matter. He pretended that he would make this inquiry, and
-that, after it, he would report to me. The fortnight passed, and I am
-still without news, without reply. That is the truth.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Without news, with insults.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Casimir-Perier._
-
-The next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, ex-president of the republic.
-
-The Judge.--“You are M. Casimir-Perier, former president of the
-republic. Of course you are neither the relative or an ally of the
-accused, and they are not in your service. Will you raise your right
-hand?”
-
-M. Casimir-Perier.--“_Monsieur le Président_, before taking the oath, I
-ask your permission to reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday
-in writing.”
-
-The Judge.--“Yes, but, before making your declaration, it is necessary
-to take the oath.”
-
-M. Casimir-Perier.--“I cannot tell the whole truth; it is my duty not
-to tell it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“When M. Casimir-Perier was president of the republic, did
-he know, prior to the arrest of a staff officer, that this officer was
-suspected of treason, and did he know the charges against him?”
-
-The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did M. Casimir-Perier know at any time that there was a
-secret document in the war department relating either to the Dreyfus
-case or to the Esterhazy case?”
-
-The Judge.--“Let the Dreyfus case alone; let us have nothing to say
-about it. Can you answer, M. Casimir-Perier, in regard to the Esterhazy
-case?”
-
-M. Casimir-Perier.--“I did not know, while I was president of the
-republic, that there were any Esterhazy papers.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was M. Casimir-Perier aware that at a certain moment a
-secret document was laid before the council of war in the Dreyfus case,
-outside of the proceedings of the trial and without the knowledge of
-the accused?”
-
-The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Is it understood, then, that no attention is to be paid to
-the word ‘illegality’ contained in the sentence complained of? You
-do not take that into consideration? Then why was it included in the
-summons?”
-
-The Judge.--“On that point the court has rendered a decree.”
-
-M. Zola.--“As a man, I bow to that decree, but my reason does not bow.
-I do not comprehend your limitation of the defence to certain matters
-indicated in the complaint, in the light of your refusal to hear
-evidence regarding this word ‘illegality’ that also appears therein.”
-
-The Judge.--“There can be no testimony against the thing judged. That
-was repeated in today’s decree.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We offer no testimony against the authority of the thing
-judged.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is the same thing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No, no.”
-
-The Judge.--“You maintain that in the Dreyfus case there was
-illegality.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“Then it is the same thing. It is useless to insist.”
-
-M. Zola.--“But the Esterhazy case is also a thing judged.”
-
-The Judge.--“But you are prosecuted on that matter.”
-
-M. Zola.--“But we are also prosecuted on the other.”
-
-The Judge.--“Not the least in the world.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Then there are differences in the thing judged?”
-
-The Judge.--“The question will not be put. It is useless to debate it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No, it is not useless. Useless, perhaps, so far as
-obtaining a decision in our favor is concerned; but not useless from
-the standpoint of our cause, for everybody judges us, and the jurors
-follow these discussions with interest. But, as you say that discussion
-is useless, I shall have the honor to offer a motion, and await a
-decree of the court. I do not wish to detain M. Casimir-Perier longer,
-so I shall ask you, _Monsieur le Président_, on the ground of morality
-and good faith,--and I hope that no decree of the court will be needed
-to give us satisfaction on this point,--to ask M. Casimir-Perier the
-following question: If a secret document had been produced in any trial
-whatever, before any jurisdiction whatever, and if in this way an
-adverse verdict had been obtained, what would M. Casimir-Perier,--who
-will not, I am sure, in order to answer me, take refuge behind any sort
-of professional secrecy, since the question here is one of right and
-public morality, on which such men as Daguesseau have given an opinion
-before him,--what would M. Casimir-Perier think of it?”
-
-The Judge.--“Allow me to tell you that it is useless to try to arrive
-by indirect questions at the same result. I will not put the question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I think the court does not clearly understand my
-_confrère’s_ question, which is this: If M. Casimir-Perier were to
-learn tomorrow that a person had been condemned on a document that had
-not been shown to him, what would be his opinion? It is a question
-of good faith. The high position that M. Casimir-Perier has occupied
-justifies us in asking his opinion.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is not a fact; it is an opinion.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then the court refuses to ask this question?”
-
-The Judge.--“It is not a proper question to ask.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, on this question, as on the others, we shall offer a
-motion.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“One word more. When M. Casimir-Perier took the stand,
-he began to testify before making oath, saying: ‘I believe that it is
-my duty not to tell the whole truth.’”
-
-The Judge.--“That is not at all what M. Casimir-Perier said. He
-declared that he did not believe it his duty to speak.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I demand that the question be put to the witness.”
-
-M. Casimir-Perier.--“I had in view the formula of the oath, which
-requires the telling of the whole truth, and I desired to point out
-that I could not tell the truth entire, having in view, in saying so,
-my declaration of yesterday, and, moreover, knowing no facts relating
-to the case before the court, besides considering that concerning other
-matters silence is imposed upon me by my duty and my constitutional
-responsibility.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask pardon of M. Casimir-Perier for keeping him longer,
-but I cannot allow him to go until my motion has been passed upon.”
-
-M. Casimir-Perier.--“I am a simple citizen, and at the service of the
-courts of my country.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Casimir-Perier sets an illustrious example, when others
-have to be forced by legal measures to appear in the assize court.”
-
-The Judge.--“You offer a motion, but you know what the opinion of the
-court is. It will be the same decree again.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, it will be only the easier to render it.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. de Castro._
-
-The witness-chair was then taken by M. de Castro, who testified as
-follows:
-
-“At the time in question I was a banker and broker near the Paris
-Bourse, and I had had occasion to do some business for Major Esterhazy.
-He was in regular correspondence with the house, and I was very
-familiar with his writing,--so familiar, indeed, that in the morning,
-when I opened my mail, I knew the major’s writing before opening his
-letter. Toward the end of last October I was on the boulevard when
-a street-fakir passed by me, selling a _fac-simile_ of the famous
-_bordereau_ attributed to Dreyfus. I was struck by the writing. It
-looked to me like a letter from Major Esterhazy. I returned to my house
-much perturbed in mind. The next day I went with my brother-in-law
-to find some of Major Esterhazy’s letters. I compared them with the
-_fac-simile_, and found a perfect similarity,--in fact, a striking
-identity. I spoke to some friends of this strange coincidence, and
-they advised me to carry a few letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who
-was concerning himself with the Dreyfus case. Meantime these friends
-probably spoke to M. Mathieu Dreyfus, who came one day to ask me to
-show him these letters. I offered him some of them, but he refused
-them, saying: ‘I advise you to go yourself to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and
-show them to him.’ So I went one morning, and said to him: ‘I come to
-lay before you some very curious types. You will see for yourself the
-similarity between the handwriting of these letters and the famous
-_bordereau_.’ M. Scheurer-Kestner took the letters, and looked at them
-for some time; then he went to a bureau, and came back, saying: ‘Here
-are some letters probably written by the same hand.’ and, indeed, I
-recognized Major Esterhazy’s writing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“At that time had Major Esterhazy’s name been spoken as
-that of the possible author of the _bordereau_? Did M. de Castro
-suspect that M. Esterhazy was already under suspicion?”
-
-M. de Castro.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did M. de Castro receive threatening letters?”
-
-M. de Castro.--“No; no letters. I received one day a telegram. If the
-court desires, I will produce it.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, but what did it say?”
-
-M. de Castro.--“It contained this threat: ‘If you have given in
-evidence the letters which “Paris” designates by the initials d. d. c.,
-you will pay dear for this infamy.’”
-
-The Judge.--“Did this handwriting resemble that of Major Esterhazy?”
-
-M. de. Castro.--“No, there was nothing to indicate the origin of the
-dispatch. It was not signed, and the writing was quite different from
-that of Major Esterhazy.”
-
-The witness was then allowed to step down, and the court adjourned for
-the day.
-
-
-
-
-THIRD DAY--FEBRUARY 9.
-
-The third day’s proceedings began with a statement of the judge
-that, in refusing to hear Mme. Dreyfus the day before, concerning M.
-Zola’s good faith, he had supposed that the question to be put to her
-concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case.
-Therefore the court desired the defence to specify whether the question
-concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case, or
-his good faith in the matter of the Esterhazy case.
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not understand. M. Zola has committed an act which is
-considered criminal. We maintain that it is an act of good faith, and
-we ask the witness what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith. As to the
-Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case, they are connected only indirectly
-with the Zola case.”
-
-The Judge.--“There is no Zola case. I can question Mme. Dreyfus on the
-good faith of M. Zola only so far as the Esterhazy case is concerned.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The court will act according to its understanding. It is
-the sovereign judge. But we are the sovereign judges in the matter of
-the questions that we wish to put, and to us the question of good faith
-is indivisible. A man who commits an act commits it either in good or
-in bad faith, and we have not to inquire whether his faith is good
-concerning this point or that point. I do not know what Mme. Dreyfus
-will answer, but I ask that she be questioned in a general way as to
-the good faith of M. Zola in writing his letter.”
-
-The Judge.--“There must be no confusion here, no arriving by indirect
-methods at that which the decree of the court has forbidden.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I allow no one to say that I pursue indirect methods.
-I have neither the face or the attitude or the voice of a man who
-does things indirectly, and, if there are any indirect methods
-used here, I leave the entire responsibility--I do not say to the
-attorney-general--but to the complainant, the minister of war. I insist
-that the question shall be put as I framed it, and, if the court
-refuses, I shall offer a motion.”
-
-The Judge.--“I will question Mme. Dreyfus concerning only the second
-council of war that tried the Esterhazy case.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I am informed that witnesses are present in the
-court-room, though the trial is now in progress. It seems that General
-de Boisdeffre, General Mercier” ...
-
-The Judge.--“The trial is not in progress.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is essential that the witnesses should not be
-present at any part of the trial before their deposition” ...
-
-The Judge.--“The day’s debate has not begun.”
-
-Nevertheless the military officers, who formed a group in the middle of
-the room, were then excluded, and Dr. Socquet, the expert physician who
-had been sent to examine the health of those witnesses who had pleaded
-illness, took the stand.
-
-He reported that M. Autant had been seized on the previous Sunday
-with an attack of renal colic, but had now recovered, and was in
-the witnesses’ room. As to Mme. de Boulancy, he said that her case
-offered all the symptoms of angina pectoris, and that, considering her
-condition, her appearance in court would be attended by serious danger.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I gather from the doctor’s testimony that it is
-materially possible for Mme. de Boulancy to come to this bar, but that
-the doctor thinks that the excitement would be bad for her. I ask him,
-then, supposing that this question had been put to him; ‘Do you believe
-that Mme. de Boulancy could appear before the examining magistrate
-in the presence of Major Esterhazy?’ would he have thought that that
-excitement would be bad for her?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“I cannot answer. It is evident that the surroundings in
-the assize court are different from those in the office of an examining
-magistrate.”
-
-Being questioned as to Mlle. de Comminges, he said that her physician,
-Dr. Florent, told him that she was the victim of a nervous affection,
-and had heart trouble so clearly defined that she was liable to
-fainting-spells on entering a room the temperature of which was a
-little above the ordinary.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The jurors will note that these two ladies, Mlle. de
-Comminges and Mme. de Boulancy, were at their residences, and that
-their own physicians were present.”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“No, their physicians were not present.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The expert just said that the physician of Mlle. de
-Comminges told him a certain thing.”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“That was in his certificate.”
-
-These preliminaries over, the witness-stand was taken by General de
-Boisdeffre.
-
-
-_Testimony of General de Boisdeffre._
-
-M. Labori.--“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us first what the document
-was that Major Esterhazy brought to the minister of war some time
-before his appearance before the council of war?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“That document relates to the Dreyfus case;
-consequently I cannot speak of it without violating the decree of the
-court and my professional secrecy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am glad to learn that it relates to the Dreyfus case,
-but Major Esterhazy made use of it as a means of defence, and described
-it by an interesting phrase which General de Boisdeffre no doubt has
-heard,--‘the liberating document.’ Moreover, the minister of war gave
-Major Esterhazy a receipt for it; therefore it concerns exclusively
-the case of Major Esterhazy. So I ask General de Boisdeffre what the
-liberating document is.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Professional secrecy does not permit me to
-answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Professional secrecy can be invoked only by persons
-capable of receiving confidences because of their profession. Where
-there is no profession that involves such confidences, there is no
-secrecy. General de Boisdeffre has received no confidences, and, if he
-has, we do not ask him to betray them. As chief of staff of the army,
-he has acted as an official, and, if he invokes any secrecy, it can be
-only that which seems to have been devised in many respects especially
-for the necessities of this case, and which is called the secret of
-State. When the secret of State is invoked by a government, we are at
-liberty to ask if there is a reason to recognize it. That question will
-arise when the members of the Dupuy cabinet shall come to the stand.
-When it is invoked by a former president of the republic, we bow with
-deference, because the president of the republic is irresponsible.
-But General de Boisdeffre is a responsible official. Respect for the
-army is never shown to a person, but to a symbol or an ideal, and it
-is based on the confidence that we have in those who represent it, and
-on their ability to answer at any moment for all their acts before
-the justice of the country, represented here by twelve jurors who are
-France, and to whom everybody owes explanations. General de Boisdeffre
-is in the presence of justice. He can escape by no appeal to secrecy.
-Therefore I ask the court to put my question again.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I have the profoundest respect for the justice
-of my country. Perhaps I do not know how to make the legal distinctions
-that have just been pointed out, but I consider the secret of State a
-professional secret. That is my reply.”
-
-The Judge.--“Let us pass to another order of ideas.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I pass not to another order of ideas, but to another order
-of questions. Can General de Boisdeffre tell us anything about the
-veiled lady?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I know absolutely nothing about the veiled
-lady, and have not heard her spoken of except by the newspapers.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is not only the newspapers that have spoken of her;
-she was a means of defence employed by Major Esterhazy before the
-council of war in the public part of the trial. I should like to know
-whether either the minister of war or General de Boisdeffre ordered any
-investigation concerning her.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“We did all that we could to find out who the
-veiled lady was, but we found out nothing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does General de Boisdeffre declare that he does not know
-at all whence the veiled lady came, or with whom she was connected, or,
-on the contrary, does he know that she had some sort of relations with
-Colonel Picquart?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us how the liberating
-document got away from the war department?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about that, either.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But the general must have made an inquiry.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Yes, but I arrived only at uncertain results,
-which, being doubtful, I cannot state here, for they are simple
-presumptions concerning people that may be entirely innocent.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yet Major Ravary insinuates in his report that the
-document may have reached the veiled lady through indiscretions on
-the part of Colonel Picquart. Does General de Boisdeffre accept the
-responsibility for such insinuations?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I have been in no way mixed up in the
-Esterhazy case. I know nothing of what was done in the examination, and
-have kept quite aloof from the whole matter.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us what charges are made
-against Colonel Picquart?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“They are of two kinds. There are some which
-have not yet taken on a definite character. There are others relating
-to his professional service, and which have been absolutely proved. The
-best proof is that certain letters appear in the newspapers of this
-morning which were the property of their writer, and which were written
-for the service.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And are there other reprehensible points?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Yes; the attention of the council of inquiry
-was called to them, and, the doings of that body being absolutely
-secret, I can make no explanation concerning them.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does General de Boisdeffre know that Colonel Picquart was
-sent on a mission in November, 1896, and can he tell us why he was so
-sent?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“He was sent upon an order of the minister of
-war.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Which is also secret, evidently.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“The object of the mission was secret.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Exactly. Was Colonel Picquart sent away in disgrace?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I cannot say of any officer sent upon a
-mission that he was sent away in disgrace.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Oh! everything that comes from a general’s mouth does not
-necessarily concern the national defence. General de Boisdeffre must
-tell us whether Colonel Picquart was sent away in disgrace or not.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Colonel Picquart was in a state of mind that
-did not permit him to attend to his duties satisfactorily. He was
-absorbed by a single idea. The minister of war thought it wise to send
-him on a mission that would restore him to his normal state of mind.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us what idea it was that
-obsessed Colonel Picquart’s mind?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I do not believe that I can answer that
-question, because I must not answer concerning the case” ...
-
-Here the witness hesitated.
-
-M. Labori.--“Concerning what case?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“The case of Dreyfus.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And why must not the witness go into the Dreyfus case?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Because a decree of the court, which I have
-read in the newspapers, separates the two cases.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does not General de Boisdeffre know that Major Esterhazy
-has been prosecuted and examined concerning the _bordereau_ attributed
-to Dreyfus in 1894?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“Major Esterhazy was examined behind closed
-doors. Consequently it is not for me to know what took place behind
-closed doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I believe that General de Boisdeffre is mistaken, for I
-was present at the public part of that trial. I imagine that General de
-Boisdeffre, having so many secrets to keep, confuses those concerning
-which he is obliged to keep silence with those concerning which he need
-not keep silence. At any rate, he cannot dispute that the _bordereau_
-has been in question, for it has been discussed by the newspapers for
-the last fortnight. I ask him to tell us, since I well understand that
-it was the question of the innocence of Dreyfus that obsessed the mind
-of Colonel Picquart, what Colonel Picquart did in relation to the
-Esterhazy case.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“He made known his doubts concerning Major
-Esterhazy’s situation. We told him to do everything to illuminate the
-matter, and to settle the doubts that preoccupied him. He could find no
-document that sustained his doubts to our satisfaction, and we could
-only invite him to abstain and not continue his researches.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I note here, for the benefit of the jurors, that at the
-time when General de Boisdeffre, chief of staff of the army, learned
-that Colonel Picquart was obsessed by this case which he will not
-name, he invited him to confirm his doubts. It results therefrom that
-at that time it did not seem impossible to General de Boisdeffre that
-Major Esterhazy was the author of the crime for which Dreyfus had been
-condemned.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“My words are incorrectly interpreted. The
-guilt of Captain Dreyfus has always been to me a thing absolutely
-certain, and my conviction is absolute regarding it. I do not say
-more, because I wish to touch this matter as little as possible.
-Consequently, when another officer was pointed out to me as guilty
-of such a crime, it was my duty to order an investigation. My doubts
-concerned the guilt of Major Esterhazy, and not the guilt of Captain
-Dreyfus.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Is General de Boisdeffre’s belief in the guilt of Dreyfus
-based on the facts of 1894, or on facts of earlier or later date?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“It is based on the facts and the trial of
-1894, the outcome of which is beyond discussion. There have been other
-facts, subsequent and prior, which have,--I do not say confirmed, for
-my conviction needed no confirmation,--but which have assisted my
-certainty most decidedly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What is the source of the communications made to certain
-newspapers, seeming to come from the war offices?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“To my knowledge, they do not emanate from the
-war offices.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Has General de Boisdeffre investigated the matter?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I have made an investigation, and questioned
-the officers.”
-
-The Judge.--“And you are certain that these communications do not
-emanate from them?”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“I take their word. There is only one case,--a
-communication from Major Pauffin de Saint-Moret to M. Rochefort. That
-communication was made by this officer’s initiative. For it I punished
-him with thirty days’ confinement, and by suppressing his application
-for the cross of the legion of honor. It will be seen, then, that he is
-very far from the fifth stripe which, it has been said, he was on the
-point of obtaining. He yielded to an impulse of his heart, but he is an
-excellent officer and a very worthy fellow.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It results from the testimony of the witness that
-the liberating document is a secret document which was at the war
-department. It was stolen from the war department by some unknown
-person and given to a veiled lady. This veiled lady carried it about
-Paris, and one evening gave it to Major Esterhazy. He brought it back
-to the chief of staff, and the importance of the document is such that
-the chief of staff, when asked concerning its nature, says: ‘I consider
-that here my professional secrecy is one with the secret of State.’
-Upon which I observe, gentlemen of the jury, that secrets of State are
-ill-kept at the war department. And that is simply what I wished to
-say.”
-
-General de Boisdeffre.--“My staff officers, several of whom have been
-so violently attacked, are worthy people who do their whole duty. They
-have at heart nothing but the interest of the country.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I have never attacked the staff officers. They are
-very honest, and I am persuaded that they do not take documents. I
-desire simply to note a fact, and against a fact there is no possible
-struggle. I note it again. A secret document has been taken from the
-war department and carried about by Major Esterhazy and by a veiled
-lady. That is what I said; nothing more, nothing less.”
-
-M. Labori then offered a formal motion that, whereas professional
-secrecy can be invoked only by those who have received a confidence
-in some sense forced and constrained, and who have received it in a
-professional capacity, the court rule that General de Boisdeffre cannot
-be relieved of the duty of answering the questions put to him, on the
-ground of professional secrecy.
-
-The court suspended its decision, and General Gonse was called to the
-witness-stand.
-
-
-_Testimony of General Gonse._
-
-M. Labori.--“What was the document emanating from the war department
-that was carried from the war offices and given to Major Esterhazy for
-his protection, by the veiled lady?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I cannot answer as to that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Why did Major Esterhazy call that document the liberating
-document?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I cannot answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Do you know the veiled lady?”
-
-General Gonse.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did you make an inquiry in order to discover her?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I cannot answer these questions. They are traps.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Ah! my general, they are traps? You permit yourself to
-say the defence is laying traps for you? Those are words that are not
-familiar here. I wait for the attorney-general to rise and enforce
-respect for the defence.”
-
-The attorney-general made no response, but half turned his back,
-whereupon the president of the bar, M. Ployer, amid great tumult on
-the part of the audience, advanced to the middle of the court-room.
-In the absence of any response from the attorney-general, M. Labori,
-addressing General Gonse in a loud voice, said: “In the name of the
-entire bar” ...
-
-But the clamor that arose prevented him from finishing his sentence,
-and was so great that the judge ordered the guards to clear the
-court-room. The order was executed, and the session was suspended.
-When the session was resumed half an hour later, with the president of
-the bar standing at the bar beside General Gonse, Attorney-General Van
-Cassel rose, and said:
-
-“The word uttered by General Gonse certainly exceeded his thought.
-This is proved by the deference with which he has put himself at the
-disposition of justice. If I did not intervene at an earlier moment, it
-was because I am not in the habit of responding to a summons; but the
-bar is familiar with my sentiments.”
-
-M. Ployer.--“I thank the attorney-general for his words. I hope that
-General Gonse will spontaneously give us the satisfaction demanded by
-the entire profession and its chief.”
-
-General Gonse.--“It is true that under the influence of excitement my
-words exceeded my thought. It was not my intention to attack the bar.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In my name, and in the name of the entire bar, I accept
-the explanations of General Gonse. I regret but one thing,--that the
-president of the bar deprived me of the pleasure of being the first to
-accept General Gonse’s frank apology. I was not personally hit, and now
-the defence is not hit either. The incident is closed.”
-
-General Gonse then resumed his testimony, speaking as follows in regard
-to his correspondence with Colonel Picquart:
-
-“When Colonel Picquart came to me in the country in August, 1896, to
-tell me that he was on the track of a traitor, I told him to pursue
-his investigations and get at the light. He informed me that Major
-Esterhazy had had confidential documents copied, and had tried to
-question artillery officers. I told him that it was necessary, first of
-all, to distinguish between the Esterhazy case and the Dreyfus case,
-as the latter was not to be reconsidered. The letters that I wrote to
-him had but one object,--to find out whether Major Esterhazy was guilty
-or not. Colonel Picquart wanted him arrested. To this I was opposed.
-I awaited sufficient proofs. I am astonished that Colonel Picquart
-has made use of my letters, but I declare that I never dreamed of a
-reconsideration of the Dreyfus case.”
-
-
-_Testimony of Major Lauth._
-
-General Gonse was succeeded at the witness-stand by Major Lauth,
-Colonel Picquart’s subordinate in the bureau of information.
-
-M. Labori.--“Is it true, as Major Ravary declares in his report on the
-Esterhazy case, that Colonel Picquart kept for a month a card-telegram
-addressed to Major Esterhazy, instead of immediately communicating it
-to Major Lauth?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Not quite. Colonel Picquart kept the card only a week.
-Then he asked me to photograph it, and remove all evidence of tear.
-He also insisted that I should certify to the handwriting. ‘Never in
-my life,’ said I; ‘this writing is utterly unknown to me.’ Colonel
-Picquart tried to make me say that it came from a personage whom I
-cannot designate, but from whom we had more than twenty letters. I
-refused. At that time it did not occur to me that Colonel Picquart
-wanted to make me an accomplice in a forgery. Nevertheless there was
-an animated scene between us, and some of our remarks were heard by my
-comrades through the partition.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And now your interpretation is different?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“It is certain that Colonel Picquart wanted me to certify
-a handwriting that I did not know.”
-
-M. Labori.--“None the less you remained Colonel Picquart’s friend?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“I was under his orders.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You have dined at his house?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“And he has dined at mine. I could not turn my back on
-him for a thing like that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“When did you photograph Major Esterhazy’s handwriting?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“In May, 1896. Colonel Picquart had me photograph his
-correspondence, concealing certain passages. I still have the plates.
-After Colonel Picquart’s departure from the bureau of information, the
-report spread that he had made suspicious assertions regarding several
-officers. He persisted in carrying on an investigation concerning Major
-Esterhazy. He also wrote us in complaint of our hostility toward him.
-‘When,’ he asked, ‘is this campaign of mystery and falsehood to end?’
-He was answered that the mystery was now cleared up, and that, as to
-the falsehood, the future would show who had lied.”
-
-The stand was then taken by Adjutant Gribelin, keeper of the archives
-in the bureau of information.
-
-
-_Testimony of Adjutant Gribelin._
-
-M. Labori.--“What do you know of the interviews that M. Leblois had
-with Colonel Picquart at the war department?”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“I saw M. Leblois in Colonel Picquart’s office several
-times after hours. The lamp was lighted. One evening I saw them both
-with files before them. One of these files related to carrier pigeons.
-The other was a secret file in an envelope, bearing the initial of
-Colonel Henry, put there so that the envelope could not be opened
-without his knowledge.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was that the only file that Colonel Henry had so stamped?”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What was this secret file?”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“I do not know.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Who was the chief at that time,--Colonel Henry, then
-major, or Colonel Picquart?”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Labori then demanded that M. Gribelin be confronted with M. Leblois.
-Accordingly the latter advanced to the bar.
-
-“It is true,” said he, “that I visited Colonel Picquart. The rest of M.
-Gribelin’s testimony I absolutely deny.”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“I swear that I have told the truth.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“And so do I. M. Gribelin already stands convicted of a
-material inaccuracy. At the Esterhazy investigation he declared that
-my visits dated back to August, 1896. I showed that at that time I
-was absent from Paris. Now he says that this visit took place in the
-autumn. It is very convenient to change dates. Major Henry made the
-same inexact assertion.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Where are these declarations?”
-
-M. Leblois.--“They are in the file of the council of inquiry which met
-to judge Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask that they be sent for.”
-
-Attorney-General Van Cassel.--“That is not possible. The file does
-not belong to me. I can no more bring it here than I could bring the
-Dreyfus file. It is for the accused to gather their proofs before
-making their charges.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You know very well that the minister of war abuses the
-right of silence, in order to put the light under a bushel. If it were
-easy to get at the light, we should have gotten at it long ago.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Here are two witnesses who contradict each other. Then
-one of the two lies. Perjury has been committed on this witness-stand.
-Justice is entitled to know which of the two is guilty. If it refuses
-to aid us, it will be clear that it is afraid of the light.”
-
-M. Labori offered a motion that the court order the production of the
-file. The motion was opposed by the attorney-general, and the court
-suspended its decision. Whereupon General Mercier, former minister of
-war, and now in command of the fourth army corps, at Mans, was called
-to the witness-chair.
-
-
-_Testimony of General Mercier._
-
-Being asked by M. Labori if he was acquainted with the document known
-as the liberating document, he answered in the negative.
-
-M. Labori.--“That document contains a postscript beginning with the
-words: ‘That scoundrel D----.’ Are you familiar with this document?”
-
-General Mercier.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was a secret document communicated to the council of war
-in the Dreyfus case in 1894, outside of the trial?”
-
-The Judge.--“Can you answer the question?”
-
-General Mercier.--“I believe that the Dreyfus case is not in question
-here, and that there is a decree of the court forbidding us to call it
-in question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does General Mercier know of the publication in
-September, 1896, of certain confidential information belonging to the
-war department?”
-
-General Mercier.--“I read in a newspaper at that time--I believe it was
-‘L’Eclair’--the communication of pretended documents. I absolutely do
-not know whence this information came. At any rate, I had nothing to do
-with it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“General Mercier had then ceased to be minister of war,
-so I cannot ask him if an inquiry was instituted. I would have asked
-General Billot, if he had come. But can General Mercier tell us whether
-in 1894 he made an inquiry in regard to the indiscretions committed
-for the benefit of certain newspapers, notably ‘La Libre Parole’ and
-‘L’Eclair’?”
-
-General Mercier.--“What was the date of the indiscretion to which you
-refer?”
-
-M. Labori.--“The arrest of Captain Dreyfus was announced in ‘La Libre
-Parole’ of October 29, then in ‘L’Eclair’ on October 30 and 31. Then
-‘La Libre Parole’ printed an article, declaring that, other newspapers,
-and notably ‘L’Eclair,’ having spoken, there was no further reason
-for keeping back the truth; and so this newspaper told a long story.
-Many of its statements having been shown to be true, I desire to know
-whether the minister of war made an investigation as to the manner in
-which these newspapers became possessed of them.”
-
-General Mercier.--“I made no inquiry. These publications were made
-outside of the war department, and, if you ask my opinion, they were
-made against the wishes of the war department.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Could General Mercier tell me to whom he attributes the
-publication?”
-
-General Mercier.--“On October 29, 1894, Dreyfus had already been
-arrested and imprisoned. Consequently his family might know many
-things, and, since you ask me my opinion, though it is based on no
-proof, I believe that the information then given to the newspapers
-could have come from the Dreyfus family.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I asked General Mercier just now if a secret document was
-communicated to the council of war in 1894.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The question was put by the court, and the answer
-was made that there was a decree of the court that prevented General
-Mercier from speaking. Consequently, if General Mercier had not been
-moved by these legal scruples, he would have spoken.”
-
-The Judge.--“But I should have stopped him. We are not a court of
-revision, but an assize court. Remember that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Agreed, _Monsieur le Président_. Let us note the reply
-already made by General Mercier, and let us note that the court
-would not put the question, if General Mercier had not answered
-spontaneously. M. Zola is prosecuted for three paragraphs, in one
-of which he accuses the second council of war of having covered an
-illegality in obedience to orders. I say that we are entitled to prove
-this illegality, unless the prosecution will admit that it has been
-committed.”
-
-The Judge.--“I point out to you that we are not a court of revision,
-but an assize court.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I answer: If in 1894 they had boasted, as they have
-boasted since, of having communicated a secret document, then that fact
-could have been used to secure a revision. But this fact was not then
-known. It is only since then that it has been openly repeated. General
-Mercier himself will not say that this is not true, but he will say
-that he cannot answer.”
-
-General Mercier.--“Pardon me, I say that that is not true.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does General Mercier say that it is not true that a secret
-document was communicated, or does he say that he has not repeated
-the fact to anyone whomsoever? I ask him to leave no ambiguity in his
-reply.”
-
-General Mercier.--“I have not to answer the first question, but, as to
-the second, I say that it is not true.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I desire to say to General Mercier that, whatever I may
-have to express in my summing-up, I have absolute confidence in his
-word.”
-
-General Mercier.--“I thank you.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If General Mercier were to say here a word contrary to my
-thought on a point as serious as that of which we have been speaking,
-I should be filled with frightful anguish, because I should no longer
-understand anything of what I have seen going on for months; and so I
-shall keep silent, because I am confronted with a soldier whose tact I
-may pass upon in my argument, but whose honesty I respect.”
-
-The Judge.--“Have you anything to add, General?”
-
-General Mercier.--“I have not to come back to the Dreyfus case,
-but, if I had to come back to it, it would be to say, on my word as
-a soldier, that Dreyfus was a traitor who was justly and legally
-condemned.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, you have heard the declarations of M. Mercier,
-the former minister of war. He has given you all the explanations
-desired. He has even gone farther than I desired.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You are mistaken, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-The Judge.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You are mistaken so far as I am concerned. General Mercier
-has not gone far enough. I will not sit down until a certain matter has
-been cleared up. The statement of General Mercier must be made clear,
-for here I am in the centre of my case.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, you are not in the centre of your case. You are away
-from it. You are the lawyer of your client, and you fill the _rôle_ of
-the presiding judge. I point out to you that you are encroaching on the
-Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The question is whether General Mercier, who has uttered
-certain words, answered one question or another. It is regrettable that
-General Mercier should come here to say that a man has been legally
-condemned. It is regrettable, because he cannot be examined as to the
-reasons for his belief. As to his belief, I knew what it was, and I
-knew very well that, if I were to ask him for it, he would proclaim it
-loudly. So I am not surprised. But, when I asked General Mercier: ‘Is
-it true that a secret document was introduced into the Dreyfus case in
-1894?’ he replied: ‘I will not answer’.”
-
-The Judge.--“And he did well.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then I asked General Mercier: ‘Have you anywhere said so?’
-He interrupted me not to answer my first question, but to say: ‘It is
-not true that I have so stated.’ That does not interest me. It is the
-first point that interests me, and on that, in spite of all incidents
-and all emotions, General Mercier is dumb.”
-
-The former minister of war then stepped down, and the former minister
-of justice, M. Trarieux, took the stand.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Trarieux._
-
-His deposition was as follows:
-
-“I did not follow the details of the Dreyfus trial of 1894. But in
-1895 and 1896 serious matters leaked out that much disturbed my mind.
-The first concerned the existence of secret documents that were said
-to have played a part. Much more light has been thrown upon that
-matter since, but I was profoundly agitated by what was said even
-then. If other documents than those communicated to the accused and
-his counsel had indeed been submitted to the judges and had influenced
-their decisions, there was, at least in my opinion, no State reason
-that could justify it. The first principle and the essential basis of
-our penal law is that an accused person cannot appear before justice
-without knowing of what he is accused and concerning what he is to be
-called upon for an explanation. Nevertheless, gentlemen, I was not
-certain of the fact, and so I kept the secret to myself. Afterward my
-trouble was increased by the reading of the testimony of one of the
-experts in the Dreyfus case, which chance had placed in my hands. Thus
-I became acquainted with the document that determined the condemnation,
-and the _bordereau_ of which so much has been said. Resemblances
-in the details of certain letters were pointed out; but a serious
-observation was made, which I found later in the indictment when the
-indictment was made public. It was admitted that the _bordereau_ showed
-important differences from the documents with which it was compared.
-To explain these differences, it was said that undoubtedly they were
-intentional on the part of Dreyfus. I was much struck by this remark.
-It was the observation of a moralist rather than the affirmation of
-an expert; so I could reason with these gentlemen. I asked myself if
-their explanations were not in a certain measure--let us say in a large
-measure--shockingly against the probabilities. I asked myself if it was
-possible that a person, fearing that he might be compromised by his
-handwriting, and wishing to disguise it, had been so stupid as not to
-make it absolutely unrecognizable; if it was possible, in short, that
-this condemned man would have been so stupid, in spite of his intention
-to disarm suspicion, as to leave apparent traces of similarity in
-the document. I confess, gentlemen, I was infinitely more struck
-by the dissimilarities that could not be explained than by certain
-resemblances that are to be found in documents of this sort. I kept my
-secret, gentlemen, but my agitation increased. Serene persons about
-me asked: ‘Why do you concern yourself with the matter?’ I could not
-help it. It is the honor of a land of liberty to concern itself with
-questions of justice, for, if a people wishes to be free, it must first
-of all be just. It is justice that guarantees liberty to all.
-
-“But, after M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation, I asked him to
-relieve my conscience, and to tell me all that he knew. His statements
-tore the veil from my eyes. He enabled me to properly compare
-Esterhazy’s writing with that of the _bordereau_. It was no longer a
-matter of dissimilarities to explain; it was evidence itself; and I
-found no difference that was astonishing. Since then I have repeated
-the comparison many times, not for myself and alone, but with the aid
-of friends. Never have I found a dissenting voice. All who have been
-willing to examine have been impressed by the same evidence, and I may
-say now, anticipating the chronological order of facts, that later the
-experts themselves who contributed to the preparation of the Esterhazy
-case had to recognize in it a large measure, although they concluded
-that the _bordereau_ is not the material work of Major Esterhazy.
-As everybody knows, they have affirmed that the _bordereau_ bears a
-striking resemblance to Major Esterhazy’s writing. Only they set up the
-hypothesis that this writing must be the work of a skilful forger. At
-any rate, these conclusions, made by the experts as well as by myself,
-absolutely overturned the conclusions of 1894. M. Scheurer-Kestner
-placed in my hands the correspondence between Lieutenant-Colonel
-Picquart and his superior, General Gonse, adding a series of other
-letters--thirteen, if I am not mistaken--that passed between the
-same persons after the departure of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart from
-the war department. I have read them and reread them, and have often
-reviewed them since in my mind. They left me in no doubt, but I must
-declare in what measure they enlightened me. I did not find in them
-certain proof that General Gonse had arrived at a fixed decision to
-open a revision of the Dreyfus case at a certain date, but I did find
-in them indisputable proof that this officer admitted the possibility
-of revision, and gave instructions for its preparation, covering all
-the acts of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart with his entire approbation.
-General Gonse did not say to his subordinate: ‘You are mistaken; you
-know it well; you have a secret file in your hands.’ He did not say to
-him: ‘Calm yourself; this is madness.’ No. He said: ‘Act with prudence.
-No irreparable steps. Do not proceed recklessly. The question is one of
-the highest gravity. You must conduct all your negotiations with the
-greatest circumspection.’ Then, on the question of expert examination,
-he added. ‘To submit the question to experts at this moment is to mix
-up third parties with the examination of the affair, under unfavorable
-conditions. I advise other steps.’ And he indicated these. He called
-attention notably to the necessity of ascertaining under what
-conditions the documents enumerated in the _bordereau_ could have been
-communicated by the man who was suspected of being its author, and then
-the letter finished with recommendations of prudence and the expression
-of affectionate sentiments.
-
-“M. Picquart’s reply laid down the question of revision in terms as
-express as possible. It was not possible, indeed, to speak in clearer
-and more prudent language. What did General Gonse reply? His reply was
-formal. He said that, in spite of the disturbing information contained
-in the letter, he still advised most careful procedure. But he added
-a declaration which to me is absolutely decisive concerning his state
-of mind: ‘It is not a question, of course, of stopping the light. It
-is a question of preparing the conditions under which the truth may be
-manifested.’ That was the language of a man who had not in his hands
-certain proof of the treason of Dreyfus. It was the language of a man
-whose conscience and heart were disturbed by the fears that had already
-invaded the mind of Colonel Picquart, and that with the latter had
-become absolute convictions.
-
-“That settled the matter for me, and, when they talk of proof of
-judicial error, I say that it is almost absolutely acquired. Similarity
-of handwritings; proof that there was no certain demonstration of
-the guilt of Dreyfus; demonstration that our military officers
-were familiar with the facts, and had given their approval to
-investigations,--all these circumstances removed from my mind the last
-vestige of doubt.
-
-“General Gonse returned from Cormeilles-en-Parisis on September
-15, the day after the letter of the 14th written to him by Colonel
-Picquart. The same day ‘L’Eclair’ published an article in which it was
-said, I believe, that all veils must be torn off. ‘L’Eclair’ published
-a document which until then had remained a secret, and which, it
-said, had been produced at the deliberations of the council of war
-without the knowledge of Dreyfus or his counsel. This document, said
-‘L’Eclair,’ had determined the condemnation. It was a letter exchanged
-between the military _attachés_ of two embassies, at the foot of which
-were these words: ‘That animal D---- is really becoming too exacting.’
-But ‘L’Eclair’ published it as follows: ‘That animal Dreyfus is really
-becoming too exacting.’ This, M. Scheurer-Kestner told me, was like
-a train of powder through the whole press. A formidable movement of
-opinion rose against the few persons who could still speak of what had
-happened in 1894. The clear proof of guilt had been found. At last
-timid consciences could hope; there was no longer anything to fear.
-Dreyfus was really a traitor, since his relations with _attachés_ of a
-foreign embassy were confessed by a foreign _attaché_ himself.
-
-“Gentlemen, who could have communicated this document? A few days
-later another article was published in ‘Le Matin,’ which reproduced
-the _bordereau_ and some bits of the writing of Dreyfus. Violent
-discussions ensued. There was a renewal of the report of attempts at
-escape. The government was called on to keep careful guard, and an
-interpellation was announced by deputy Castelin, who had collected
-these various rumors and intended to ask the government for an
-explanation as soon as the chamber should reconvene. Then, gentlemen,
-came a radical change in the dispositions of the minister of war.
-Not only was Colonel Picquart requested to cool his ardor, but it
-was deemed necessary to send him away from the war department. It
-was announced that there would be no resistance to M. Castelin’s
-interpellation. It was deemed impossible to make head against such a
-storm. And so, on the 14th, two days before the interpellation, Colonel
-Picquart was sent away from the department on a mission, in the course
-of which he finally reached Tunis. That is the explanation of this
-sudden about-face.
-
-“But who had communicated the document? Not Colonel Picquart. That
-was impossible, for he was after a revision of the Dreyfus case,
-and this communication was clearly made by some one opposed to such
-revision. The communication to ‘L’Eclair’ was not made out of kindness
-for Dreyfus; it was a final blow at the condemned man, the last word
-that was to arch his tomb. It could not have been Dreyfus’s counsel,
-for his counsel did not know the document. It could not have been the
-experts, for they had never had it in their hands. No journalist could
-have obtained it, except from some one in a position to be acquainted
-with it. The persons in such a position were not numerous. There were
-six, or eight, or ten, in the department who had it at their disposal.
-There was certainly one of these, perhaps several, whose interest
-it was to thwart Colonel Picquart, and who, to this end committed
-this indiscretion, this criminal indiscretion, for a crime had to be
-committed in order to communicate the document under the circumstances
-in which it was reproduced by the newspaper. This newspaper, in fact,
-had printed the passage in the terms that I have just stated, but it
-is now known that the document did not say ‘That animal Dreyfus.’ It
-said ‘That animal D....’ It had been necessary to alter the document
-in order to make it more decisive. Evidently some one was bent on
-laying a trap for Colonel Picquart, bent on threatening him in order
-to make the production of his testimony impossible; some one wanted
-to close his mouth, and threatened to ruin him if he dared to speak.
-Colonel Picquart desired an investigation to determine the author, or
-authors, of the plots against him, and, indeed, if they had succeeded
-in discovering the guilty party, the whole case might have been cleared
-up. On December 18, 1897, I went to the minister of justice to lay the
-facts before him, finding, moreover, that he was not at all familiar
-with the situation. He promised to consult the prime minister. On
-December 23 he notified me that the prime minister had had an interview
-with the minister of war, who had promised to send to Colonel Picquart
-for the text of the dispatches, and compare them with the writing of an
-officer whom Colonel Picquart suspected. He told me that the minister
-of war had promised to examine these writings himself, and that later
-he would let me know the result. This he did on the 28th. The answer
-of the minister of war was that he did not consider Colonel Picquart’s
-suspicions well founded, and that he did not see sufficient similarity
-in the handwritings to warrant suspicion. I have not to inquire,
-gentlemen, whether he was mistaken; it is too delicate a question to
-be examined by me. But it is certain that, though the author of these
-documents could not be designated with certainty, a crime had been
-three times repeated in the Speranza letter of 1896 and in the two
-dispatches of 1897. So I expected that a supplementary investigation
-would be undertaken. But nothing of the kind. There was silence for
-several days, and then in despair Colonel Picquart decided to lodge
-with the public prosecutor on January 4, 1898, a formal complaint that
-these four documents were forged. Another week went by, and nothing was
-done. Major Ravary continued to think that these facts did not call for
-the examination solicited. Undoubtedly they had not, in his eyes, the
-importance that Colonel Picquart attached to them, and so on January
-10, six days later, the council of war met, and, before it, was read
-the indictment with which you are familiar,--an indictment, astounding
-to say, which made not the slightest allusion to the facts which
-Colonel Picquart considered so serious.
-
-“It is certain--Major Esterhazy confesses it--that a document was
-withdrawn from the war department,--the document which he says was
-delivered to him by a veiled lady. Who took away that document? What
-was done in the course of investigation to find out who took it
-away? Nothing. I pointed out to the minister of war that letters and
-dispatches had been sent to Colonel Picquart in order to close his
-mouth, telling him not to come back from Tunis, and that his future
-would be destroyed, if he should come back. Who sent these letters and
-dispatches? No attempt has been made to find out.
-
-“In conclusion, I have but a single word to say. After my participation
-in this affair I desired to attend the hearing before the council of
-war to see what would take place there. I mingled with the public,
-and, not as former minister of justice or as a senator, but as a
-simple citizen, I was present at the trial. I was conscious from the
-first moment that I was not witnessing an ordinary trial, but a trial
-like no other. In the first place I heard read a declaration from
-General Saussier that he had ordered this matter carried before the
-council of war in order to clear up obscurities which, in his opinion,
-could be cleared up only by an open debate. By this I was somewhat
-reassured, for to have an open debate was in itself a great deal. Now,
-gentlemen, there immediately appeared a lawyer for Mme. Dreyfus and her
-children, and another for the complainant. They asked to be accepted
-as participants in the trial. I knew that there were precedents for
-this, notably in the Kraemer case at Lyons; Dalloz and other authors
-say that councils of war can admit such participation. But in this case
-it was denied. Then came the reading of the indictment. This indictment
-was a plea for the accused, and a fierce attack upon his accusers. As
-soon as the reporter opened his mouth, it was apparent that he was not
-present as an accuser, but as the foremost defender of the accused.
-Then I asked myself: ‘Where, then, is the open debate called for by
-General Saussier?’ Up to the moment when the closing of the doors made
-it impossible for me to hear more of the trial, I saw nothing but a
-semblance of an open debate. And now, gentlemen, I have told you all
-that I know, all that I have seen, all that I can say.”
-
-At this point an adjournment was taken for the day.
-
-
-
-
-FOURTH DAY--FEBRUARY 10.
-
-The first witness at the fourth day’s hearing was to have been Mme.
-Dreyfus, whom at first the court had refused to hear on the question of
-Zola’s good faith, but whom, after further reflection, it had decided
-to hear. Nevertheless Mme. Dreyfus did not appear, M. Labori consenting
-to excuse her in view of a letter which he had received from her, and
-which read as follows:
-
- _Dear Master_:
-
- I answered to the call of my name at Tuesday’s hearing, in spite of
- my great agitation. I made the effort because I hoped to express to
- the court and the jury my deep gratitude to, and my admiration for,
- M. Zola, who, obeying the voice of his conscience, has sacrificed
- himself for justice and truth with a sublime disdain of the insults
- and threats which he has drawn upon himself. I hoped also to declare
- my absolute faith in my husband’s innocence,--an innocence which, I
- am convinced, will be established before long,--and also my sincere
- gratitude to you, dear master, who display so much courage and talent
- to secure the triumph of the truth. The anguish of these three days,
- added to all that I have suffered for three years, has put me in
- a condition in which I could not endure a fresh trial. Permit me,
- then, to absent myself from the court and accept, I beg of you, the
- expression of my most distinguished sentiments.
-
-  L. DREYFUS.
-
- FEBRUARY 10, 1898.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Trarieux._
-
-M. Trarieux was recalled to the witness-stand.
-
-M. Labori.--“Will M. Trarieux tell us what he knows about the way in
-which Colonel Picquart’s mission was executed?”
-
-The Judge.--“In other words, you ask M. Trarieux if he is familiar with
-the mission entrusted to Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not ask the object of the mission. I simply wish to
-know if the circumstances surrounding it are familiar to the witness,
-in which case I should like to have him tell us what they were.”
-
-The Judge.--“General de Boisdeffre told us yesterday that it was a
-secret mission.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not ask the witness the object of the mission. It
-is secret, like everything else in this case, but those in a position
-to know the details of the mission know that their declarations would
-compromise no higher interest. It is a secret, because it is a secret;
-there is no other reason.”
-
-The Judge.--“It may involve secrets concerning the national defence.
-That is why I will put no question on the point.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is so said, I know, but I should like to find out
-whether M. Trarieux is familiar with the circumstances under which
-Colonel Picquart was asked to undertake his mission, and whether there
-was anything extraordinary about these circumstances.”
-
-The Judge.--“Witness, you understand the question. I will ask you to
-say what you think it is your duty to say.”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“I saw nothing in General Gonse’s letters in the nature
-of a secret concerning the national defence. All that I can say is that
-I got an impression from the letters that Colonel Picquart was in most
-affectionate and cordial relations with his superiors, and seemed to
-command their entire confidence. The reading of this correspondence
-gave me the idea--though this is but an interpretation--that Colonel
-Picquart was sent away from Paris for a certain reason. At first he
-was sent to the east; then to the south. Frequently new orders came to
-him, taking him ever a little farther from Paris, and finally he had to
-cross the Mediterranean and go to Algeria and Tunis. These letters gave
-me the impression that, after having sent him away from Paris on the
-eve of the Castelin interpellation, they were determined that he should
-not come back.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Could M. Trarieux tell us whether, while he was minister
-of justice, he received a visit from a lawyer especially interested in
-the matters in question here?”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“I suppose you refer to the visit of M. Demange?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“Is this in relation to the Dreyfus case?”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is in relation to a document involved in the Dreyfus
-trial.”
-
-The Judge.--“I ask you to say nothing about it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yesterday General Mercier thought it his duty to refer
-to the Dreyfus case in words which, like all those that come from a
-certain direction here, are incomplete. They were received with very
-violent manifestations, but I have not been able to obtain anything
-additional, because it is an understood thing here that in this matter
-anyone can say anything that will injure us, but no one has a right to
-say anything that can help us.”
-
-The Judge.--“Pardon me, M. Labori, I believe that I preside here with
-all the independence desirable. If I prevent M. Trarieux from speaking
-of the Dreyfus case, it is because there has been a decree of the
-court. You remind me of what General Mercier said yesterday. Permit me
-to add that, if the general said it, it was because I did not have time
-to stop him. He spoke too quickly; otherwise I would have prevented
-him. You ask questions that violate the decree which we have rendered.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I shall ask all the questions that I think useful to my
-offence, whatever your opinion of them may be. You will pass upon them,
-_Monsieur le Président_,--and the court with you, for you are not the
-sole master,--as you see fit.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I think that the court misunderstands. None of us
-intend to violate its decrees. What we wish to point out is that,
-in spite of you, _Monsieur le Président_,--you yourself have said
-it,--General Mercier made a certain declaration yesterday. We desired
-to bring out today either a contradiction or a confirmation of the
-words uttered by General Mercier, and, by virtue of a decree of the
-court, you say to us: ‘That is not possible.’ The jurors will observe
-that for a court of justice this is a singular situation. The charge
-may be made, but it may not be contradicted.”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“The charge, whether against M. Scheurer-Kestner or
-against M. Mathieu Dreyfus, that they are responsible for the existing
-agitation and disorder is quite erroneous and ill-founded. In fact,
-there are two ways of obtaining the revision of a judicial error, and
-Article 443 of the code of criminal examination defines them. The first
-is this: once a condemnation has been pronounced, if it be discovered
-that the facts on which this condemnation rest were committed by
-some other person than the person condemned, this other person may
-be prosecuted, and, if a condemnation is secured, this condemnation
-being contradictory of the previous condemnation of an innocent man,
-a revision of the judicial error becomes imperative. Thus these two
-condemnations necessarily bring about, _ipso facto_, a revision of the
-trial. The second method is provided by a law passed by the present
-legislature on June 6, 1895, under the government to which I had the
-honor to belong. It provides that, if, after a condemnation, a new
-fact be discovered which was unknown at the time of the condemnation,
-and which is of a nature to establish the innocence of the party
-condemned, the matter may be laid before the minister of justice to
-induce him to procure a revision of the case. The minister of justice
-is asked to lay the matter before the court of appeals, which is judge
-in such a matter. Now, it is indisputable that M. Mathieu Dreyfus took
-the first method, for, by preferring a formal complaint against Major
-Esterhazy, he hoped to secure a condemnation of him, the immediate
-consequence of which would have been a revision of his brother’s case.
-The question is whether he would not have done better to take the
-second method. It seems to be the opinion that he should have applied
-to the minister of justice and asked him to lay the matter before the
-court. I think that this is a mistaken opinion. Suppose, instead of
-making the complaint against Major Esterhazy, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had
-applied to the minister of justice for a revision, what new fact could
-he have pointed out to induce the minister of justice to lay the matter
-before the court of appeals? There was only one,--the similarity of
-Major Esterhazy’s handwriting to that of the _bordereau_ attributed by
-the verdict of 1894 to Captain Dreyfus. If this had been pointed out
-to the minister of justice, it would have been necessary to draw the
-immediate conclusion that the author of this handwriting, M. Esterhazy,
-was the guilty party. It would have been impossible to lay the demand
-for revision before the court of appeals prior to a decision upon this
-question after a confrontation with M. Esterhazy. No revision of the
-judicial error of which Dreyfus was the victim could have been ordered,
-until it had been established in the presence of the party directly
-interested, M. Esterhazy, that this error was committed by him, or
-that it was the result of his crime, and that he was the author of the
-_bordereau_ unjustly attributed to Dreyfus. Therefore the minister of
-justice would have had to prosecute M. Esterhazy. But this he could not
-have done himself, for the simple reason that M. Esterhazy, being a
-soldier, is responsible only to the military courts, and consequently
-the minister of justice would have had to hand the matter over to the
-minister of war, who would have been charged with the prosecution. If,
-then, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had chosen the method of appealing to the
-minister of justice, not only would nothing have been gained, but time
-would have been lost, for the same result would have been reached by a
-circuitous route.”
-
-A group of witnesses was then called, consisting of M. Forzinetti, M.
-Lebrun-Renault, and others who had heard M. Lebrun-Renault declare that
-Dreyfus had never made a confession to him. But, the court declining
-to hear any of them, on the ground that their testimony concerned the
-Dreyfus case, they were all obliged to retire.
-
-
-_Testimony of Doctor Socquet._
-
-Dr. Socquet was then recalled to the stand.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I forgot to ask Dr. Socquet whether he found Mme. de
-Boulancy at No. 22, Boulevard des Batignolles.”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Will he tell the court how he succeeded in finding
-her, since that was the only address that he knew?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“Through the letter handed to me by _Monsieur le
-Président_. He gave me a doctor’s certificate establishing her
-sickness, which was accompanied by a letter that gave the address.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I remind the court of an incident that occurred at
-the last hearing. I informed the court that Mme. de Boulancy did not
-live in the Boulevard des Batignolles, and the court answered: ‘She
-does live there, for the doctor’s certificate designates that address.’
-Therefore I am at a loss to understand. Does _Monsieur le Président_
-recall the incident?”
-
-The Judge.--“Perfectly. I am looking for the address in the letter.”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“It is on the third page.”
-
-M. Zola.--“From whom is this letter?”
-
-The judge then read the letter from Mme. de Boulancy which he had read
-at a previous hearing, but including this time the following sentence,
-which before he had omitted: “I am with my family, at No. 54, Avenue de
-Neuilly.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The court will remember that this information had not
-been previously furnished me. Therefore I have no further occasion to
-ask the doctor how he found Mme. de Boulancy, but I should like to ask
-him another question.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Reference to the stenographic report will show that Mme. de
-Boulancy’s present address was not given at the hearing.”
-
-The Judge.--“That is a matter of no importance.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I make a reservation, and pass on. In the course of
-Dr. Socquet’s visit to Mme. de Boulancy was there any conversation
-between them about matters other than his sickness?”
-
-Dr. Socquet [after some hesitation].--“Yes, we talked of something
-else.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Something that did not concern her health?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did Dr. Socquet ask Mme. de Boulancy the following
-question: ‘Is it true that you have other letters from Major Esterhazy
-than those that have been published?’”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did the witness say to Mme. de Boulancy: ‘Is it true
-that you have three telegrams from Major Esterhazy?’”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did Mme. de Boulancy declare spontaneously: ‘I have
-letters from Major Esterhazy which are much more serious than those
-that have been published?’ And did she also declare, of her own
-initiative: ‘It has been incorrectly stated that I had three telegrams
-from Major Esterhazy; I have only two’?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Was the name Esterhazy uttered at all in the course of
-the conversation?”
-
-Dr. Socquet [after reflection].--“Yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Under what circumstances was this name uttered, and by
-whom?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“By Mme. de Boulancy.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“As Mme. de Boulancy would not have uttered this word
-singly, will the witness tell us what other words she added?”
-
-The Judge.--“I call M. Clemenceau’s attention to the fact that he is
-entering into the domain of a private conversation.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The defence attaches the greatest importance to the
-testimony of Mme. de Boulancy and to the production of the letters
-which are still in her possession, as well as of the two telegrams
-which she also possesses. Under these circumstances we shall do all
-that we possibly can, and shall talk as long as the court does not
-prevent us, to secure the appearance of Mme. de Boulancy that she may
-enlighten this court and this jury regarding Major Esterhazy’s letters.
-I ask the witness what other words Mme. de Boulancy added to the word
-Esterhazy.”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“I am entirely ready to answer, but it is a matter
-outside of the mission that the court entrusted to me. Still, if it be
-not inappropriate, I will say that, when I examined Mme. de Boulancy,
-she talked to me of sundry matters,--among others of the way in which
-she had reached her present condition, and the annoyance that she felt.
-I let her talk, for I wanted to form an opinion as to the state of
-her health. She spoke of Major Esterhazy’s letters, and told me that
-she had complained at the office of the public prosecutor, who was
-looking into her charge, that a person had abused her letters. She said
-that she had entrusted these letters to a person who had found them
-interesting, and who had used them in a way of which she did not learn
-until later. She told me especially that this person had entrusted
-them to ‘Le Figaro,’ and that, an hour after he brought them back, M.
-Hadamard, sub-chief of police, came to seize them. She added that all
-these letters were from Major Esterhazy. That is all that she said to
-me on that subject.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“By ‘all these letters’ did she mean those published by
-‘Le Figaro,’ or the other letters that she had in her possession, or
-had deposited with one of her lawyers?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“She said: ‘All his letters.’ Six letters, plus a
-seventh, which contains the word ‘Uhlans.’”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did she say that they were genuine?”
-
-Dr. Socquet.--“That is what she said. I did not question her. I allowed
-her to talk, seeing no objection to it.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. du Paty de Clam._
-
-M. Socquet then stepped down, and M. du Paty de Clam took his place.
-
-“_Monsieur le Président_,” said he, “I am called here to testify
-concerning the Esterhazy case. I am ready to answer all questions,
-except those that involve professional secrecy. But it is with deep
-sadness that I call attention to the fact that matters of my private
-life have been raised here. It does not embarrass me personally, for I
-have always behaved as a gallant man should. I have the esteem of my
-superiors, and that is enough for me. But I can not admit that it is
-allowable to reflect upon the honor of a young girl who has always been
-respected. I ask the court, in the name of French honor, to eliminate
-such questions from the discussion, and I will answer all others.”
-
-The Judge.--“But here there has been no question” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“I have referred here to but one woman, Mlle. Blanche
-de Comminges. It seems to be the opinion of the newspapers that I
-insinuated, or meant to say, that there had been between Mlle. de
-Comminges and Colonel du Paty de Clam private relations susceptible
-of an annoying interpretation. Nothing of the kind has been in my
-thoughts. Mlle. Blanche de Comminges is a young girl of fifty-five
-years; she is a friend of Colonel Picquart; her name has been used in
-telegrams which Colonel Picquart considers forgeries, and in regard to
-which he has complained. It is only of this that I have spoken. Now I
-come to different questions. In the first place, was M. du Paty de Clam
-ever acquainted with the father of Mlle. de Comminges?”
-
-M. du Paty de Clam.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he have a correspondence with one or more members of
-his family?”
-
-M. du Paty de Clam.--“It is on this point, _Monsieur le Président_,
-that I ask permission to keep silent. I can reveal nothing. This
-concerns the honor of a family, the memory of a dead person, and I will
-not do it. It is private ground. It is my domain, and no one has a
-right to infringe upon it. It has no relation with the Esterhazy case,
-and I will say nothing about it.”
-
-The Judge.--“You understand the answer?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes, _Monsieur le Président_, I understand the answer, and
-I understand also that, though you consider it good, I do not.”
-
-The Judge.--“Exactly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not, and I will tell you why, if you will permit me.”
-
-The Judge.--“Go ahead.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I never before saw an assize court like this. All means
-are sought here to prevent the light from being thrown on any point.”
-
-The Judge.--“These are _your_ witnesses.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, these are not _our_ witnesses; they are
-witnesses. M. du Paty de Clam is called because we wanted a complete
-investigation, and, whenever we put a question, in the absence of a
-good reason why it should not be answered, we are offered two bad
-ones. When there has been a consideration of the matter behind closed
-doors, they say: ‘We will not answer, because this occurred behind
-closed doors.’ I say this to the jurors: Are you not as worthy to keep
-a secret as French military officers? If closed doors are necessary,
-let the doors be closed. We do not distrust you. Then they appeal to
-professional secrecy. When that will not do, they invoke secrets of
-State. And when they can invoke neither professional secrecy or secrets
-of State or closed doors, they invoke private secrets. Consequently I
-have no further questions to put to M. du Paty de Clam.”
-
-
-_Testimony of Colonel Henry._
-
-The next witness was Colonel Henry.
-
-M. Labori.--“Will Colonel Henry tell us how far the facts related
-in Major Ravary’s report are correct, and what documents Colonel
-Picquart took from the files? Will Colonel Henry tell us whether that
-report described correctly the scene that took place in his presence
-in Colonel Picquart’s private office between M. Leblois and Colonel
-Picquart, and what that scene really was?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I was absent when the file was taken by Colonel
-Picquart. I was on leave of absence, in August or September, 1896.
-Colonel Picquart asked M. Gribelin for the file, and he gave it to him.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Gribelin made the same answer.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“M. Gribelin, the keeper of the archives, to whom I had
-given the key of my closet,” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“Thus it results from the testimony of the witness” ...
-
-The Judge.--“M. Gribelin was under Colonel Picquart’s orders.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But what was Colonel Henry’s position?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Major.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Under whose orders?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Under the orders of Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The chief of the service was M. Picquart. Consequently,
-if I rightly understand, Colonel Picquart, who was at the head of the
-service, asked M. Gribelin, who was under his orders, like Major Henry
-himself, to give him, by opening the closet with the key,--that is,
-under the most natural conditions,--a file that was a part of Colonel
-Picquart’s service. Is that it?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Exactly. If I had been present, I would have pointed
-out to Colonel Picquart that my instructions, given me by Colonel
-Sandherr, were to give this file to nobody, except in the presence of
-the sub-chief of staff, the chief of staff, and myself.”
-
-The Judge.--“It was Colonel Sandherr who gave those orders. He is dead,
-I believe.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“He was sick and unconscious.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Under these circumstances Colonel Sandherr had been
-replaced by Colonel Picquart. Does Colonel Henry invoke against Colonel
-Picquart, then his chief, instructions given him by a previous chief?
-Will Colonel Henry tell us who succeeded Colonel Picquart in the war
-offices?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Colonel Picquart’s successor is General Gonse,
-sub-chief of staff, for it was to General Gonse that Colonel Picquart
-handed over his service when in November, 1897, he started on a
-mission.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Who is now in the service under General Gonse’s orders?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I am.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Thank you.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did not Colonel Henry confer concerning a certain
-matter directly with M. Leblois? I ask no details.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“You refer to the Bouleau affair? One day there
-was,--that is to say, I talked to Colonel Picquart in presence of M.
-Leblois. Colonel Picquart said: ‘When we are embarrassed concerning any
-question of spying, you can refer to M. Leblois, who is a lawyer, and
-will be able’” ...
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“When you wanted to send an envelope containing no
-matter what to another office, and did not want this envelope to be
-opened, had you not a method of assuring yourself that it would not be
-opened? Was it not your habit to place your signature on envelopes that
-you did not wish to be opened?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Was it not the habit of the witness to do that?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“No.”
-
-The Judge.--“But one of the witnesses yesterday said that it was?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me. Permit me to interrupt to ask that the question
-be put as we frame it. I protest; there has been already too much said.
-I ask that the question be thus put: Did Colonel Henry once do this?”
-
-Colonel Henry then admitted that he placed his signature on the secret
-file. The witness was then confronted with M. Leblois, whom Colonel
-Henry said that he had never seen, except in Colonel Picquart’s
-presence.
-
-M. Leblois.--“I had a long discussion with Colonel Henry concerning
-a matter that had been under examination in the office of the public
-prosecutor at Nancy.”
-
-The Judge.--“In the absence of Colonel Picquart?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“We talked once in the presence of Colonel Picquart.
-The latter said to me: ‘When we shall have need of additional
-information concerning some matter of spying, here is M. Leblois, who
-will be able to lend us his aid.’ Well, I have never conferred with M.
-Leblois.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“This conference lasted several hours in your own private
-office. You admitted it before the council of war.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. de la Batut._
-
-The next witness was M. de la Batut, who testified as follows:
-
-“At the time of which I speak Lieutenant du Paty de Clam was giving a
-course of instruction to the conditional volunteers of a year. When
-the conditional volunteers came to the regiment, they were given, as
-a subject of historical composition, ‘The Wars of the First Empire.’
-I wrote such a composition as I was able to from my recollections of
-the matter, and I finished by saying that it was to be hoped that
-henceforth intelligence, and not cannons, would govern the world. The
-next day the lieutenant-colonel sent for me, and said: ‘You are from
-the south; you shall have a fortnight in prison.’ I answered: ‘My
-colonel, I am not exactly from the south, I am from Dordogne.’ ‘Yes,
-yes, you are from the south. You shall have a fortnight in prison for
-your composition.’ And I was taken to prison. The colonel, who was
-absent, returned the next morning, and, probably finding my punishment
-excessive, hastened to relieve me of it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“After he had thus relieved you, was the punishment
-replaced by another of a more general character?”
-
-M. de la Batut.--“Yes; the colonel said to me: ‘I relieve you of your
-punishment, because it was a little too severe, and you have not yet
-the military spirit. But you and all your comrades will get no leave of
-absence for a month.’”
-
-Then the following witnesses were successively called and dismissed,
-because their testimony was to relate to the Dreyfus case: Major Besson
-d’Ormescheville, M. Maurel, M. Vallecalle, M. Eichmann, M. Gallet, and
-M. Roche. Then came Major Ravary.
-
-
-_Testimony of Major Ravary._
-
-M. Labori.--“I find the following in Major Ravary’s report: ‘One
-evening, when Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, on returning to Paris, suddenly
-entered M. Picquart’s office, he found M. Leblois, the lawyer, who
-paid the colonel long and frequent visits, sitting near the desk and
-searching with him the secret file. A photograph bearing the words,
-“That scoundrel D...” had been taken from the file and spread upon the
-desk.’”
-
-M. Ravary.--“There is an error. It is _a_ secret file, not _the_
-secret file.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask first not what this file contained, since it is
-secret, but to what it related?”
-
-M. Ravary.--“I do not exactly understand. A witness said that there
-was a document spread between M. Leblois and Colonel Picquart. I know
-nothing more.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Unless it is understood that there is always to be some
-method of evasion, I insist on a reply from M. Ravary. Here we are
-squarely in the Esterhazy matter. We have Major Ravary’s report. He was
-the official reporter. It is not possible that he accepted testimony
-that has been contradicted here by the evidence of M. Gribelin and M.
-Henry. It is not possible that M. Ravary accepted evidence without
-pressing the witnesses. It is not possible that a matter so serious
-as a secret file should have been referred to in a report read to the
-council of war without resulting in an examination of its contents.
-I do not ask what its contents were, but to what it related. If the
-witness cannot answer, I shall infer that judicial examinations before
-a council of war are carried on as we have never seen them carried on
-in trials in which we take part.”
-
-M. Ravary--“I protest that all our examinations are carried on with the
-greatest honesty and conscientiousness. As to the document of which M.
-Labori speaks, it did not interest me, and for this reason. I had an
-accused man before me, Major Esterhazy. I was to seek proof either of
-his innocence or of his guilt, and this document had nothing to do with
-Major Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“This document was a part of the Esterhazy file. I ask
-the court to ask M. Ravary, who conducted the examination, what this
-document was.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“As to that, I am completely ignorant.”
-
-M. Labori.--“That is enough; I am satisfied.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The witness said in his report that there was a file
-of documents open on Colonel Picquart’s desk. I should like to know if
-he maintains that declaration.”
-
-M. Ravary--“It was so stated in the testimony of either Colonel Henry
-or M. Gribelin.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I remind the court that M. Gribelin said that there
-was a file of documents in an envelope. Colonel Henry said the same
-thing, and so I ask the court to recall M. Gribelin.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“I said either M. Gribelin or Colonel Henry.”
-
-M. Gribelin, being recalled testified as follows: “What I said was
-that the documents were contained in a yellow envelope; they were not
-scattered; I even specified, in my written deposition, that they were
-not searching the documents.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“My report is a sincere expression of the file of
-documents. Let the file be called for.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“M. Gribelin says that the file was in an envelope.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“The envelope was cut lengthwise.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The documents were in an envelope, and the side of
-the envelope was cut; so it was impossible to know what was in the
-envelope.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“But there was not one visit simply; there were several. M.
-Leblois has been seen several times at the office of Lieutenant-Colonel
-Picquart.”
-
-The Judge.--“We know it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Let us not depart from the question. M. Gribelin says
-that on the day that he entered there was a file of documents on the
-desk relating to carrier pigeons,--documents in an envelope.”
-
-The Judge.--“Exactly.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The report says that there was an open file of
-documents from which had been taken a document containing these words,
-‘That scoundrel D....’”
-
-M. Ravary.--“But I wrote that in my report on the strength, not of M.
-Gribelin’s testimony, but of the testimony of another. Send for the
-Esterhazy file, and you will see.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But we ask nothing better.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“That does not concern me. My conduct was that of an honest
-man; that is all.”
-
-
-_Testimony of General de Pellieux._
-
-The next witness to take the stand was General de Pellieux. “I feel,”
-he began, “that it is necessary that the whole truth should be known,
-and I shall tell it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“We shall remember this promise.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“On the 14th of last November, M. Mathieu
-Dreyfus lodged with the minister of war a complaint against Major
-Esterhazy. He formally accused him of being the author of the
-_bordereau_ that had led to the condemnation of his brother, basing
-his accusation upon an absolute similarity of handwriting. On the
-16th I received from the military governor of Paris an order to
-make a military investigation. I was instructed to give M. Mathieu
-Dreyfus an opportunity of proving his charge. I sent for him. He
-brought me no proof of any sort,--nothing but allegations. In reality,
-my investigation was virtually over, but, in view of the public
-feeling that the charge had created, I felt that I could not stop. I
-received from M. Scheurer-Kestner the names of M. Leblois and Colonel
-Picquart. M. Leblois came. He had a file of documents, composed of
-letters, _fac-similes_ of Major Esterhazy’s writing, a telegram in
-characters similar to those used in print, which had been addressed
-to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and of which I do not recall the terms, and
-fourteen letters from General Gonse. He showed me these fourteen
-letters, and I read them. I read likewise the drafts of the letters
-addressed by Colonel Picquart to M. Leblois. The latter told me that
-he had been long in relationship with Colonel Picquart, and had often
-been to see him at the war department, and he gave me a history of his
-relations with Colonel Picquart. These relations, then, are admitted.
-M. Leblois has been at the office of the minister of war, and he has
-in his hands letters from Colonel Picquart. For some days there has
-been talk of the communication of a secret file. It is admitted that
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart placed General Gonse’s letters in the hands
-of M. Leblois. It is admitted that he said to M. Leblois, who repeated
-it to M. Scheurer-Kestner, that a file in a war office contained a
-document formally accusing Major Esterhazy of treason. Here I will
-point out that, in my opinion, there is nothing more secret, nothing
-more sacred, in the world than an examination begun against an officer
-for the crime of treason. There is nothing in the world so sacred as
-a man’s honor, as long as he remains unconvicted of the crime with
-which he is charged. Well, Colonel Picquart told M. Leblois that in the
-office of the minister of war there was a file containing a document
-that formally accused Major Esterhazy of treason. I defy anyone to
-contradict me. There you have communication of a secret file, proved
-and patent.
-
-“Now I can explain General Gonse’s letters. They do not relate to
-the Dreyfus case, but solely to the Esterhazy case. General Gonse
-recommends his subordinate to act with the greatest prudence. He tells
-him that he does not wish to stop him in his inquiries,--naturally, for
-they never stop an inquiry, once it is begun,--but at the same time
-he cautions him against taking irreparable steps, such a step as the
-immediate arrest of Colonel Esterhazy would have been. I reported to
-the military governor of Paris that there was no proof against Major
-Esterhazy, but that Colonel Picquart had made a serious blunder from a
-military standpoint. As a result of this first report, it appeared that
-there had been some confusion, and that it was the intention of the
-minister that my investigation should be a judicial one. The governor
-did not so understand it, nor did I.
-
-“I immediately began a new investigation, with a clerk, and acting as a
-magistrate. I summoned the accused, and confronted him with the charges
-against him. But first I had a search made of Colonel Picquart’s
-premises. Because of this search I have been bitterly attacked. Let me
-say that it was my absolute right, given me by the code of military
-justice as a judicial officer of police. Moreover, it was my duty. This
-search had been demanded of me, and I could not refuse without being
-suspected of an indisposition to get at the truth. So I instituted a
-regular search through M. Aymard, a police commissioner connected with
-the government of Paris. The results of the search were brought to me
-under seal, and I broke the seal in presence of Colonel Picquart. Of
-the documents taken I kept but a single letter, to which I will refer
-directly. All of the other letters I returned to Colonel Picquart,
-after a cursory glance at them. There were numerous letters from
-his mother, which I have perfectly respected, and numerous letters
-from Mlle. Blanche de Comminges, one of which was the only document
-that I retained as being possibly of interest. Then I summoned the
-various witnesses whom I had seen in my first investigation, and
-examined them on two points. First, concerning the _bordereau_. M.
-Mathieu Dreyfus had accused Major Esterhazy of being the author of
-the _bordereau_. About this _bordereau_ much has been said. Few
-people have seen it; I believe that it would be easy to count them.
-But many have seen _fac-similes_, and I, who have seen it, must say
-that these _fac-similes_ singularly resemble forgeries, and that to
-pretend to base an expert opinion of handwriting on _fac-similes_ that
-have appeared in the newspapers is, it seems to me, to go a long way.
-Nothing less resembles the newspaper _fac-simile_ than the original
-_bordereau_; consequently all the expert testimony made so lightly is
-of no value.
-
-“I listened to Major Esterhazy’s defence concerning the _bordereau_.
-As it is well known, I will not repeat it. He tried to demonstrate
-that it would have been impossible for him to produce the documents
-of which the _bordereau_ speaks. The council of war has judged that
-matter, and I will not insist. But in the course of Colonel Picquart’s
-examination an incident occurred. He spoke to me of the document
-of which M. Leblois and M. Scheurer-Kestner had spoken to me, a
-card-telegram which, according to Colonel Picquart, was of the same
-origin as the _bordereau_. This document was torn,--had been torn and
-pasted together. It contained writing which seemed to prove, according
-to Colonel Picquart, that Major Esterhazy was in suspicious relations
-with an agent of a foreign power. The first thing to be done was to
-establish the genuineness of this document, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
-being the only one who had any knowledge of it. It was very certain
-that this card-telegram had not been sent to the person for whom it
-was intended, and consequently had not reached him. That in itself
-was sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the document; it had
-not been deposited in the post-office, and bore no post-office stamp.
-In examining other witnesses, I spoke of this document, and learned
-that attempts had been made to give it the appearance of authenticity
-that it lacked. It was desired to have it so photographed as to cause
-all traces of tear to disappear, that it might be said: ‘It was torn
-afterwards; when it came, it was intact.’ An effort was made also to
-have a post-office stamp placed upon it, in order that it could be
-said that it had been seized in the mails. To me this document had no
-appearance of genuineness. I am astonished that Colonel Picquart, chief
-of the bureau of information of a great power,--we have not yet fallen
-to the level of the republic of Andorra or of St. Marin,--an officer
-who ought to be intelligent, should be naive enough to believe that a
-military _attaché_ of a great foreign power would have corresponded
-with one of its agents by a card-telegram. A card-telegram left
-with a janitor, and liable to be opened by a janitor, or any other
-servant,--is it thus that they would have corresponded with Esterhazy?
-I confess that I did not believe it. I said to Colonel Picquart:
-‘You have sought other proofs against Esterhazy; what means have you
-employed of finding them?’ And I come now to a very serious matter. He
-confessed that for months, without the order or the authorization of
-his superiors, General Gonse and General de Boisdeffre, he had been
-seizing in the mails all of Esterhazy’s correspondence. For eight
-months he opened that officer’s letters, and was obliged to admit that
-he had found nothing. He admitted that without orders he had had that
-officer’s premises searched, overturning his furniture, disarranging
-his wife’s effects, and ransacking the apartments; and proof exists--at
-first he admitted it--that a piece of furniture was forced open, and,
-being unable to lock it again, they had a key made for that purpose, so
-that today, instead of two keys for this piece of furniture, there are
-three. It seemed to me that this was proof of inadmissible manœuvres,
-and I confess that, when a council of war acquitted Esterhazy, I was
-not astonished. Of my participation in that acquittal I am proud.
-I succeeded in showing that there were not two traitors among the
-officers, but only one, and that he had been justly condemned. General
-de Boisdeffre and General Mercier were allowed to say a word of
-Dreyfus; I ask to be similarly authorized.”
-
-The judge refused to allow the request.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Just now I heard the witness say that there is
-nothing more serious than to communicate documents accusing officers
-of treason, especially when these documents were secretly filed in
-the office of the minister of war. I ask him, then, for his opinion
-concerning the following facts: a secret document was taken from the
-office of the minister of war, carried about Paris by a veiled lady,
-and handed by this veiled lady to Major Esterhazy, who brought it back
-to the office of the minister of war, and, strange to say, the minister
-of war gave him a receipt for it. I would like to know the opinion of
-General de Pellieux on the withdrawal of this first document.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have no opinion to express.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Ah! very well.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“What opinion do you expect me to express?”
-
-The Judge.--“Were you familiar, in the Esterhazy case, with the
-communication of secret documents by Colonel Picquart to M. Leblois?”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“That is not what we are talking about. It is agreed
-that, when General de Pellieux learns that a document accusing Major
-Esterhazy is communicated to a third party, he is indignant. It is
-established, on the other hand, that, when a document accusing another
-officer is carried about Paris, he has no opinion. General de Pellieux
-has said that he caused a search to be made of M. Picquart’s premises.
-May I point out to him that M. Picquart was a witness, and ask him
-also why he did not cause a search to be made of the premises of M.
-Esterhazy, who was the party accused?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“It was absolutely useless to search the
-premises of Major Esterhazy, as that had been done during eight months
-by Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Eighteen months had elapsed between what General
-de Pellieux calls the searches of Major Esterhazy’s premises by M.
-Picquart and the Esterhazy investigation. I repeat: How did it happen
-to occur to General de Pellieux to search the premises of a witness,
-and not the premises of the accused?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I did not cause a search to be made of Major
-Esterhazy’s premises, because I was a judicia officer of police and did
-not deem it necessary.”
-
-General de Pellieux then stepped down, and the defence offered the
-testimony of MM. Dupuy, Guérin, and Poincaré concerning the secret
-document, which testimony the court declined to hear for the usual
-reasons, and the hearing of which M. Labori insisted on by the usual
-motions. Then the stand was taken by M. Thévenet, former minister of
-justice.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Thévenet._
-
-Being asked what he thought of the good faith of M. Zola in writing the
-article, “I Accuse,” he said:
-
-“I am absolutely convinced that M. Zola acted in good faith, and these
-are my reasons. In the Esterhazy case there was an astonishing gap,
-which I consider very important. The examination had shown that Major
-Esterhazy had received from a veiled lady on several occasions the
-copy of a secret document which existed in the office of the minister
-of war, and which demonstrated, it was said, the guilt of Dreyfus.
-Well, I say very frankly to the jury that what struck me in this
-military examination was that this matter of extreme importance was
-not thoroughly looked into. If the veiled lady really existed, why did
-they not search for her with much activity and patience, and why was
-not this important matter gone into thoroughly? I am astonished--and
-in parliament I am not alone in this astonishment--that the military
-authorities dropped this matter without a fundamental examination. If
-a secret document of this character had been taken from the office
-of the minister of war, a secret document on which everybody’s eyes
-were fixed, and which was securely locked in a closet, it was for the
-interest of the national defence that serious measures should be taken
-to avoid other leaks of this sort, for other secret documents might be
-similarly embezzled by this woman, or by some one in her confidence.
-Moreover, it would have been easy to make such an investigation. This
-woman had arranged meetings in somewhat strange spots; she had been
-taken there in cabs on two occasions, if my memory serves me; and Paris
-cabmen never exhibit a failure of memory when the courts call on them
-for testimony. Hence the cabman, and perhaps the woman, could easily
-have been found. At any rate, a serious investigation should have been
-made to find out how the document was taken.
-
-“If the veiled lady is a legendary character,--which is possible, for I
-believe that in this case there are many legends,--the question was no
-less serious. For then the problem arises: how could a secret document,
-from the office of the minister of war, showing the guilt of Captain
-Dreyfus, have been communicated to Major Esterhazy, when it had not
-been communicated to Captain Dreyfus, whom this document accused? I can
-understand that M. Zola’s conscience has been troubled. And it is not
-only his that has been troubled. I can understand how M. Zola could
-arrive at the belief that the second council of war, inexactly informed
-by an inadequate examination, had perhaps misjudged.”
-
-M. Thévenet was then asked by M. Labori what he thought of M. Zola’s
-good faith in writing that sentence in his letter to President Faure
-in which he accused the second council of war of having covered the
-illegality of the first council of war, in obedience to orders, by
-committing in its turn the crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty
-person. The witness answered:
-
-“It is said that neither Dreyfus or his council were made aware of
-a secret document, which nevertheless had been communicated to the
-members of the council of war that condemned Dreyfus. Well, gentlemen,
-I am astonished that this question, which has been under discussion so
-long, has not been settled already. It is, in my opinion, not simply
-the only question involved in this trial, but the capital question
-of this entire discussion. It should have been met at the beginning,
-and it seemed to me--I ask your pardon for this allusion--that it was
-possible to answer it very frankly by a yes or a no. I have read the
-reports of the trial, and I have been surprised that this question,
-which has been asked, if I am not mistaken, has been met by silence.
-It has been put to honorable generals who were able to answer, but who
-considered themselves bound by professional secrecy. I say, gentlemen,
-that here we touch a question which is not simply a point of law,
-but a much higher principle,--that of the liberty of defence, the
-imprescriptible right which every accused man has of knowing on what
-evidence he is accused. Is it true, yes or no, that the first council
-of war considered documents that were not made known to M. Demange or
-to Captain Dreyfus? That can be answered by a yes or a no. They make
-no answer. What does that mean? If they had answered yes, the court
-of appeals would have passed upon it. Would that have established the
-innocence of Dreyfus? Not at all. He would have come again before
-the council of war, before military authority itself, and military
-authority, after examining the documents and submitting them to Dreyfus
-and his counsel, would have decided whether Dreyfus was guilty. But in
-that case Dreyfus would have had a chance to defend himself against
-documents that he had been permitted to read. Perhaps there would have
-been a second conviction. I do not know. But the trial would have
-been complete, the law would have been respected, and the liberty of
-defence--human dignity, I should say--would have been safeguarded.
-I declare, for my part, that, if the minister of war had come here
-to give his word of honor that no communication had been made to the
-council of war which judged Dreyfus, I should have bowed before his
-word. But let him give it. This it is that disturbs public opinion, and
-prolongs, and perhaps will perpetuate, this trial, which is an evil for
-everybody and an evil for the country.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Surely.”
-
-M. Thévenet.--“I say that this no should be spoken with a loud voice.
-But they are silent. What are we to believe? What are we to think? In
-what country are we living? Where are we? Is there a magistrate among
-those who listen to me, is there any of my _confrères_, any person
-whatsoever, anyone among you, gentlemen of the jury, who can understand
-that we should be left in uncertainty on this important point whether
-Dreyfus, yes or no, was acquainted with the documents that proved his
-guilt, and, if not, why they were not shown to him, why they were not
-shown to his counsel, that _confrère_ whom we all respect, bound to
-professional secrecy as well as the generals, and who is certainly as
-patriotic as anybody. That is what I have to say. And I finish with one
-word: I say that, for the reasons that I have indicated, perhaps at too
-great length, the good faith of M. Zola is on a level with his talent,
-and I consider that glorious.”
-
-M. Thévenet was succeeded on the witness-stand by M. Salle, an aged
-member of the Paris bar, who was said to have received from a member of
-the council of war a confession that a secret document was communicated
-to it.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Salle._
-
-M. Labori.--“Does M. Salle know any fact of interest to the defence of
-M. Zola?”
-
-The Judge.--“That is not a question. In relation to what?”
-
-M. Labori.--“In relation to the affair of M. Zola.”
-
-The Judge.--“That is not a question, either. I will not put such
-a question as that. Does it relate to the Dreyfus case or to the
-Esterhazy case?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Permit me, _Monsieur le Président_, in spite of all my
-respect for you, to say that I do not understand this distinction. For
-this there are two reasons. The first is that, as I said yesterday,
-the only case in litigation here is the case of M. Zola. The second
-is--and it is upon this especially that I insist--that General Mercier,
-General de Pellieux, General Gonse, and others like them, come here,
-speaking of the decrees of justice with which they are familiar,
-sheltering themselves behind their privilege to avoid speaking, and
-nevertheless, one after another, with the same vagueness and the same
-uncertainty, throwing their word into the balance, convinced that,
-thanks to the love which this country has for itself, their word, as
-soldiers, will be sufficient, and need not be supported by any reason.
-We do not stop them. They have the right to say, one after another:
-‘Dreyfus is guilty.’ They speak out thus, in spite of the decrees of
-the court, and no one blames them, for it is impossible to speak of the
-Esterhazy case without speaking of the Dreyfus case. For this reason,
-as for others, being given that there is a thing judged, as in the
-Esterhazy case, I see but one explanation of the gag that is placed in
-our mouths--namely, that they do not dare to speak of the Dreyfus case,
-which it is impossible to separate from the Esterhazy case. I ask that
-the liberty to speak be given to all the witnesses on all points that
-do not concern the national defence, and I ask especially that, when I
-put a question as discreet, as reserved, as moderate, as that which I
-put to M. Salle, face to face with a witness in possession of a secret
-which I know they do not want him to tell,--I ask that the question be
-put, or else I protest against the obscurity that is being thickened a
-little more every day because of fear of the light.”
-
-The Judge.--“You can protest as much as you like. I have told you that
-I would put no question to the witness on this point. I repeat it,
-and so it will be to the end of the trial. [To the witness.] Have you
-anything to say in relation to the Esterhazy case?”
-
-M. Salle.--“Concerning the Esterhazy case I have nothing to say.”
-
-The Judge.--“Of the Dreyfus case let us say nothing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But, _Monsieur le Président_, I do not wish to speak of
-the Dreyfus case.”
-
-The Judge.--“Pardon me, you wish to speak of it indirectly.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Will _Monsieur le Président_ allow me to put the
-following question? Was the witness told by one of the members of the
-council of war of 1894 that a secret document was communicated to the
-judges in the council-chamber,--a document which had been communicated
-neither to the accused or to his counsel?”
-
-The Judge.--“I have told you that that question would not be put.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then I ask a legal declaration to that effect from the
-court.”
-
-The Judge.--“The court grants you a legal declaration of anything you
-like.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Oh! _Monsieur le Président_, it seems to me that
-you are going a little fast. My question to the witness involves the
-principal point in this case. The court will not put it. Under these
-circumstances I must offer a motion asking acknowledgment that in the
-presence of the accusation against M. Zola” ...
-
-The Judge.--“The accusation concerning the Esterhazy case.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I did not say that. I asked the court to put to M. Salle
-the following question: Does M. Salle know of a serious fact concerning
-the accusation against M. Zola that may be useful to him from the
-standpoint of morality and good faith?”
-
-The Judge [to the witness].--“Do you know of anything in the Esterhazy
-case which” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask that the question be put in the terms in which I
-framed it.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have no right to ask indirect questions in order to
-reach an end which you should not reach.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I use no indirect methods.”
-
-The Judge.--“I ask your pardon.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I accept no observations which imply that I desire to
-reach an end by indirect means.”
-
-The Judge.--“You know the summons; you know the court’s decree. Let us
-not go outside of that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not go outside of it. And let me tell you, _Monsieur
-le Président_, since you blame me personally here, that I am convinced
-that, if you came here desirous of the light, but not knowing the
-light, knowing nothing of this affair, you would not know what I expect
-of this man; and therefore, when you refuse to put the question that I
-have just asked you to put, I say that you foresee the reply that would
-be made; I say that you make this a tendency trial, and I do not accept
-it.”
-
-The Judge.--“I repeat that I will put only such questions as concern
-the Esterhazy case, and none that concern the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I make no reference to the Dreyfus case. Here we come to
-the culminating point of this trial. _Monsieur le Président_, I ask
-your permission to offer a motion, in order to secure a decision from
-the court regarding the putting of the question which I ask the court
-to put.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I think it important to give due weight to this
-fact,--that, a witness being on the stand, the defence rises and says:
-‘We maintain that this witness knows from the lips of a member of the
-council of war that a secret document was communicated,’ and that,
-confronted with this affirmation, upon which we insist, the court
-declares that the question shall not be put. We make the jury judge.
-Let the witness contradict us with a word. _Monsieur le Président_ will
-not have time to stop him.”
-
-The Judge.--“Monsieur, do not answer.”
-
-M. Clemenceau then offered his motion in legal form, and the court at
-once rendered a decree sustaining the president, and refusing to put
-the question, whereupon the court adjourned for the day.
-
-
-
-
-FIFTH DAY--FEBRUARY 11.
-
-At the beginning of the session the judge recalled General de Pellieux
-to the stand.
-
-The Judge.--“Did not Colonel Picquart admit in your presence the
-authenticity of a letter of November 27, 1896, written in Spanish and
-signed ‘J’?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I had only a copy of that letter. It began
-thus: ‘At last the great work is finished, and Cagliostro has become
-Robert Houdin. Every day the demigod asks if he cannot see you.’”
-
-The Judge.--“Did not this word ‘demigod’ occur in one of the dispatches
-sent to Colonel Picquart at Sousse in November, 1897?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes, and the expression occurs again in a letter
-signed ‘Bianca,’ addressed to Colonel Picquart by Mlle. de Comminges.”
-
-The Judge.--“Did Colonel Picquart accuse Major Esterhazy directly of
-the two forgeries signed ‘Blanche’ and ‘Speranza,’ or did he accuse two
-other persons before accusing the major?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“In his first testimony Colonel Picquart accused
-Major Esterhazy. It was in later testimony that he altered his first
-charge, and said that the forgeries were committed by Major Esterhazy’s
-friends or by others.”
-
-The Judge.--“Did he abandon his declaration later?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“He did not abandon his accusation of others, but
-he ceased to accuse Major Esterhazy, and, when I confronted him with
-the certainty that I had acquired, by an investigation at the office of
-the prefect of police, that the first telegram was from Souffrain, he
-said: ‘Souffrain is an agent of Esterhazy.’”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“From whom was the letter signed ‘J,’ seized on
-the premises of Colonel Picquart?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“From M. Germain Ducasse, secretary of Mlle.
-Blanche de Comminges; and I think it would be a good idea to hear M.
-Germain Ducasse as a witness, but under certain conditions,--that
-is, to bring him here without allowing him to previously communicate
-with any other witness. He lives at 13, Avenue de la Motte-Piquet.
-Everything about this case seems to me strange. The minister of war has
-preferred a precise charge against M. Zola. M. Zola has accused the
-council of war of 1898 of acquitting a guilty person in obedience to
-orders. So far nothing has been said of this question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is the court that is conducting this trial.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I ask permission to say a word of the way in
-which the case was presented before the council of war. The council
-of war, I may also say, did not have to judge an accused person. In
-military justice such a thing is possible. I mean that it did not have
-to judge a person formally accused. In Major Esterhazy’s case the
-reporter and the government commissioner had recommended an order that
-there was no ground for prosecution. Consequently he appeared before
-the council of war equipped with this recommendation. The governor
-of Paris, General Saussier, my regretted chief, who has been my main
-stay throughout this affair, and who is as familiar with it as I am
-(perhaps we are the only two persons thoroughly familiar with it), did
-not wish to issue the order recommended. In this he differed from many
-authorities superior to his own. He desired the case to be carried
-through to the end. It was his wish that Major Esterhazy should be
-judged by his peers, by military justice, and he gave the order that he
-be put on trial. He gave it in order that both sides might be heard. I
-regretted that this trial was not public. I asked that it might be, but
-the government demanded closed doors. The best proof that the council
-of war was independent is that it refused closed doors, judging that
-it was for the public interest that light should be thrown upon the
-matter, at least partially, even though it were not possible to discuss
-the entire case in the open day. Can it be said that a council of war
-which, against the advice of the government, did not declare the doors
-closed was criminal? This council was made up of seven brave officers
-who have shed their blood on the field of battle while others were I
-know not where.”
-
-M. Zola.--“There are different ways of serving France.”
-
-The Judge.--“Oh! no phrases. You can only ask questions. What questions
-do you wish to put to the general?”
-
-M. Zola.--“I ask General de Pellieux if he does not think that there
-are different ways of serving France. One may serve it by the sword and
-by the pen. General de Pellieux has undoubtedly won great victories; I
-have won mine. By my works the French language has been spread through
-the world. I have my victories. I leave to posterity the name of
-General de Pellieux and that of Emile Zola. It will choose.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I will not answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not M. Leblois hand to General de Pellieux, in the
-name of M. Scheurer-Kestner, two letters from Major Esterhazy, and a
-dispatch written in characters similar to those used in printing, which
-bore these words: ‘Picquart is a rascal?’”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Those documents are on file with the other
-documents pertaining to the investigation.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is unfortunate that we cannot obtain these documents.
-Did not this dispatch show an astonishing resemblance to the dispatch
-that Major Esterhazy pretends to have received from the veiled lady?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“These two telegrams resemble each other as all
-documents written in the characters of print resemble each other.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did you take no pains to see the dispatch sent to Major
-Esterhazy by the veiled lady?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not M. Leblois ask you to have an expert examination
-of the two telegrams at the time?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“The matter was never mentioned.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In the dispatch addressed to Colonel Picquart, was not
-that officer’s name written without a _c_?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes, he called my attention to it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was not this peculiarity found also in the telegram signed
-‘Speranza’ and addressed to Colonel Picquart at Sousse?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And in an insulting letter addressed by Major Esterhazy to
-Colonel Picquart was not the name again written without a _c_?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I do not know that letter.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In the last interview that M. Leblois had with General de
-Pellieux on November 29 did not General de Pellieux say to M. Leblois
-that he could not order an expert examination of the _bordereau_,
-because the _bordereau_ had been attributed to Dreyfus by the verdict
-of 1894, and that to so order would be a reconsideration of the thing
-judged?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not M. Leblois attempt to refute this argument,
-which was abandoned by the minister of war himself when, after M.
-Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation of December 17, he transferred the
-_bordereau_ to the Ravary papers for expert examination?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes. I will even add a detail. I did not think
-that I had the right, as a judicial officer of police, to subject the
-_bordereau_ to a new expert examination. It was my personal opinion
-that to do that would be to reopen the Dreyfus case. I was not alone
-in this opinion, for, when I received the order, which I executed,
-to lay the _bordereau_ before the minister of war and submit it to
-expert examination, I was confronted with a strike of experts. That
-is a rather rare thing. The experts for whom I sent refused to make
-the examination, basing themselves on the ground that I had taken,
-and saying that to make a new examination of the _bordereau_ was to
-question the thing judged. There are five experts in the same court.
-Three of them had been concerned in the Dreyfus case. I sent for the
-other two. They refused to come. I immediately reported the matter,
-because I desired to close my inquiry as soon as possible, because
-I felt that the public was getting impatient, and because I was to
-make only a preliminary investigation. So it was on the order of the
-minister of justice to the experts that the examination was made. Major
-Ravary ordered it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was not General de Pellieux present at the second session
-of the council of war held on Tuesday, January 11, 1898?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I was present at all the sessions of the council
-of war as a delegate of the governor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not the general wear civilian dress?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he not sit behind General de Luxer, president of the
-council?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he not intervene several times in the course of the
-testimony of M. Leblois?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I asked the permission of the president, of
-the public minister, and of the defence, to put some questions to M.
-Leblois. This authorization was granted. I think that I had the right
-to do so as a magistrate.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not General de Pellieux take the floor spontaneously
-to correct an error of fact that had just been committed by General de
-Luxer?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I never took the floor without asking permission
-of the defence, of the public minister, and of the president.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he not take the floor to correct an error of fact that
-had just been committed by General de Luxer?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I do not know to what you refer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The general must know, and cannot fail to remember,
-whether at a certain moment, in the course of the testimony of M.
-Leblois, he intervened to correct an error of fact committed by the
-president.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I confess that I cannot remember.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not the witness take the floor spontaneously to ask
-of M. Tézenas if he had no opposition to make to the continuation of M.
-Leblois’s testimony, and in these words: ‘You suffer him to speak?’”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Never.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not M. Leblois ask a question of such a character as
-to necessitate some supplementary information?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I will not answer. This was behind closed doors.
-You know very well that anything that happens behind closed doors
-cannot be revealed.”
-
-The Judge.--“The general says it was behind closed doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask nothing in general of a secret or confidential
-character. Furthermore, closed doors are possible in an assize court
-as well as in a council of war, and twelve French citizens can keep
-a secret as well as twelve officers. Consequently you are quite at
-liberty to make the witness answer. What I am after is to show that
-General de Pellieux intervened in the trial before the council of war.
-I do not ask him concerning what he intervened; I ask him whether he
-intervened. I insist that the question be put.”
-
-The Judge.--“Offer your motion.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It seems to me that the general has been answering my
-_confrère_ concerning matters that happened behind closed doors. Never
-did the general, so far as I know, intervene before the council of war
-as long as the session was public. His intervention, about which he has
-been talking for the last fifteen minutes, took place behind closed
-doors. I ask the court, then, where the dividing line is to be drawn,
-and who shall say whether it is permissible to speak of things that
-happened behind closed doors to a certain limit, of which the witness
-shall be sole judge, and at which the witness may declare: ‘I will say
-no more.’”
-
-The Judge.--“How do you expect the court to know, except by the
-witness, that the thing happened behind closed doors? [To the witness.]
-Does the question asked you relate to an incident that happened behind
-closed doors?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have been asked questions relating to personal
-intervention. That does not concern closed doors. Closed doors applies
-to things asked of the witnesses, but not to an individual’s attitude
-during closed doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Permit me, _Monsieur le Président_, to repeat the
-question before asking you to put it again. Here are two questions
-belonging to the same order of ideas: first, did not M. Leblois
-offer an observation of such a nature as to bring out supplementary
-information?”
-
-The Judge.--“You hear the first question?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I will not answer, for it is a matter of closed
-doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Second, was not General de Luxer then disposed to lay the
-question regularly before the council of war, and had he not already
-risen to propose to the judges that they retire to the council-chamber
-for deliberation?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not General de Pellieux intervene spontaneously,
-saying that that was useless?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“No, I had nothing to say to the president.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have finished on that point.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“We are far away from the question that I put. I come
-back to it. General de Pellieux has admitted that his intervention took
-place behind closed doors during the time for which the president of
-the council had declared closed doors.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I do not deny it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is established by two successive answers made
-by General de Pellieux that he has answered questions of M. Labori
-relating to things that happened behind closed doors.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, nothing concerning what happened behind closed doors.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I said nothing at all relating to the case.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did the intervention of General de Pellieux take place
-behind closed doors?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I conclude. Since the intervention of General de
-Pellieux took place behind closed doors, and since he has already
-testified concerning this intervention, and since M. Labori’s question
-refers to other facts concerning this same intervention, I am entitled
-to say that General de Pellieux, whenever it does not embarrass him,
-explains himself concerning the proceeding behind closed doors, but” ...
-
-The Judge.--“The general has never answered on this point.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I no longer understand you.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is I who do not understand you.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then I will begin again. I say that General de
-Pellieux made answer to M. Labori, who asked him questions concerning
-matters that took place behind closed doors. Then, when M. Labori asked
-him another question about matters that also took place behind closed
-doors, General de Pellieux said: ‘I will not answer the question,
-because I have no right to speak of anything that took place behind
-closed doors.’ Therefore I establish a fact,--the fact at which I
-desired to arrive,--that General de Pellieux has constituted himself a
-judge of what he can, and what he cannot, say about matters that take
-place behind closed doors. He began by answering M. Labori concerning
-matters that took place behind closed doors, saying: ‘I consider that I
-can do so.’ Then at a certain moment he makes himself sole judge, and
-says: ‘From now on I cannot answer you.’ That is what I wanted to show.
-The witness has remembered things that took place behind closed doors,
-and then, when, for one reason or another, he thought that he ought not
-to go further, he stopped.”
-
-The Judge.--“Is that all?”
-
-M Clemenceau.--“Yes.”
-
-
-_Testimony of General Gonse._
-
-After General de Pellieux, the court recalled General Gonse, and asked
-him: “Who are the lawyers of the minister of war?”
-
-General Gonse.--“MM. Nivart and Danet.”
-
-The Judge.--“Can a lawyer representing the minister enter the offices?”
-
-General Gonse.--“No.”
-
-The Judge.--“With whom must he correspond?”
-
-General Gonse.--“With the controller.”
-
-The Judge.--“Had Colonel Picquart been authorized to receive a lawyer
-in his office?”
-
-General Gonse.--“Certainly not.”
-
-The Judge.--“Are there questions of spying concerning which lawyers are
-consulted?”
-
-General Gonse.--“None. Concerning these questions we apply directly to
-the military prosecuting officer, when it concerns a soldier, and to
-the government prosecuting officer, when it concerns a civilian.”
-
-The Judge.--“What do you think of Adjutant Gribelin?”
-
-General Gonse.--“All that is good. He is a servant beyond compare, of
-absolute discretion, knowing all the secrets of our offices, and in
-whom I have the greatest confidence. I add that he is as modest as he
-is intelligent.”
-
-The court then called Adjutant Gribelin, the keeper of the archives.
-
-The Judge.--“What I am going to ask you is of the highest importance.
-Did Colonel Picquart really ask you to have a postal stamp placed on
-the Esterhazy dispatch?”
-
-Adjutant Gribelin.--“Yes, he asked me if I could not have a postal
-stamp put on that document. I swear that it is true.”
-
-Adjutant Gribelin then stepped down, and the court called Major Lauth.
-
-The Judge.--“Did Colonel Picquart ask you to cause every trace of tear
-to disappear from the photograph of the dispatch that he was to make?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Yes. He wanted to make the staff believe that he had
-intercepted the document in the mails. I remember that I said to him:
-‘But, if you cause these tears to disappear, you will take away all
-value from the document, which should be kept in the condition in
-which it was brought to you.’ To which he answered: ‘You will be there
-to certify that this document is really in the handwriting of such a
-person.’ I answered him so loudly that my protest was heard through the
-partition: ‘Never in my life. I do not know this handwriting. It is a
-counterfeited handwriting.’”
-
-
-_Testimony of Colonel Picquart._
-
-The witness-chair was then taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. Being
-asked his residence by the court, he answered: “Mont-Valérien.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows of the
-Esterhazy case, of the investigation that he made, and of the
-circumstances that accompanied or followed his departure from the war
-department?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“In the beginning of May, 1896, the fragments of
-a letter-telegram fell into my hands. These fragments were pasted
-together by an officer in my service, Major Lauth, who was then a
-captain. When he had done this, he brought me this card-telegram, which
-was addressed to Major Esterhazy. I do not remember the exact language
-of its contents, but everything seemed to indicate that between Major
-Esterhazy and the writer of the card there were relations which seemed
-to me suspicious. Before submitting this card to my superiors, it
-not being a proof against Major Esterhazy, but simply a presumption
-considering the place whence it came, I had to make inquiries regarding
-it. I applied to an officer who knew Major Esterhazy, and who had
-been in the same regiment with him. I need not dwell on the nature of
-the information that was furnished to me, but it was not favorable to
-Major Esterhazy, and it led me to continue my investigations as to his
-manner of life and general conduct. The result was not favorable to
-him. Major Esterhazy was always short of money, and was continually
-meeting with many little difficulties; and there was this strange
-thing about him,--that, while far from occupying himself exclusively
-with his profession, he nevertheless manifested a great curiosity
-about documents relating to matters purely confidential and having a
-peculiarly military interest. My inquiry having reached that point,
-I considered myself authorized to say to my superiors that there was
-reason to seriously suspect an officer of the French army. My superiors
-told me to continue. There is one thing that we generally do in dealing
-with a person whose behavior seems suspicious. We take a specimen of
-his writing, and compare it with documents in our possession. As a
-result of this comparison, our suspicions may be confirmed or may be
-weakened.
-
-“So I began to look into Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, contrary
-to what has been often said, especially in a letter written to me by
-Major Esterhazy, I carried on my investigation by perfectly regular
-methods. With the consent of my superiors I went to the colonel of
-the regiment to which Major Esterhazy belonged, and asked him for
-specimens of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting. He gave them to me in the
-form of letters relating to the military service. As soon as I had
-these letters in my hands, I was much astonished at the resemblance
-between the handwriting and that of the famous _bordereau_, of which so
-much has been said. But, not being an expert in handwriting, I had no
-right to trust to my individual impressions. That is why I had these
-documents photographed, concealing, as has been said, in a deposition
-which I have read in the newspapers, such words as ‘My Colonel,’ or
-else the signature, or any other indications that might identify the
-writer; and I showed the photographs thus obtained to two persons
-thoroughly qualified in the matter, one of whom was M. Bertillon and
-the other Major du Paty de Clam. M. Bertillon, as soon as I showed him
-the photograph, said: ‘It is the handwriting of the _bordereau_.’ I
-said to him: ‘Do not be in a hurry. Take this specimen, and examine
-it at your leisure.’ He replied: ‘No, it is useless. That is the
-handwriting of the _bordereau_. Where did you get it?’ ‘I cannot tell
-you.’ ‘Well, is it of an earlier date?’ ‘No,’ I answered, ‘it is of
-a later date.’ ‘Then,’ said M. Bertillon, in these exact words, ‘the
-Jews have had some one practising for a year to get the handwriting of
-the _bordereau_, and they have succeeded perfectly; that is plain.’
-The second person to whom I showed a sample of the handwriting was
-Colonel du Paty, then major. I let him have it but a few minutes,--five
-minutes, I think,--and then he said to me: ‘It is the handwriting of
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus.’ To explain this I must tell you that Colonel du
-Paty pretended that, in order to write the _bordereau_, Alfred Dreyfus
-had made a mixture of his own handwriting with that of his brother. The
-pointer was a valuable one for me.
-
-“There was still another thing that drew my attention to Major
-Esterhazy. An agent had told an officer in my service,--I do not know
-whether it was a superior officer or the head of a battalion,--let
-us say, a superior officer, about fifty years of age,--that he had
-furnished such and such documents to a foreign power. Now, these were
-the very documents spoken of to me by the comrade to whom I applied
-upon my discovery of the card-telegram.
-
-“Now, I come to a period when I was entrusted by General Gonse
-with the task of inquiring whether the documents referred to in the
-_bordereau_ could have been copied for the benefit of Major Esterhazy.
-I knew that Major Esterhazy had not a few of the documents which he
-procured copied at home. I had been told to apply to the secretaries
-whom he had employed, in order to try to find out from them whether
-he had really copied these documents. It was a very serious matter. I
-confess that at that moment I considered my task almost finished. I
-said to myself: here is a card-telegram which has put me on the track
-of the major. It is not a document upon which he could be convicted,
-but it is a pointer. Then we have the testimony of an agent. This, too,
-is not so tremendous, but yet it reveals an astonishing coincidence.
-This agent says: ‘Here is a man who furnishes such or such a thing;’
-and, on the other hand, here is a man who says to me: ‘This officer
-asks for such a thing.’ And, finally, there was a resemblance of
-handwritings, which to me was important. And there is another thing
-to be added to the long list. I do not wish to speak more precisely,
-or to further unveil the secret. But Major Ravary, in his report,
-speaking of me, says: ‘The belief of this officer seemed completely
-established when he had reported that a document on file with the other
-secret papers applied to Esterhazy rather than to Dreyfus.’ Well,
-that is true. On examining the secret documents, as has been said by
-Major Henry, I saw that one of them applied, not to Dreyfus, as has
-been said, but clearly to Esterhazy. Following the orders of General
-Gonse, I tried to find out whether Major Esterhazy’s secretaries had
-copied documents referred to in the _bordereau_ or included among those
-designated by the agent of whom I have just spoken. I did not continue
-long in this direction. I saw that it was impossible to divulge the
-thing without departing from the discretion within which I confined
-myself, whatever may be said, and I stopped. I questioned but one
-person, a certain Mulot, who appeared as a witness before the council
-of war, and who told me that he had been ordered to copy into books
-certain insignificant things, among which, in my opinion, the firing
-manual was not included.
-
-“Then there happened a thing which caused me a little embarrassment
-in my operations,--the article in ‘L’Eclair.’ At that time I was
-absolutely convinced that Esterhazy was the author of the _bordereau_.
-Well, when the article appeared in ‘L’Eclair,’ I said to myself: here
-is a man who is going to admit what he has written; and I confess that
-that obscured matters not a little. I knew perfectly well that the
-article in ‘L’Eclair’ did not come from me. On the other hand, at the
-office of the minister of war, without saying anything very precise,
-the general manner seemed to give the idea that it came, not from
-me, but from my surroundings. I protested vigorously, and asked in
-writing that an investigation be made to find out who communicated this
-document to ‘L’Eclair.’ The investigation was not made.
-
-“Later a second incident happened, which was to me even more
-disagreeable. The publication in ‘Le Matin’ of the _fac-simile_ of
-the _bordereau_. A thing that especially struck me in the publication
-of this _fac-simile_, which has also been attributed to me, was the
-omission of the few lines written by Dreyfus under the dictation of
-Colonel du Paty de Clam. These lines, to be sure, appeared in print,
-but the writing was not reproduced, and I believe that, if it had been,
-it would have made an unfavorable impression regarding those who were
-desirous of attributing the _bordereau_ to Dreyfus.
-
-“In short, these various incidents had produced a certain
-embarrassment, and I saw clearly that I would do well not to continue.
-Meantime came the announcement of the Castelin interpellation.
-I received an order to start on a mission the night before this
-interpellation,--that is, November 16, 1896. I should say that after
-the publication of the _bordereau_ by ‘Le Matin,’ or about that time,
-Esterhazy came to Paris, where his attitude was extraordinary. I
-believe that some one saw him the day after the publication running
-through the streets like a madman, in a pouring rain. The witness is
-here, and will be heard. They would not hear him at the inquiries.
-Before the Castelin interpellation M. Weil, a friend of Esterhazy,
-received an anonymous letter, telling him that he and his friend were
-going to be denounced as accomplices of Dreyfus. It appears that
-Esterhazy received an anonymous letter to that effect, but I cannot
-certify to the fact so far as M. Weil is concerned. I will not amplify
-concerning the various and ever-changing phases of my mission. Leaving
-Paris November 16, I reached Tunis January 13 by way of the Alps and
-many other places. Until then, my relations with my superiors had been
-perfectly cordial. I received letters from General Gonse, in which he
-always shook my hand very affectionately. I must speak of one thing
-that happened while I was absent, and which I did not know of until
-General de Pellieux’s investigation. I believe that I shall be clearer
-if I speak of it now. After I had left Paris, I received information
-from General de Pellieux that my mail was being opened in my former
-office. As I could not tell anyone where I was going, I had left word
-at home that all my letters should be addressed to the war department.
-Consequently all my mail passed through the department, and General de
-Pellieux told me that all my letters were opened. I confess to my shame
-that I did not perceive that they had been opened.
-
-“Now I pass to the time that I spent in Tunis. And I come at once
-to the month of June. Since the beginning of the year I had received
-a certain number of letters that said: ‘But, when I go to the war
-offices, they always tell me that you are on a mission, and that
-you will soon return.’ I concluded that they were not telling the
-truth to these worthy people, and I pinned to one of these letters a
-note,--rather sharp, I confess,--which I addressed to Major Henry in
-returning him the letter. This note read nearly as follows: ‘I wish
-that it might be said once for all to the persons who inquire for me
-that I have been relieved of this service. I have no reason to be
-ashamed of that, but I am ashamed of the lies with which my departure
-has been surrounded. Enough of mystery.’ That was written May 18.
-Early in June I received from the major, who previously had been my
-subordinate, a letter which I have here, in which he says that, after
-investigation, it is possible to explain the word ‘mystery’ by the
-following facts: (1) opening of a correspondence for reasons foreign
-to the service, and which nobody has ever understood,--this is an
-allusion to the seizure of Major Esterhazy’s correspondence; (2)
-attempt to suborn two officers of the service, to induce them to say
-that a document classified in the service was in the handwriting of a
-certain person,--I must say at once that these two officers have been
-transformed into one, and I do not know what has become of the second;
-(3) opening of a secret file of papers, followed by indiscretions
-prompted by motives foreign to the service.
-
-“In the way in which these things were explained I saw at once
-insinuations, accusations, something extremely serious. I suspected
-that conspiracies were on foot. I even said to one of my superiors
-that this letter would not have been written, if there had not been
-something behind it. I answered directly that I had received the letter
-of May 31, and that I formally protested against its insinuations, and
-against the way in which the facts were stated. And then, not being
-at ease, for I did not know where all this was going to take me,--it
-was to take me to Gabès and to the frontier of Tripoli,--I thought it
-my duty to take precautions for my safety. I started for Paris, took
-counsel first of some military personages, and then went to M. Leblois,
-who was my friend, and for the first time, showing him this letter, I
-told him that I had been mixed up in the Dreyfus and Esterhazy cases.
-I told him so much about the first two paragraphs of this letter as
-was necessary for my defence, but I said nothing to him of the third
-paragraph, which seemed to me to relate to secret matters. At the
-same time, both as a deposit and that they might serve later for my
-defence, I gave to M. Leblois a certain number of letters from General
-Gonse,--I believe that there were fourteen in all, two of which have
-been published lately in the newspapers against my will,--together with
-my replies and some letters relating to my mission. I had previously
-destroyed such of these letters as related to matters of the secret
-service, especially a letter in cipher concerning sundry small matters.
-I left it entirely with M. Leblois as to the time when he should
-intervene, and as to the use that he should make of the documents that
-I placed in his hand. He has acted as seemed best to him, and I approve
-of his course.
-
-“Then I went back to Sousse, and heard nothing more of these matters,
-until it was made known in the press that M. Scheurer-Kestner was
-concerning himself with the Dreyfus question. At that time I was _en
-route_ for the south. I had already started, when I was summoned to
-Tunis, where they asked me questions which at first seemed to me rather
-singular. They asked me in the first place if I had not allowed a
-secret document to be stolen by a woman. It was very easy for me to
-answer that I had never carried any documents away from my offices, and
-that there was no sort of possibility of a woman’s taking from me a
-document of this sort. Then a very curious thing happened. I received
-almost the same day, first, a letter from Major Esterhazy, second, a
-telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ and, third, a telegram signed ‘Blanche.’
-Major Esterhazy’s letter said in substance: ‘I have received lately a
-letter in which you are formally accused of having bribed sub-officers
-to procure for you my handwriting. I have verified the statement and
-found it to be true.’ I do not know how he verified it. Nothing was
-said about it at the investigations. He said also: ‘You have withdrawn
-documents from your service to constitute evidence against me. The fact
-of the collection of such evidence is established. I have a piece of it
-in my possession at the present moment.’ At the same time I received a
-telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ saying: ‘Stop, demigod, all is discovered;
-matter very serious.’ What seemed to me very serious was not the
-investigation, but the fact that Major Esterhazy wrote my name without
-a _c_, and that the letter was addressed to Tunis. I made a connection
-between these two things in my mind. Now, the telegram signed ‘Blanche’
-was not at all of the same sort. In the first place, the spelling of
-my name was correct, then my garrison, Sousse, was clearly indicated,
-and, finally, the writer was certainly familiar with my inquiries
-concerning Esterhazy, for the telegram read: ‘We have proofs that the
-dispatch was manufactured by Georges.’ It immediately occurred to me
-that the dispatch referred to was the Esterhazy dispatch. The whole was
-signed ‘Blanche.’ With these three documents in my hands, I did not
-hesitate a moment. I telegraphed to Tunis for authorization to go and
-see the general. I carried him a copy of the three documents, with a
-letter from the minister of war, saying to him: ‘I have just received
-these three documents. They come from Major Esterhazy, or from some
-one connected with him. I ask an investigation.’ A fact that struck me
-later--for the light has come to me only gradually--was the reference
-of ‘La Libre Parole’ to this matter in very clear terms on November 15,
-16, and 17, though these two telegrams and this letter did not reach
-me until November 10 or 11. Now to telegraph to the general, to go to
-Tunis, and to write to the minister of war took me until Monday, so
-that the letters could not have reached Paris before Friday. They were
-able, then, to publish in Paris on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday what
-did not take place at Tunis until Friday. On reaching Paris, I had
-been obliged to give my word of honor that I would see nobody before
-seeing General de Pellieux. I had no right to see M. Leblois until
-after General de Pellieux’s investigation. On coming before General de
-Pellieux, I was informed by him that he was going to hear me concerning
-the Esterhazy case. And he did hear me concerning it for an entire
-afternoon. I said to him what I have just said here. The session was
-a stormy one. There were two others, but at those there was scarcely
-any mention of Major Esterhazy. At the last two sessions I was obliged
-to defend myself almost all the time, although simply a witness. The
-first session was devoted to the examination of documents that had
-been seized upon my premises at the time of the search. This search
-astonished me somewhat at the time. Later I understood it. It had been
-made in consequence of another anonymous letter addressed to General
-de Pellieux, in which he was told that, by searching a servant’s room
-at No. 3, Rue Yvon-Villarceau, he would find some interesting things
-relating to the matter in hand. I suppose that it was difficult for
-them to conceive that an officer could have charge, for seven years
-in succession, of very confidential things, and have secrets at his
-disposal, and yet not have on his premises a single note relating to
-his service. There was nothing there. I never took to my home a single
-note relating either to the service of information as I conducted it
-in the war department at the time when I took my departure, or to the
-service that I have performed since. They found nothing to seize,
-except some letters from relatives and friends. And they kept only
-a letter from Mlle. de Comminges, which was signed ‘Blanche,’ like
-the famous telegram. I believe that this letter is still in General
-de Pellieux’s collection of documents. I do not know where General
-de Pellieux got his information concerning what they call the moral
-elements of my case, but I must say that this information surprised me.
-General de Pellieux told me to my great astonishment that I concerned
-myself with hypnotism, with occultism, with turning-tables, and that I
-was nervously diseased. I do not know what all that means; I never saw
-a table turn in my life.
-
-“I come now to Major Ravary’s investigation. To Major Ravary I repeated
-what I had said to General de Pellieux. With him, too, I had three
-sessions. But he seemed like a man who was trying to find out what I
-had done, and was very little concerned about what Major Esterhazy had
-done. I told him that there were moral proofs in abundance, and I gave
-him some pointers. At the time when I left Tunis, where, in spite of
-the reports that had already been spread, there were people thoroughly
-in sympathy with me, several persons came to see me, notably Colonel
-Dubuche, who was about to retire from the service, and who sent me this
-message: ‘I know Major Esterhazy; in 1892, at Sfax, there was an affair
-of malversation which was to take him before a council of inquiry, if
-not before a council of war.’ Major Sainte-Chapelle, who brought me
-this communication, added that another important witness was M. Giquel,
-a retired commander of squadrons, then resident at Sfax. Well, these
-gentlemen told me that, thanks to the great forbearance of the military
-authorities and his supplications, Major Esterhazy, or, rather, Captain
-Esterhazy, as he was then, had escaped the council of inquiry and the
-council of war. Again, General Laroche’s son, who is at Tunis, holding
-a government office, told me that Major Esterhazy had been under the
-surveillance of his father, when the latter was in command of the
-sub-division of Constantine. Finally, Major Esterhazy was well known
-in the province of Constantine, and not favorably. I told Major Ravary
-that these things were said to me of Major Esterhazy. The first time,
-he answered me. That was very well. When, later, I repeated it, he made
-the same answer; but this piece of moral evidence did not appear in
-this report. They always said to me: ‘Oh! Esterhazy! why, we know him
-better than you do,’ and still nothing was said in the report. As I had
-seen in a previous investigation that much stress was laid upon moral
-proofs, I concluded that such proofs must have a certain importance.
-
-“Major Ravary seemed to me very little inclined to summon witnesses
-whom I designated to him as persons who could give valuable
-information. I had designated M. Weil. M. Ravary took note of my
-suggestion the first time, and then a second; and finally I said to
-him: ‘I absolutely desire that this witness be summoned.’ He was
-summoned. I had also pointed out to Major Ravary the things on which it
-was necessary to lay stress. I told him that he should see the persons
-who had copied documents for Major Esterhazy, that he should ascertain
-from what officers Esterhazy had procured information, that he should
-find out what Esterhazy’s financial situation was in 1893 and 1894,--in
-short, that he should do all that there was to do and all that has not
-been done. On the other hand, Major Ravary strongly insisted on the
-various matters with which I was reproached,--the matter of causing
-the disappearance of tears from the photographs of the card-telegram,
-and of having endeavored to make one of my officers say that such a
-document was in such a handwriting, etc. They placed enormous weight
-upon these things, and also upon the episode of the lady who had lived
-in my house. I looked upon this as a sort of _hors d’œuvre_ from the
-standpoint of the Esterhazy investigation.
-
-“I was reproached with having kept the fragments of the Esterhazy
-dispatch in my closet for a long time. When Colonel Sandherr was at the
-head of the service, he had gradually let this branch of the work fall
-into the hands of Major Henry and Captain Lauth. It was the rule then
-that Major Henry, who received the documents, should sort them out and
-hand them to Captain Lauth, and it was only when this task was finished
-that they were given to the chief of the service. When I assumed charge
-of the service, desiring to know things for myself, I ordered that all
-documents be given to me first, and later I handed them to Captain
-Lauth. That seems a small matter, but unquestionably it changed the
-habits of these gentlemen, and caused them some annoyance. When the
-accusations against me began, they recalled this matter, and found it
-singular that I did not do as my predecessor did, but, instead, put
-documents into my closet, that I might afterwards hand them myself to
-the officer designated to look into them. Another reproach against me
-was that of having carefully effaced all evidence of tear from the
-photographs that had been made of this card-telegram. There were two
-reasons for that, the first of which is the less important. A document
-of this sort, when it is cut into little bits, becomes much clearer
-when the tears no longer show. It can be read more easily. The second
-reason is this. If the document had circulated in the office of the
-minister of war with the tears as they originally were, it would have
-been said: ‘It is a torn paper.’ Well, there had been very serious
-indiscretions concerning the Dreyfus _bordereau_, and their origin
-was known a little too well. I was determined, having a very great
-responsibility in the matter, that those who had no need to know the
-origin of this document, and under whose eyes the photograph might
-pass, should have no indication of the manner in which this document
-reached me. The principal thing in the courts is the original, the card
-itself; the photograph goes with a collection of papers, first to the
-minister of war, then to the chief of staff, etc., but the document
-itself, especially a document as fragile as a telegram torn into I
-know not how many pieces, remains at a given spot. It is shown to two
-or three persons at most, and, if there is a trial, it is produced.
-Those are the reasons that led me to so carefully efface the tears from
-the card-telegram. They ask me why; they make it a cause of reproach;
-but for what reason I do not see, since the famous _bordereau_ was
-subjected to the same operation. It has been said to me: ‘But after?’
-After, it was too late. I had a little foresight, and that excited
-mistrust,--I don’t know why. Then they reproached me with having tried
-to make an officer say that this was the handwriting of a certain
-person. That occurrence was simply this: I was examining this document
-with Captain Lauth. The captain said to me: ‘But this document has no
-sign of authenticity. It ought to have a date, a post-office stamp.’
-Thereupon I said to him: ‘But you can testify whence it comes; you know
-the handwriting very well.’ He answered: ‘Oh! no, never; I do not know
-this handwriting.’ Note that it happened exactly like that. There was
-not one word more or less. And I believe that Captain Lauth’s testimony
-could not be different from mine from that point of view. He attached
-no suspicious character to my question, as is proved by the fact that
-we have remained on the best of terms. He has received me at his table,
-which is not a usual thing between an inferior and a superior. Now,
-if I had tried to suborn him, and to impose upon him an opinion that
-was not his own, the action would not have permitted us to remain in
-friendly relations. Later, when things were coming to a head, they
-gathered up all these little matters, and made use of them.
-
-“There is another thing which shows very clearly how these
-little matters can be used. One need only read the report of M.
-D’Ormescheville to see how the massing of insignificant things may lead
-to grave accusations. Never in my life did I have any intention of
-getting a postal stamp placed upon this document.
-
-“In the Ravary report there is another important thing. It is said
-that Major Henry, entering my office, found me _en tête-à-tête_ with
-M. Leblois, having between us a collection of secret documents, from
-which we had taken a photograph document upon which was written: ‘That
-scoundrel D----.’ Already General de Pellieux had spoken to me of that,
-but he had said that it was Gribelin who had seen me. He said nothing
-to me of Major Henry. I said to him: ‘Never did I have that collection
-of documents in my hands while Leblois was in my office.’ Moreover, I
-thought that it was at the time of M. Leblois’s vacation, but I did
-not know at what time he returned. I went to M. Leblois to get these
-two dates, and I reported them to General de Pellieux. If I am not
-mistaken, Gribelin placed this interview in the month of October. At
-the council of war, when this charge was brought against me, I asked to
-be confronted with Colonel Henry, and he maintained that he had seen
-us together, with these secret documents between us. I asked him to
-fix the date. He said: ‘That must have been on my return from leave,
-in the beginning of October.’ Major Henry certainly did not know that
-M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and returned November 7. Nor did he
-know that I had asked M. Gribelin for this collection of documents
-the latter part of August, and handed it to General Gonse personally
-early in November. Unfortunately I do not know the exact date, but it
-was one of the first days of November. Gribelin, too, showed a rather
-short memory, for he has pretended under other circumstances that this
-collection of documents was found in my closet after my departure. Now,
-General Gonse has very frankly stated that I gave him this collection
-of documents several days before my departure. My departure took place
-on November 16. I left my service November 14, M. Leblois came back to
-Paris November 7, which was a Saturday, and the 8th was a Sunday; then
-this discovery must have been made between the 9th and the 14th, and
-yet during that time I had not the documents in my possession, having
-given them to General Gonse.
-
-“Another thing has occurred to me. General de Pellieux showed me the
-photograph bearing the words: ‘That scoundrel D----.’ This photograph
-is anything but clear; one is obliged to look very closely into it
-to see anything at all. Now, I ask if a person entering a room can
-identify such a document at once, and see on it the words: ‘That
-scoundrel D----?’ Finally, if I had any interest in showing this
-document to M. Leblois, it seems to me extraordinary that, considering
-the limited dimensions of this file of papers, and considering the
-fact that I had it at my disposal for two months, I did not pass it
-to M. Leblois. But it seems that, having these documents before me, I
-left the door open while I was with M. Leblois, and chose that moment
-for the very serious act of communicating a document to a person not
-qualified to have knowledge of it. At any rate, I testify absolutely
-that never did I show a file of secret papers to M. Leblois, absolutely
-never, and that I never spoke to him of any such file.
-
-“Now there are other matters to which I must refer. I read the
-testimony given yesterday by General de Pellieux, and in it I found
-things that astonished me. In my second interview with the general he
-said to me: ‘You have caused Esterhazy’s premises to be searched.’ I
-did wrong in accepting his statement. I did not cause Major Esterhazy’s
-premises to be searched, and I wish now to explain very clearly what
-actually took place. After the publication of the article that appeared
-in ‘L’Eclair,’ which had given Esterhazy warning that the _bordereau_
-was known, one of my superiors suggested a search. I confess that I
-did not think it an opportune moment for a search, it seeming to me
-that the search should have been made previously. Esterhazy having been
-warned, he had undoubtedly removed all evidence from his premises.
-Yet, desirous of doing what was asked of me, I spoke of the matter to
-the officer who was watching Esterhazy. I said to him: ‘This is what
-they ask me to do, but I believe that a search would prove fruitless.’
-He answered: ‘He has gone to Rouen, but I do not know whether he
-has moved his effects.’ I think the officer told me that there was
-a sign indicating that the apartment was to let. He went to see the
-apartment, and brought back as proof a visiting-card, on which a few
-words were written. He told me that much paper had been burned in the
-chimney, and that was all. I returned the card to him, and told him
-to put it back in the place from which he took it. When General de
-Pellieux questioned me concerning this matter, he told me that the
-house had been ransacked, and false keys had been made, and that this
-was proved by the discovery of a key in excess of the usual number. I
-did not know then where he had obtained this information, but at the
-hearing before the council of war I found out. The information was
-given by Esterhazy; so that the statements made yesterday by General
-de Pellieux are almost exactly the statements of Esterhazy. He says
-that the search was continued at intervals during eight months. Before
-the council of war Esterhazy said that it lasted I know not how much
-longer. If it lasted, it was not my fault, because I was not in Paris.
-The event of which I have just spoken occurred toward the end of
-October. If anything happened afterward, I am not responsible for it.
-As to the correspondence, General Pellieux said that for eight months
-I intercepted Esterhazy’s letters in the mails. The card-telegram
-was written in May. I did not begin my investigations until early in
-July. Esterhazy left Paris the latter part of August to attend the
-military manœuvres, and did not return until late in October or early
-in November. I do not find eight months between July and the middle of
-August.”
-
-At this point, Colonel Picquart having finished his deposition, the
-court interrupted the proceedings to render a decree granting M.
-Clemenceau’s motion that a magistrate be sent to examine Mme. de
-Boulancy, and appointing for that duty M. Bertulus, who was General
-de Pellieux’s consulting magistrate during his investigation. The
-examination of Colonel Picquart was then resumed.
-
-M. Labori.--“Was not Colonel Picquart present as a delegate from the
-minister of war at the trial of a case of spying, or, to be precise, at
-the Dreyfus trial? For this is a question of fact that does not touch
-the thing judged.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I prefer not to answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Is there in the war department a file of documents that
-makes Major Esterhazy’s guilt inadmissible?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I do not know, but I do not think so.”
-
-M. Labori.--“When Colonel Picquart was thinking of inquiring whether
-M. Esterhazy was not the author of the _bordereau_, did any of his
-superiors at any time say to him: ‘Stop; there are certain proofs that
-Major Esterhazy cannot be the author of the _bordereau_?’”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“No, that was never said to me.”
-
-M. Labori.--“To what does M. Picquart attribute the numerous and
-complex machinations of which he has been the victim?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I shall be able to answer that more definitely,
-when M. Bertulus’s examination has been finished. At present I believe
-that the purpose of these machinations was to prevent Esterhazy’s guilt
-from being shown.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does the witness think that Major Esterhazy took part in
-these machinations, directly or indirectly?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“You simply think so?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I think so.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does the witness think that these machinations were the
-work of Major Esterhazy alone, or does he think that Major Esterhazy
-had accomplices?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I believe that he had accomplices.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Accomplices in the war offices?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“There was certainly an accomplice who was
-familiar with what was going on in the war offices. First, there is
-the card-telegram signed ‘Blanche.’ Then there is the letter signed
-‘Speranza,’ which could have been written only by a person familiar
-with the letter that had been opened and copied, the original of which
-had then been forwarded to me in November, 1896. I asked Major Ravary,
-on several occasions, to make an investigation, and to hear Souffrain,
-who, according to information given to me by General de Pellieux, was
-the author of the ‘Speranza’ telegrams. Major Ravary always refused, on
-the ground that there was no reason for such an investigation.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was the mission on which Colonel Picquart was sent an
-important one?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I will not permit myself to judge my superiors on
-that matter, but it does not seem to me that it was indispensable to
-send someone on it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did Colonel Picquart always clearly understand the purpose
-of his mission?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I tried very hard to understand it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will Colonel Picquart explain what he meant by saying that
-his mission was to end at Gabès?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I said this,--that at the beginning of the Dreyfus
-matter I received an order to go to the frontier of Tripoli. General
-Leclerc told me that he would not allow me to go farther than Gabès.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Is the place to which Colonel Picquart was sent a
-dangerous place?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“It is not one of the safest.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Is not the police agent with whom Colonel Picquart was in
-relations concerning the Esterhazy dispatch the one through whom the
-_bordereau_, reached the minister of war?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Consequently, when occasion arose for discussion of
-the origin of the _bordereau_, did not this origin seem more than
-suspicious from the very fact that it came through this police agent?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“How happens it, then, that the serious character of this
-origin is now disputed?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“The serious character of the origin is not
-disputed; the origin itself is denied.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does Colonel Picquart declare, on his soul and conscience,
-that the document really originated as he has said?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If, then, Colonel Picquart were not telling the truth, he
-would be guilty of falsehood, and even of perjury?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Exactly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It follows, _Monsieur le Président_, that, if Colonel
-Picquart is not prosecuted on this charge, it is because the question
-is not disputed. Has Colonel Picquart so far been the object of any
-prosecution on this charge?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Not that I know of.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Colonel Picquart has told us that he gathered information
-unfavorable to Esterhazy. Will he go a little more into details?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“The facts gathered were various in character.
-First, there were facts relating to his pecuniary situation. Major
-Esterhazy was concerned in money transactions that were rather shady. I
-cannot go into details; the examination must show all that. Then there
-was a matter of unpaid house-rent at Courbevoie, which was not very
-clear either.”
-
-The Judge.--“That has no relation” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“I insist on the smallest details.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“He was one of the directors of an English financial
-company,--a thing utterly forbidden to French officers. I called Major
-Ravary’s attention to this, and he said to me: ‘Oh! in England that
-matter is not attended by the same inconveniences, because in France
-one may be thrown into bankruptcy, whereas in England one cannot be.’ I
-did not very clearly understand.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not know whether the witness will be able to reply to
-the question that I shall now put. Is Colonel Picquart aware that Major
-Esterhazy was the subject of favorable notes that were read to the
-council of war?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I saw certain of these notes in the newspapers.
-I read them even prior to the council of war, and I was greatly
-astonished, because all documents relating to the _personnel_ are
-essentially confidential. There is another thing that astonished
-me. There has been reference here to citations. Well, I know that
-General Guerrier, Major Esterhazy’s superior at Rouen, struck from
-that officer’s record of services a citation that appeared there
-unwarrantably. General Guerrier is ready to testify to it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Among Colonel Picquart’s charges against Major Esterhazy
-was there one that a document belonging to the secret files applied
-to Esterhazy more than to anybody else, or, rather, than to a certain
-other person?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What is this secret file?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Oh! those matters are entirely secret. I should
-very much like to answer, but I consider that I cannot do so without
-being released from the obligation of professional secrecy by the
-minister of war. If he will release me, I will speak; otherwise, not.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did Colonel Picquart ever see the original of the
-_bordereau_?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I think so. I certainly have seen the photographic
-reproductions which were in circulation.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In circulation where? In the war offices?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then there were official reproductions?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Were these photographs placed in the hands of experts?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I think so, but cannot say so positively. I was not
-then connected with the service.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does Colonel Picquart consider that the _bordereau_
-published by ‘Le Matin’ November 10, 1896, differs essentially from the
-authentic original?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“It differs so little from it that it was asked who
-could have committed the indiscretion.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Into how many fragments was the Esterhazy dispatch torn?”
-
-Colonel Picquart--“I cannot say, but there were many. There were little
-bits no larger than one’s finger-nail.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was Colonel Picquart able to rearrange the pieces?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And from what did Colonel Picquart desire to remove the
-traces of pasting?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Why, from the photograph.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Would it have been possible to remove such traces from the
-original?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“There was never any question of removing them from
-the original. The original has never been altered. Once pasted, it was
-not thereafter touched.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In the charges made against Colonel Picquart are there any
-relating to events that occurred later than 1896?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Were not all the doings of Colonel Picquart known to all
-his superiors?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Why, then, had they not taken in 1896 the attitude that
-they have taken since?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I do not know.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In a case as serious as that of Major Esterhazy, at a
-time when the chief of the bureau of information was investigating a
-serious charge of treason, was not the arrest of Major Esterhazy almost
-necessary, in order to get at the truth?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“That was my opinion, but it did not prevail. My
-superiors thought otherwise.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But, without arresting an officer, is it not possible to
-watch him so that he can have no chance of doing things still more
-reprehensible and concealing his tracks?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Certainly. There was enough against Esterhazy to
-send him to a fortress.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In occupying yourself with the Esterhazy case, were you
-obeying your conscience?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did you feel that you were endangering your military
-career and your interests?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And yet you continued?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes, but my superiors did not absolutely oppose me.
-I felt that I was not in entire harmony with them, but they did not
-tell me to stop. Otherwise I would have done my duty as an officer, and
-would have stopped; or, rather, I do not know exactly what I would have
-done at that time. But--yes, I would have stopped.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did Colonel Picquart never receive a formal order to stop?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Never.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In Colonel Picquart’s eyes which was the more damaging
-evidence against Major Esterhazy, the _bordereau_ or the dispatch?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“The _bordereau_.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did Colonel Picquart make it known to General Gonse?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“How, then, could General Gonse say that it was necessary
-to distinguish the Dreyfus case from the Esterhazy case?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“That he said that is true. He said that confusion
-of the two cases should be avoided so far as possible; that the
-Esterhazy case should be continued, but that the Dreyfus case should
-not be mixed up with it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But, if Major Esterhazy had been recognized as the author
-of the _bordereau_, would not the charge against Dreyfus have fallen
-necessarily?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes; that is why I never understood the attempt to
-separate them.”
-
-The Judge.--“Do you remember having sent for M. Leblois to call on you
-at your office?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“Do you remember the date?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“He came in the spring of 1896 concerning two
-matters,--the Boulot case and a carrier-pigeon case, about which I
-should like to say a word.”
-
-The Judge.--“I was going to ask you. What is this carrier-pigeon file
-of documents? Is it not a secret file?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“There are two. One file is in a pasteboard box,
-which contains nothing but newspaper articles about pigeons. These
-matters are not secret, and it was about these that I consulted M.
-Leblois. There is another file which is absolutely secret, containing
-information with which M. Leblois had no concern, and about which M.
-Leblois could not have enlightened me. There has been confusion lately
-concerning this matter. Recently I asked for the carrier-pigeon file,
-and by chance the secret file was brought.”
-
-The Judge.--“You had by the side of this carrier-pigeon file another
-file on which was the letter ‘H’ written with blue pencil?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Your description designates the envelope
-containing the secret file. That was never on my table when M. Leblois
-was there, and there is a very simple reason why. The file was in my
-possession only from the latter part of August to the beginning of
-November, and M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and did not return until
-November 7.”
-
-The court here recalled M. Gribelin to confront him with Colonel
-Picquart. M. Gribelin repeated his testimony as follows:
-
-“One evening in October, 1896, I went into Colonel Picquart’s office
-to get leave of absence. He was sitting at his table with the
-carrier-pigeon file at his right, and at his left the file that I
-had handed to him between August 28 and September 5. The letter was
-contained in an envelope bearing the mark of Major Henry, and it was by
-this that I recognized it.”
-
-The Judge.--“You saw no documents?”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“No, the envelope was closed.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“M. Gribelin is mistaken. I do not believe that he
-intends to make a false statement, but either his memory fails him
-or he has confused the files. I know that M. Gribelin is a perfectly
-honest man.”
-
-The Judge.--“I asked General Gonse concerning him just now, and he
-spoke of him in the highest terms.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I do not believe him capable of an infamy, but I
-believe him capable of an error.”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“You can believe what I say; I saw it.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“But I say that you did not see it.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Picquart, did you ask M. Gribelin at a certain time if
-he could not get the post-office to stamp a letter, which letter you
-did not otherwise indicate?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“To stamp a letter?”
-
-The Judge.--“To stamp a letter; not with the date of its arrival, but
-with an earlier date.”
-
-M. Gribelin.--“My colonel, let me refresh your memory. You re-entered
-your office at two o’clock. You sent for me and, as you were taking off
-your overcoat, you said: ‘Gribelin, could you get the post-office to
-stamp a letter?’ You did not add a word. You never spoke of the matter
-afterward. But, on my honor as a soldier, that is the truth, and you
-know that I never lie.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“That I know, but I answer as follows. It has very
-often happened that Gribelin and I have talked of the way in which
-letters could be sent to spies. Well, it is possible that one of these
-recollections is in his mind. But I say that I have no recollection of
-it at all.”
-
-The Judge.--“But did you not ask this information of Major Lauth
-almost in the same terms?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I? Oh, never, never, never!”
-
-The court recalled M. Lauth, who repeated his accusation as follows:
-
-“On the very day when Colonel Picquart spoke to me on the subject of
-removing the traces of tear, he said to me: ‘Do you think that they
-would stamp this document at the post-office?’ I answered him that they
-would not be very obliging in such a matter, and that I did not think
-they would do it.”
-
-The Judge.--“You see, it is almost the same thing.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Does Major Lauth remember that, in his written
-deposition regarding the proposition which he declares that I made to
-him that he should say that the handwriting of the dispatch was that
-of such or such a person, he said: ‘This document has no authentic
-character; it must have the stamp of the post-office.’”
-
-M. Lauth.--“‘In order that it may have an authentic character, it
-must have a stamp’; and I added: ‘It is a handwriting that I do not
-know.’ Colonel Picquart never asked me to certify to my recognition
-of the dispatch. He said: ‘You will be there to verify that it is the
-handwriting of such or such a person.’ That is what he said to me, and
-I answered: ‘I never saw this handwriting, and cannot certify that it
-is the handwriting of such or such a person.’”
-
-General de Pellieux was recalled.
-
-The Judge.--“Can General de Pellieux tell us anything of the search of
-which he spoke yesterday?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Colonel Picquart admitted to me that an agent
-sent by him had entered the premises. Well, I ask why he went into the
-apartment. I suppose that he will say that he went there to rent it.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“It seems to me that I have explained that matter.
-The agent brought me only a card containing a few words. I had him
-carry it back. I never got anything else.”
-
-The Judge.--“General, did you enter the apartment?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“No.”
-
-The Judge.--“Then you do not know what state it was in?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“No.”
-
-The Judge.--“But yesterday you gave us details.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Major Esterhazy says that a piece of furniture
-was forced, and that traces of this still remain.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then what General de Pellieux told us he got from
-Major Esterhazy.”
-
-Colonel Picquart admitted that one of his agents had entered
-Esterhazy’s premises, which were to let.
-
-The Judge.--“This agent had no legal warrant.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“No, but he entered the apartment by lawful means.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“He did not enter as a robber.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No equivocations. I ask General de Pellieux whether he
-thinks it possible to ask the chief of the bureau of information
-belonging to the French war department to keep a watch on spies in the
-interest of the national defence without giving him the right, if he is
-an honorable officer above suspicion, to make an investigation?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I think he has the right.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The reply is satisfactory.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“But I add that I do not admit his right to do so
-without a legal warrant.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask General de Pellieux, who knows the law, and
-who can explain whether a search is legal, if the search of Colonel
-Picquart’s premises was illegal.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Show me that it is illegal.”
-
-The Judge.--“Were you not a judicial officer of police?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Yes, and had the right to make a search. The
-military code will show it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The military code declares that the search, to be
-valid, must be made in the presence of the interested party. If you had
-found a document of any value, Colonel Picquart could have claimed that
-it had been brought to his apartment in his absence.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Besides, M. Picquart was not accused. There was only one
-accused,--Major Esterhazy. He was accused by the chief of the bureau of
-information to whom this service had been entrusted because he was the
-most worthy of it, and it was his premises that they searched.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I am evidently ignorant regarding procedure. At
-every step I took the advice of a magistrate, M. Bertulus.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was it M. Bertulus who suggested to General de Pellieux to
-search the house for smuggled matches?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I gave a police commissioner a search-warrant.
-If the police commissioner offered this pretext in order to carry out
-his orders, he is responsible.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did General de Pellieux, when entrusted with the duty of
-investigation, order Major Esterhazy to observe absolute discretion,
-and stay at home instead of exercising his liberty,--a liberty which he
-used in going daily to the offices of ‘Le Jour,’ ‘La Libre Parole,’ and
-other newspapers?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I did, and in writing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“How well, in the opinion of General de Pellieux, were his
-orders obeyed by Major Esterhazy?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I do not say that Major Esterhazy fully obeyed
-my orders, but from the moment that he received them the communications
-to the press became, I observed, less numerous.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Can these gentlemen say that they have seen a
-single letter on which I have caused a post-office stamp to be placed?”
-
-The Judge.--“It is not claimed that you have done that. The claim
-simply is that you asked if it were possible to have such a thing done.”
-
-The court then recalled Major Ravary.
-
-M. Labori.--“Why did M. Ravary, in his report, in which he accumulated
-all arguments tending to depreciate Colonel Picquart’s merit, omit
-the incident relating to the question attributed to Colonel Picquart
-concerning the placing of stamps on a letter or a dispatch?”
-
-M. Ravary.--“There were an abundance of matters that I could have cited
-in proof of irregularities on Colonel Picquart’s part. I did not need
-to put all of them in my report.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Tell us what these irregularities were.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“If I had desired to invoke Article 378, I need not have
-said anything. I could have pleaded professional secrecy.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“But, since you did not invoke it, you are at liberty
-to speak.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I say that Major Ravary must either observe professional
-secrecy, or not observe it. In saying that there are many other
-charges, he does not observe professional secrecy. I am not in favor
-of closed doors or professional secrecy, but, since Major Ravary has
-already violated professional secrecy, he may well tell us of the other
-charges against Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“Military justice does not proceed as yours does.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“There are not two justices. There is only one--the
-true justice.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“Our code is not the same.”
-
-The Judge.--“Answer the question, if you see fit,”
-
-M. Ravary.--“I refuse to answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Under these circumstances there is nothing left of all
-that M. Ravary has said.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I cannot allow this charge to rest upon me. I ask
-M. Ravary to declare frankly what other irregularities are laid at my
-door.”
-
-M. Ravary.--“There are the two already referred to,--that of which M.
-Gribelin has spoken, and which I did not put in my report, and that
-which M. Lauth has described.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“And, covering all that with an insinuation, you
-were allowing it to be supposed that there were many other things.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Ravary covered that with professional secrecy, and,
-when he no longer dared to appeal to professional secrecy, he had
-nothing left to say.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“And for three months that has been going on.”
-
-The court then adjourned for the day.
-
-
-
-
-SIXTH DAY--FEBRUARY 12.
-
-At the beginning of the sixth day’s proceedings Colonel Picquart
-resumed the witness-stand, and asked permission to make a declaration
-that would make clearer the spirit of his testimony of the day before.
-This being granted, he said:
-
-“I believe that the expression used by M. Zola when he declared
-that the military judges had condemned in obedience to orders went
-a little farther than he thought. What happened, at least, as I
-believe, was this. General de Pellieux, out of respect for the thing
-judged, thought it his duty to keep the matter of the _bordereau_
-out of his investigation. Major Ravary, whose investigation followed
-that of General de Pellieux, was certainly influenced--perhaps
-unconsciously--by the view of his superior. He even gave me proof
-of this,--I can say it here, where many things have been said
-already,--when, after I had said to him: ‘The witnesses will not be
-unearthed, until you have caused Major Esterhazy to be arrested,’ he
-answered: ‘I cannot have him arrested. My superiors have not thought
-it proper to do so, and I do not see that anything has come into my
-hands which should change their decision.’ The judges belonging to the
-council of war found themselves confronted with an examination which
-was, in my opinion, incomplete. In view of the proofs laid before them,
-they decided the matter according to their conscience, and to show you
-the liberty of mind that presided over their deliberations I declare
-here that one of them, toward the end of the session, said this (and
-I admire his courage): ‘I see that the person really accused here is
-Colonel Picquart. Therefore I ask that he be called, in order that
-he may say to us whatever he may deem necessary in addition to his
-deposition.’”
-
-M. Lauth was recalled, to be again confronted with Colonel Picquart.
-
-M. Labori.--“Supposing that a post-office stamp had been placed upon
-the card-telegram, what, in Major Lauth’s view, would have been the use
-of it?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“It would have shown that the paper reached its
-destination, whereas without such a stamp it must necessarily have
-remained at its starting-point.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Has not Colonel Picquart said, and has not Major Lauth
-confirmed the statement, that it had been shown that the origin of this
-dispatch was the origin of the _bordereau_?”
-
-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?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“I did not say that I had placed strips in such a way as
-to remove traces of writing. Whenever I have had to make a photograph,
-Colonel Picquart has asked me to cover up certain lines, or certain
-words with a line in the middle. On each occasion I have made plates
-concealing a part. He did not explain to me his purpose.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am much pleased with the answer, for it brings out a
-point that had escaped me,--that M. Lauth did not intend to say that
-there was anything singular in this photographic treatment of the
-dispatch.”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Pardon me, I say that I did not conceal the text. I had
-to remove traces of tear, in order to give the dispatch the appearance
-of a document absolutely new and intact.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was Major Lauth ever asked to remove the appearance of
-tear from the original?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Oh! that would not have been possible.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The reply satisfies me. Was not the _bordereau_ also in
-bits?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Into how many pieces was the dispatch torn?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Perhaps sixty.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“How large was the largest piece?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“Perhaps one-twentieth of a square inch.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“How were these pieces reassembled?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“I have no explanations to furnish concerning that
-matter.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Probably you misunderstand me. It is a material fact
-that cannot concern the national defence. I asked by what method the
-pieces of a document are reassembled when they are found, as these
-were, in a cornucopia.”
-
-Major Lauth.--“The dispatch was pasted after I had had the pieces
-arranged in their proper places. When Colonel Picquart gave it to me,
-it was in the form of fragments of paper mingled with many others.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“When Colonel Picquart asked M. Lauth, according to the
-latter’s testimony, if he could not cause a post-office stamp to be put
-upon the dispatch, in what condition was the dispatch?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“The pieces had been reassembled.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“By what process?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“By the use of a transparent paper, cut in very narrow
-strips that followed almost exactly the traces of the tearing.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“On which side of the dispatch were these strips
-pasted?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“On the addressed side.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then will Major Lauth explain to us, accepting the
-improbable supposition that he had complied with Colonel Picquart’s
-desire, where he would have had the post-office stamp placed?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“In the first place, he did not ask me to have the paper
-stamped. He said to me: ‘Do you think that they would stamp it?’ It is
-not for me to inquire what his purpose was.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I wanted to know how M. Lauth could explain the
-alleged fact that Colonel Picquart asked to have a post-office stamp
-placed upon this document by any third party whomsoever, to give it
-authenticity, when, according to M. Lauth’s testimony, there was no
-place on it where a stamp could be put without putting it in part on
-the strips of gummed paper?”
-
-Major Lauth.--“I have no explanation to give.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“If the dispatch comes from the cornucopia, it is torn
-and not stamped. If it comes from the post-office, it is stamped and
-not torn. When the chief of staff shall call for the original, if it is
-shown to him torn and stamped, because coming from the post, he will
-ask: ‘Why is it torn?’ Another hypothesis: Assuming the dispatch to be
-torn and stamped, it can have but one origin. It must come from Major
-Esterhazy’s premises, because, stamped, it had been in the mails, and,
-torn, Major Esterhazy must have torn it. Now, Major Lauth has just said
-that it has never been pretended that the dispatch came from Major
-Esterhazy’s premises.”
-
-M. Labori.--“When you compared Major Esterhazy’s handwriting with the
-_bordereau_, was the original of the _bordereau_ before you, or the
-photographs only?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Photographs only. The original of the _bordereau_
-was in the Dreyfus file, sealed. That file has been unsealed only
-twice, when General Gonse had occasion to withdraw some papers from it.”
-
-The Judge.--“Did the photographs conform absolutely to the original?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“They were used for the experts.”
-
-Colonel Henry was then recalled, and re-examined as to the interview
-which he claims to have surprised between M. Leblois and Colonel
-Picquart in the latter’s office. Being asked whether he saw the secret
-file and the document beginning with the words: “That scoundrel D----,”
-he answered:
-
-“It was in October, I think. I have never been able to fix the date
-precisely. All that I know is that there was an open file in the
-room. The colonel was sitting on his left leg, and at his left sat M.
-Leblois, and before them on the desk were several files, among others
-the secret file which I had so labelled, and on the back of which I
-had placed my signature, or rather my initial, with blue pencil. I
-saw the words: ‘secret file.’ The envelope was open, and the document
-in question was outside of it. A few days later I met General Gonse,
-who said to me: ‘How are things going? What progress is Colonel
-Picquart making?’ I answered: ‘Things are going rather slowly. Colonel
-Picquart is still absorbed in his Esterhazy matter.’ ‘Ah! that is bad,
-because the business of the office is suffering a little.’ ‘And do the
-indiscretions continue?’ ‘Oh! the indiscretions do not concern me.’
-Whereupon I said: ‘In view of the indiscretions, perhaps you would do
-well to take possession of the secret file,--there was then only one
-in the department,--for I saw it a few days ago on his desk, in the
-presence of a third person.’ I did not name the person. I believe that
-two or three days later the general took possession of it. Whether he
-took it himself, or asked Colonel Picquart to send it to him, I do not
-know.”
-
-The court then recalled General Gonse, and asked him whether the file
-was in disorder when it was returned to him.
-
-General Gonse.--“Yes.”
-
-The Judge.--“Colonel Picquart, what have you to say?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I repeat that I never had the file on my table in
-the presence of M. Leblois, either open or closed. Moreover, it seems a
-material impossibility that the thing should have occurred as Colonel
-Henry says, if M. Leblois proves that he returned to Paris November 7.
-Colonel Henry has just told you that, a few days after witnessing this
-scene, he spoke of it to General Gonse and advised him to call for the
-file, and that General Gonse did so call a few days later. Now, General
-Gonse has testified on previous occasions that he asked me for the file
-a few days before my departure.”
-
-The Judge.--“You hear, Colonel Henry. Had you the secret file?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“M. Leblois admitted it before the council of war.
-He said: ‘In view of the precise declarations of Colonel Henry, I
-certainly cannot contradict him.’ You can appeal to the members of the
-council of war.”
-
-M. Leblois, being recalled, said:
-
-“No, I did not admit it. This is what happened before the council
-of war. Colonel Henry said simply that there was a file on Colonel
-Picquart’s table. He said nothing of a photograph, and specified no
-date, and I said to him: ‘Colonel, I believe that you are mistaken,
-but, as it is not my habit to make a minute inventory of the documents
-that are lying on the desks of people when I go to see them, I
-consider that it is not for me, but rather for Colonel Picquart, to
-say whether at any time whatsoever there was on his desk an envelope
-bearing the words “secret file.”’ I said very firmly to Colonel Henry:
-‘I do not wish to contradict you, not simply out of politeness, but
-because I consider that it is for Colonel Picquart to contradict this
-statement, if it is incorrect.’ But, if he had made a more precise
-statement, and had said what he has just said,--that the file included
-a photograph,--I would have contradicted him absolutely.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I contradict M. Leblois absolutely. This is what I
-said before the council of war: ‘Before these gentlemen lay a secret
-file and a photographed document, the document half out of the envelope
-and beginning with these words, “That scoundrel D----”’”
-
-The Judge.--“Did you see the document?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“But the colonel has just admitted that he said that the
-photograph was not out of the envelope. Could Colonel Henry explain
-to us how he reconciles his present evidence, M. Leblois and Colonel
-Picquart turning their backs to the desk, with his evidence given at
-the investigation and thus stated in Major Ravary’s report: ‘When
-Colonel Henry, on his return to Paris, entered Colonel Picquart’s
-office, he saw M. Leblois, from whom the colonel received long and
-frequent visits, sitting near the desk and searching with him a secret
-file.’”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Searching ... searching?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Either Colonel Henry does not tell the truth, or else the
-truth is not told in Major Ravary’s report.”
-
-Colonel Henry [walking toward Labori].--“I will not permit you to call
-my words in question. I will not permit it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I say that there is a formal contradiction between Major
-Ravary’s report and your evidence.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“That is not my affair.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Possibly not, but it is mine.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Ask an explanation of Major Ravary.”
-
-M. Labori.--“At present I can seek an explanation only from you, who
-are here.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“The expression ‘searching,’ if it is not real, is at
-least figurative.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What was the date of this visit?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I said that it was in October. At any rate, on my
-return from leave. I have always said October, I think, and I cannot
-say anything else.”
-
-M. Leblois.--“Variations as to facts, variations as to dates. It is
-very difficult for a witness, with the best will in the world, to
-follow his adversaries over ground so shifting.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Did Colonel Henry enter my office by the door
-opposite the desk, or by the little side door?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“By the main door.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“About how far into the office did he come?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I could not say whether it was four inches or a step.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“But Colonel Henry was on the other side of my desk;
-that is, on the side opposite to that where I was sitting.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Opposite you, and I perfectly saw the document, for it
-was the place in which I stood that enabled me to see the document and
-the file.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I shall ask to be shown the document. General de
-Pellieux showed it to me in his office, and at a distance. It is a very
-obscure photograph. I had to put my nose into it in order to recognize
-this document, which does not read _Cette canaille de D..._, but _Ce
-canaille de D...._”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“I would know it at a distance of ten steps. This is
-not to be disputed, especially when one is in the habit of seeing a
-document, and I have seen this more than once. I formally maintain my
-assertion, and I say again: Colonel Picquart has lied.”
-
-The Judge.--“You are in disaccord.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Permit me. What, _Monsieur le Président_, do I rightly
-understand? You say ‘in disaccord’! For the second time an offence has
-been committed in this court. A witness has been insulted by another
-witness, and the only thing that you have to say is: ‘These witnesses
-are not in accord.’ I take note of it.”
-
-The Judge.--“You will take note of what you like.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Since Colonel Picquart, being addressed as he has just
-been addressed by Colonel Henry, hears no comment but this: ‘You are in
-disaccord,’ I ask that he explain himself unreservedly.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Gentlemen of the jury, you have seen here men like
-Colonel Henry, Major Lauth, and the keeper of the archives, Gribelin,
-make odious accusations against me. You have heard the colonel tell me
-that I have lied. You have heard Major Lauth make without proofs an
-allegation as serious as that which he made yesterday, saying that it
-was I, though he had not the proof, but that it must have been I who
-placed the dispatch in the cornucopia. Well, gentlemen of the jury,
-do you know why all this is done? You will understand it when you
-learn that the artisans of the previous affair, which is so intimately
-connected with the Esterhazy affair,--those who acted conscientiously,
-I think, believing that they had the truth on their side,--when you
-learn that Colonel Henry and M. Gribelin, aided by Colonel du Paty de
-Clam, under the direction of General Gonse, received from the regretted
-Colonel Sandherr (who was already afflicted with the serious disease
-of which he afterward died), as a sort of testament, at the time when
-he left the service, the duty of defending against all attacks this
-affair which involved the honor of the bureau, and which the bureau had
-pursued conscientiously, believing that it was acting in accordance
-with the truth. But I thought otherwise when I was at the head of this
-service, and considered that there was a better way of defending a
-cause than that of acting in blind faith. Consequently, for months,
-insults have been heaped upon me by newspapers paid for the spreading
-of slander and error.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Exactly.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“For months I have been in the most horrible
-situation that an officer can occupy,--assailed in my honor, and unable
-to defend myself. Tomorrow perhaps I shall be driven from this army
-that I love, and to which I have given twenty-five years of my life.
-That has not deterred me, remembering, as I did, that it was my duty to
-seek truth and justice. I have done it, thinking thereby to render a
-greater service to the army. I considered that I must do my duty as an
-honest man. That was what I had to say.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did I understand Colonel Henry to say that, a few
-days after he saw the file on Colonel Picquart’s desk, he spoke of the
-matter to General Gonse?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“Perhaps two or three days after; I do not remember
-exactly.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“How long after this conversation with General Gonse
-did Colonel Picquart leave the bureau?”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“A week, I think.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Summing up the matter, we shall have the truth. The
-presence of M. Leblois at the war department” ...
-
-The Judge.--“You are not asking questions now.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I wish to bring out the truth.”
-
-The Judge.--“You can bring it out in your argument.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I wish to bring it out now. If you do not wish it,
-deprive me of the floor. I declare that I can bring out the truth by
-the testimony of witnesses.”
-
-The Judge.--“Ask questions.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“No.”
-
-The Judge.--“You will do what you like in your argument.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then take the floor away from me, and I will be
-silent.”
-
-The Judge.--“I take the floor away from you so far as summing up is
-concerned. You can ask questions, if you like.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I wish, by the testimony of two witnesses who are in
-disaccord, to bring out the proof of the truth.”
-
-The Judge.--“Not now.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“But” ...
-
-The Judge.--“When you sum up.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“My claim is that, in two words, I can show which of
-these two officers has committed an involuntary error.”
-
-The Judge.--“Ask questions. You have not the floor for arguing the
-matter.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Have I the floor for proving the truth?”
-
-The Judge.--“I deprive you of the floor for argument.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask you this question, _Monsieur le Président_. A
-point is in doubt between two officers of the French army” ...
-
-The Judge.--“You have not the floor for argument. You can offer a
-motion; that is all.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Two officers have contradicted each other. If you will
-accord me the floor, I will, in two words” ...
-
-The Judge.--“No. Offer a motion. I do not accord you the floor.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“And Article 319?”
-
-The Judge.--“I know it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Gentlemen of the jury, permit me to read to you
-Article 319.”
-
-The Judge.--“I know it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is to the jurors that I wish to read it.”
-
-The Judge.--“Read if you like, but you will read it to the jurors, who
-have nothing to do with it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The jurors have everything to do with it. I take note
-of these words. I will not allow it to be said in presence of the jury
-that it has nothing to do with this matter. If _Monsieur le Président_
-adheres to those words, I ask him to repeat them.”
-
-The Judge.--“The jurors have nothing to do with the direction of the
-trial.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I read Article 319, second part. ‘The witness must not
-be interrupted. The accused or his counsel may question him through
-the president after his disposition, and say, as well against him as
-against his testimony, anything that may be useful to the defence of
-the accused.’ _Monsieur le Président_, in conformity with the terms of
-this article, I ask the floor to point out which of these two officers
-is right.”
-
-The Judge.--“But you will point it out in your argument.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I need to point it out in the
-presence of these two officers, because, if I am mistaken, one of the
-two will correct me.”
-
-The Judge.--“Explain, then, the question that you are going to put. I
-will put it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Colonel Henry says: ‘I spoke to General Gonse of
-what I saw in Colonel Picquart’s office, three days after having seen
-M. Leblois in Colonel Picquart’s office.’ Colonel Henry says also:
-‘Colonel Picquart left the service about a week after I spoke to
-General Gonse.’ I point out to the witness--and this is the purpose of
-my question--that in good arithmetic eight and three make eleven, and
-that the visit of M. Leblois, as is established undeniably, must have
-occurred between November 9, the date of M. Leblois’s return to Paris,
-and November 14, the date of Colonel Picquart’s departure from the
-service,--a period of five days. Between five and eleven days there is
-a difference of six days. I call Colonel Henry’s attention to the error
-of six days, and I ask him what he has to say about it.”
-
-Colonel Henry.--“You understand that I do not specify dates to a day. I
-have not spoken of dates.”
-
-This finishing the confrontation of Colonel Picquart with those who
-had contradicted him, the witness-stand was taken by M. Demange, the
-counsel of Captain Dreyfus before the council of war.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Demange._
-
-M. Labori.--“Will M. Demange tell us what he knows of the Esterhazy
-case, and of any matters connected with it that may be useful as
-throwing light upon M. Zola’s good faith?”
-
-The Judge.--“Speak only of the Esterhazy case; nothing else.”
-
-M. Demange.--“Exactly, _Monsieur le Président_. In the latter part of
-October I learned through the newspapers that M. Scheurer-Kestner had
-become convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus, and was at work to secure
-his rehabilitation. I wrote to M. Scheurer-Kestner, asking him to make
-known publicly at the tribune or elsewhere his reasons for affirming
-the innocence of Dreyfus. He did not answer, the reason of his silence
-being, as I found out later, that my letter came during the fortnight
-in which he had promised General Billot to say nothing. Therefore I
-was much agitated in mind until November 13 or 14, the day before
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Captain Esterhazy as the author of the
-_bordereau_ before the minister of war. On that day M. Mathieu Dreyfus
-came to my house in a state of great agitation, bringing with him a
-sample of handwriting astonishingly like that of the _bordereau_, and
-said to me: ‘M. Scheurer-Kestner says that it is my duty to denounce
-as the author of the _bordereau_ M. Esterhazy, whose writing this is.’
-Obeying a feeling of prudence, I said to M. Mathieu Dreyfus; ‘Do what
-M. Scheurer-Kestner has told you to do; but, first, I advise you to
-ask him to declare publicly that he has designated to the minister of
-war as the author of the _bordereau_ the person whom you are about to
-denounce; thus no one will be able to question your good faith. And,
-since you have only the handwriting, confine yourself to denouncing M.
-Esterhazy as the author of the _bordereau_, and go no farther.’ I was
-much excited, for I saw a chance for a revision of the Dreyfus case.
-I had already resolved, moreover, to address myself to the minister
-of justice, since I had learned from M. Salle that there had been a
-violation of the law. But I had not yet done so, for a reason that
-I may point out. Before employing the legal course, and especially
-that belonging to me by virtue of Article 441 of the code of criminal
-examination,--that is, the nullification of the sentence on the ground
-of violation of law,--I desired the assistance of those who, wearing
-the robe as I do, are anxious concerning the rights of defence. I
-awaited very impatiently the Esterhazy trial. I was present at that
-portion of it which was held in public, and even asked permission
-to intervene that there might be a contradictor. The permission was
-refused. But what especially interested me was the testimony of the
-experts. It was here that I expected to find the new fact necessary to
-the obtaining of a revision in case of Esterhazy’s acquittal. Dreyfus
-having been convicted only on the _bordereau_ and on handwriting, the
-expert testimony in the case of M. Esterhazy might bring out elements
-that would permit me to say to the minister of justice: ‘Here is
-the new fact.’ I knew from M. Ravary’s report that the experts had
-concluded that the writing was not M Esterhazy’s, but I did not know
-their reasons. I got no satisfaction, because of the closing of the
-doors, and thus this method of revision was cut off. There remained
-then the method of nullification. But I could not apply to the minister
-of justice, unless I was certain that the door would open, should I
-knock. Now, the conditions under which the Esterhazy trial took place
-had convinced me that the government did not desire to throw light on
-the Dreyfus case.
-
-“What could I do? I could say to the minister of justice: ‘I am
-morally certain that there has been a violation of the law,’ but
-I could not give him legal proof. I had to do, then, what is done
-in cases of this sort,--call on the minister of justice for an
-investigation, in order to have my assertion verified. I did not wish
-to take the step alone, and at that moment I had not found the desired
-assistance, either among lawyers or among those in political life.
-They said to me: ‘Have a care: do not stir up this Dreyfus matter now.
-It is too soon; we must wait.’ And I was waiting at the time when M.
-Scheurer-Kestner brought his facts to the knowledge of the public. It
-was necessary to my purpose to have a government desirous of throwing
-full light upon the matter, because, if there was to be a revision, it
-should not take place behind closed doors. When seven officers who are
-honesty itself have condemned a man erroneously, public opinion cannot
-be convinced, unless their error can be precisely pointed out. Well,
-I was convinced that the government did not want the light, and so I
-asked myself what I should do. Then were unchained the passions which
-today are making such riot, preventing men from giving further thought
-to the fate of my unfortunate client. It is no longer a question of
-the Dreyfus case; it is a question of the honor of the army; it is the
-struggle between the Semites and the anti-Semites. But I, alas! am
-concerned only with the interests of my client. Consequently, I said
-to myself, we must await more peaceful times, and I said the same to
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus and to Mme. Dreyfus. The attorney-general has told
-you that recourse had been had to revolutionary methods; but this
-reproach cannot be addressed to M. Zola, because he had not the power
-to use the legal methods. Only the Dreyfus family could use those, and
-consequently it is the Dreyfus family that is to be reproached, and,
-indirectly, myself. And I might even tell you that, for a long time,
-and especially since the speech of the attorney-general, I have been
-receiving every morning letters signed and unsigned, the former polite,
-the latter anything but polite, in which I am reproached with having
-failed in my duty. I consider that I have not failed. My duty has
-always been before my eyes, and you may be certain that my conscience
-will never allow me to shrink from it. But I believe that I acted
-very prudently in advising M. Dreyfus to wait. And so it is that the
-Esterhazy case, which had given me hope that I could resort to the
-legal methods of securing a revision, has made it impossible for me to
-use these methods, because it has convinced me that the government does
-not want the light.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will M. Demange tell us what he thinks of this passage
-from Major Ravary’s report? ‘To sum up what is left, a painful
-impression which will have an echo in all hearts truly French. Of the
-actors in the cast some have acted in the presence of the public,
-others have remained behind the scenes; but all the methods employed
-had the same end in view,--the revision of a judgment legally and
-justly rendered.’”
-
-M. Demange.--“Since I desired to apply to the minister of justice for a
-nullification of the judgment, I could not have considered it legally
-rendered.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Why not?”
-
-The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But it concerns the Esterhazy case.”
-
-M. Demange.--“I told you a moment ago. I had learned from M. Salle that
-there had been a violation of the law. That is why I wanted to apply to
-the minister.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What violation?”
-
-The Judge.--“No, no, M. Demange; do not answer that.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Permit me to ask a question. _Monsieur le Président_,
-I point out to you, in the first place, that an incident which lasted
-a very long time, and in which Colonel Henry figured, bore exclusively
-on the Dreyfus case; taking advantage of this observation, I ask you to
-put to M. Demange the following question. M. Demange has just told us,
-and is forbidden further explanation by the court, that he was certain
-that the verdict had not been legally rendered. I ask him if he cannot
-tell us on what he bases this certainty, and especially if he does not
-base it on the fact that a member of the council of war so declared to
-M. Salle, who has so declared to him.”
-
-M. Demange.--“Why, yes, of course.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Demange, do not answer.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask you, _Monsieur le Président_, to put the
-question.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, no, I will not put the question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have another question to ask M. Demange. There appeared
-in ‘Le Matin’ a few days ago a three-column interview, containing
-most interesting things, most of which, to my personal knowledge, are
-perfectly true. Without asking M. Demange if the interview took place
-at his house, I ask him to say if the statements of the interview are
-true.”
-
-M. Demange.--“In the first place, there was no interview. I had
-received a letter from a professor of the university, and a letter from
-two young licentiates who spoke in the name of the students more than a
-month ago. These two letters, which were signed, were very polite, and
-they accused me of failing in my duty, saying: ‘You know, M. Demange,
-that an illegality has been committed; why do you not apply to the
-minister of justice?’ These letters said that I was the cause of the
-appearance of M. Zola’s article. They said that, if I had applied to
-the minister of justice, none of this hubbub would have occurred. It is
-not a question, then, of an interview. I answered the professor and the
-young people, inviting them to come to see me. They came, and I had a
-confidential talk with them. The professor has respected my confidence,
-but the young people have not followed his example.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does M. Demange know the reasons why M. Leblois never
-entered into relations with the Dreyfus family or with M. Demange?”
-
-M. Demange.--“He never told me the reasons. I have even reproached him
-for it. I told him that then we should have been able to apply to the
-minister of justice.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did M. Demange see the _bordereau_ that was produced in
-the Esterhazy case?”
-
-M. Demange.--“I believe I did.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he see it in the original?”
-
-M. Demange.--“Certainly.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Has he seen the photographs of it?”
-
-M. Demange.--“I have seen the original on file, and I had in my
-possession, in the court-room, a photograph, which I restored at the
-end of the trial.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Is M. Demange familiar with the _fac-simile_ that was
-published in ‘Le Matin’?”
-
-M. Demange.--“I should say so. As soon as I saw it, forgetting that
-I had no longer the photograph in my hands, I said to myself: ‘Very
-likely it will be charged that I gave this to “Le Matin”.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then there was a resemblance between this _fac-simile_ and
-the _bordereau_?”
-
-M. Demange.--“A striking resemblance. You have not the original, then?”
-
-M. Labori.--“No, but we should very much like to have it. Is M.
-Demange aware that General de Pellieux has declared that between the
-_fac-simile_ and the original there is no resemblance? What does M.
-Demange think of that?”
-
-M. Demange.--“I think that two honest men can differ in opinion.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Ranc._
-
-The next witness called was M. Ranc, member of the senate. He
-testified as follows:
-
-“M. Zola’s good faith is complete and absolute. I know, _Monsieur le
-Président_, that you would not allow me to speak of the violation
-of the law and of the right of defence committed in the trial of
-1894 by the non-communication to the defence of a secret document.
-I will simply say, then, _Monsieur le Président_, that M. Zola was
-legitimately surprised by the way in which the second trial was
-conducted, by its mere pretence of an examination, or what seemed
-such to many people, and which certainly was the merest phantom of a
-contradictory discussion, since the complainant was not represented,
-since there was no confrontation of experts with experts, and since,
-after a reading of the indictment, which was really a plea in favor
-of the accused, they ordered closed doors so far as the testimony
-of Colonel Picquart and the handwriting-experts was concerned. That
-alone, in my judgment, is enough to explain and to justify the feeling
-of generous indignation which prompted M. Zola. He is after truth and
-justice, and what he has done is, in my eyes, the act of a man of heart
-and great courage.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Pierre Quillard._
-
-M. Pierre Quillard, man of letters, who was present as a disinterested
-spectator at the Esterhazy trial, succeeded M. Ranc upon the
-witness-stand.
-
-“As M. Zola is accused,” said he, “of having slandered the members of
-the council of war, reproaching them with having acquitted in obedience
-to orders, I believe that the impressions of a disinterested spectator
-may be useful in enlightening the religion of the jurors. We first
-listened to the indictment drawn up by M. Ravary. I suppose that the
-jurors are familiar with this document. It is indeed a remarkable
-document, very remarkable for its touching admiration of the eloquence
-of General Billot, and especially for the quite unusual kindliness
-exhibited toward the accused. And this kindliness seemed especially
-remarkable to those of us who were already familiar with the indictment
-of M. d’Ormescheville, seeing as we did that the same matters which
-were made a ground of complaint against that officer were cited in
-glorification of Major Esterhazy,--for instance, the fact of being a
-polyglot, and the fact of interesting himself in questions outside of
-his service. This indictment was, in reality, an argument against one
-of the witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. I felt at once that
-the disposition of the military court was favorable to M. Esterhazy.
-This impression was confirmed by the way in which the examination was
-conducted, and by the attitude of the court toward the witnesses. I
-do not wish to flatter the civil magistracy, but I believe that, as
-a rule, the civil magistrates study for themselves and in detail the
-documents relating to the matters submitted to them. Not so at all with
-the council of war, at least apparently. Every time that a specific
-document was referred to, the president of the council and the clerk
-had to appeal to M. Tézenas, M. Esterhazy’s lawyer. We are willing to
-believe that some of the documents cited were not of great importance,
-but here is an incident which seems to me notable and characteristic.
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus had declared in his testimony that in June, 1894, M.
-Esterhazy had written a letter in which he declared himself to be in a
-situation so frightful that, to extricate himself and his relatives, he
-perhaps would be obliged to commit a crime. It seems to me that this
-was a document of high importance in the case, but the president of the
-council had forgotten it, and M. Tézenas had to be called on to furnish
-the quotation. The document was handed to General de Luxer, who, after
-looking at it for some time, said: ‘There are four pages, it is very
-long;’ and then M. Mathieu Dreyfus went up to the bench and pointed
-out the specified phrase to the president. I was also very much struck
-at the kindly way in which M. Esterhazy’s examination was conducted.
-Whenever he suffered from lapse of memory, he had only to say: ‘That
-is not important,’ in order to cause his questioner to desist from
-pressing him. When M. Scheurer-Kestner said in his testimony: ‘Being a
-man, I may be mistaken,’ this expression of honesty was welcomed with
-sneers by the persons opposite him. Then closed doors were ordered,
-and, while one can understand the necessity of secrecy so far as
-certain testimony is concerned, no one has yet been able to see how the
-formation of s and x concerns the national defence. They came there
-in search of light, and I affirm that no attentive person went away
-without a conviction that men in power, if they had not given orders,
-had manifested a desire for a thickening of the darkness, rather than
-for light.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What does M. Quillard think of M. Zola’s letter?”
-
-M. Quillard.--“M. Zola belongs to a literary generation absolutely
-different from my own, and generally men of letters enjoying the public
-favor find in their immediate successors the worst of adversaries and
-the most clear-seeing of critics. We have not failed in this duty
-toward M. Zola, and even I, while rendering a high homage to his
-admirable work, which is an honor to French letters, have expressed
-the keenest reserves in regard to him. Therefore it is not at all as a
-faithful disciple that I come here, yet I am only the freer to say how
-beautiful, generous, and heroic the attitude of M. Zola seems to me. He
-might have kept silent; he might have listened to the counsels of what
-Victor Hugo in 1871 called the complaisance of public anger. He knew
-that, in writing the letter that he wrote, he was subjecting himself
-in advance to all insults and all infamies. He knew that he endangered
-not only his rest, but, as we now know, his life; that he endangered
-his honor, since we have arrived, it seems, at such a degree of social
-rottenness that no man can express his opinion without being accused of
-venality. Well, knowing the circumstances in which we live, and knowing
-the ignominy of anti-Semitism, I find this act of having spoken under
-these circumstances what he believed to be the truth, and his opinion
-that above the thing judged there was perhaps the thing true, to be
-worthy of an honest man, and of more honor to M. Zola than many of his
-works. So that I am happy to bring here the homage of my profound and
-respectful admiration.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Jean Jaurès._
-
-Following M. Quillard came M. Jean Jaurès, a Socialist member of the
-chamber of deputies, whose deposition follows:
-
-“I was present at the public portion of the Esterhazy trial, and it
-is because of that that I come to this bar to declare, not only the
-complete good faith of M. Zola, but the high moral and social value of
-his act. I consider that the conduct of the Esterhazy trial justifies
-M. Zola’s most vehement indignation. It justifies also the anxieties
-of those who, profoundly respectful of the national honor, do not wish
-the military power to rise superior to all control and all law. I add
-that the weaknesses shown by parliament and the government from the
-beginning of this affair have obliged citizens to intervene, and, by
-their defence of liberty and right, make up for the delinquencies of
-the responsible powers. In the Esterhazy case three decisive facts have
-especially struck me.
-
-“In the first place, why were closed doors ordered for the hearing of
-the handwriting-experts? Here was involved the essential feature of the
-accusation. M. Esterhazy was accused of having written the _bordereau_.
-Why, then, was it necessary to discuss in the mystery and secrecy of
-closed doors the experts’ testimony, which was to settle this question?
-Closed doors which withdraw the discussion from publicity, from the
-control of opinion so useful, not only to the accused, but to his
-judges,--closed doors can be justified only by superior reasons of
-national interest, and it is impossible to pretend that there was any
-national interest whatever in concealing from the country the expert
-testimony relative to the authorship of the _bordereau_. The simple
-reason for the closing of the doors was the existence of an interest,
-which was not that of justice, in concealing the contradictions between
-the conclusions of the experts who testified at the trial of 1894 and
-the expert conclusions presented in the Esterhazy trial. But there were
-not only these contradictions to veil; there were other facts pointing
-to M. Esterhazy’s authorship of the _bordereau_ which it was of
-importance to examine publicly. For my part, I know, and can bring to
-this bar positive testimony, that Major Esterhazy had made singularly
-disturbing declarations regarding the _bordereau_. I know it, and I
-can appeal here to the testimony of one of our honest _confrères_
-who will not contradict me; and I am determined, neglecting all the
-secondary proprieties which are not to be considered in this case, to
-go straight to the truth, because I consider that it is the first duty
-of every citizen, in this case in which obscurities have been heaped
-up without limit, to bring every particle of truth in his possession,
-that from all these particles the definitive truth may later be
-established. Well, this is what I heard M. Papillaud, an editor of ‘La
-Libre Parole,’ say twice. He made this declaration to me once as we
-were leaving the senate together after the interpellation made by M.
-Scheurer-Kestner. He made it again publicly in presence of a group that
-was forming in the Salle des Pas-Perdus of the chamber, which is open
-to all comers, and where all remarks are public. Well, M. Papillaud
-said to me, and to many other persons, this:
-
-“‘I believe profoundly in the guilt of Dreyfus. I believe it, because
-it seems to me impossible that French officers, having to judge
-another French officer, should have condemned him in the absence
-of overwhelming evidence. I believe it, because the power of the
-Jews, very great four years ago, as it is today, would have torn
-Dreyfus from the hands of justice, if there had been in his favor the
-slightest possibility of salvation. The _bordereau_, moreover, is
-but an accessory element in the case; but, so far as the _bordereau_
-is concerned, it is my absolute conviction that it is the work of
-Esterhazy, and this is why I think so. In the two days that followed
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus’s letters of denunciation, M. Esterhazy, who did
-not seem to have recovered his self-possession completely, went often
-to the editorial rooms. He came to the editorial rooms of “La Libre
-Parole,” and there, in the presence of my comrades and myself, he said:
-“Yes, there is between the handwriting of the _bordereau_ and my own a
-frightful resemblance, and when ‘Le Matin’ published the _fac-simile_,
-I felt that I was lost.”’
-
-“I point out to the jurors that the _fac-simile_ was published fifteen
-months, I believe, before the letter of accusation, at a time when
-the name of Esterhazy had not been mentioned in connection with this
-matter, and I leave them to judge of the moral gravity of such a
-remark. The result, if not the object, of hearing the expert testimony
-behind closed doors was the concealment of all these indications.
-
-“The second point that struck me was the attitude toward
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The most violent charges were made against
-him. He was accused of forgeries and of all sorts of base and guilty
-manœuvres, and the accusations were public. The report that embodied
-charges against him was read publicly, and, when the time came for
-Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart to defend himself, those who reproach
-M. Zola with assailing the honor of the army deprived this officer,
-thus publicly accused, of the opportunity of a public defence. I say
-that this is a serious matter. Here, before the jury, before this
-audience, all the charges against Colonel Picquart have been produced,
-and I shall be careful--for I have not the right, and it is not my
-affair--not to say a word concerning the substance of these charges.
-But, though he was accused in the presence of the country, in the
-presence of the jurors, who are the legal conscience of the country, he
-was allowed also to defend himself in the presence of the country and
-in the presence of the jurors. I ask the jurors who heard the charges
-of General de Pellieux against Colonel Picquart what they would have
-thought, if, after having given General de Pellieux the floor to crush
-Colonel Picquart, they had refused Colonel Picquart the right to defend
-himself publicly? Well, gentlemen, it was that that happened in the
-Esterhazy trial. Let them not plead again the necessity of the national
-defence, of national secrecy, since here, without ever compromising the
-national defence, and without the escape of a single terrible secret,
-Colonel Picquart has been allowed to defend himself publicly, as he was
-publicly attacked. It is precisely this outrageous contrast between
-the publicity of an attack upon a man and the closed doors ordered
-during his defence that has caused consciences to revolt,--I speak not
-only of my own, but of those of many independent men who are not in
-public life, professors, my school-comrades, men who have been absorbed
-throughout their lives in disinterested investigations,--and that has
-determined them in great numbers to throw off their reserve and their
-neutrality, and go down into the streets in defence of the right. Well,
-M. Zola felt as others felt, and no more than others have felt, the
-natural and legitimate indignation which such methods excite.
-
-“But, gentlemen, there was a third very disturbing fact in the
-Esterhazy case,--namely, the absence of any serious investigation
-regarding the history of the veiled lady and the method by which
-the secret document was conveyed to M. Esterhazy. Really, we must
-be strangely _blasé_ regarding certain things, or else arrogant
-affirmations must have the power of entirely destroying our critical
-and thoughtful disposition, if this fact does not agitate and trouble
-us. There is a secret document. This document concerns the national
-defence. It has, it seems, an international value. It might plunge our
-country into diplomatic difficulties. It is locked in the securest
-manner in the most secret and the most carefully guarded closet of the
-most remote sanctuary of the staff. And yet a photograph of this secret
-document is conveyed by melodramatic processes, through a mysterious
-woman, who transmits it to an officer previously notified, and the
-military authority, guardian of the national secrecy, guardian of the
-security of the country,--the military authority does not even outline
-the beginning of an investigation into the movements of this document.
-Really, it is singular. And why has it not done so? Why? Because the
-investigation would surely have shown that this photograph of the
-secret document could not have been transmitted to M. Esterhazy except
-by design of the staff, and for two decisive reasons. The first is
-that, if the staff had not known that this document was communicated
-to Major Esterhazy by the staff itself; if there had not been an
-evident connivance on the part of the general staff and of Major
-Esterhazy,--then, when Major Esterhazy, responsible officer of military
-discipline, presented himself at the war department to return a secret
-document without explaining how it came into his possession, the first
-care and the first duty of the general staff would have been to arrest
-Major Esterhazy. The second reason is that this document, I beg the
-jurors to remember, could have had no interest for Esterhazy, unless
-he knew that it came from the staff. In fact, of what was he accused?
-He was accused of having written the _bordereau_. Now, how could the
-possession of a document containing these words: ‘That scoundrel
-D----,’ help Esterhazy to show that he did not write the _bordereau_?
-This secret document, thus passed to Esterhazy, could not have been
-useful to him because of its contents. It could have been useful to
-him only because of the source whence it came to him. It could have
-been useful to him only as informing him that the staff was watching
-over him, that the staff was determined not to call the matter in
-question, that the staff was arranging a new plan of campaign, that it
-would not allow itself to be beaten, and that he, Esterhazy, protected
-by his chiefs, should rest easy, should not lose foot or head, should
-not be disturbed, should not make any confession. Such was the only
-possible interest of the document communicated to Esterhazy. It was
-not a cartridge that the staff sent him, but a cordial on the eve of
-battle,--on the eve, that is, of the trial.
-
-“Thus it appears throughout the Esterhazy trial, in the closed doors
-for the hearing of the expert testimony, in the strangulation behind
-closed doors practised upon Colonel Picquart, in the absence of all
-investigation as to the conveyance of the secret document,--it appears
-everywhere that the trial was conducted, not with a view to truth and
-justice, but for the systematic justification of the military chiefs.
-And then, gentlemen of the jury, the country has the more right to be
-agitated and indignant, because they make use of the noblest words
-to mislead it. There are no words more beautiful, more grand, more
-sacred, than those of country, national defence, national honor. But
-it is precisely because these words are the holiest and the grandest
-known to the tongues of men that they have no right to profane them and
-to prostitute them in covering up tricks of procedure. No, no! This
-profanation of the country was enough to stir up all French souls and
-all upright consciences.
-
-“And now why have citizens like Zola, and many others with him,
-thrown themselves into the battle, uttering this cry of their emotion
-and their conscience? Because the responsible powers, consecrated to
-intrigue and to impotence, did not act, did not come to the front.
-Was it not the first duty of the legislators and the governors,
-from the hour that the report was spread that a secret document had
-been communicated to the judges in a criminal trial without being
-communicated to the accused and to his counsel,--was it not the first
-duty of the legislators and the governors to find out whether this
-violation of republican law and of human rights had been committed?
-And why did they not do it? On this point we have endeavored to obtain
-from the responsible government the declarations that it owed to the
-country. This violation of law and of right has been alluded to from
-the tribune of the senate. I have ventured to put the question from
-the tribune of the chamber, squarely asking the prime minister: ‘Yes
-or no, has a document of interest to an accused person, capable of
-establishing or confirming his guilt,--yes or no, has such a document
-been communicated to the judges without being communicated to the
-accused and to his counsel?’ and I have been able to obtain no precise
-reply.
-
-“They always take refuge in that equivocation, the legal truth. Oh!
-yes, it is legal truth that a man is guilty when he has been legally
-condemned, and it is also legal truth, it seems, that this man is
-guilty and has been legally judged when his appeal for revision has
-been rejected. But that does not tell us whether the communication of
-a secret document, outside of all legal guarantees,--a communication
-unknown at the time of the appeal for revision,--has been made or not.
-And to this question, put by the responsible representatives of the
-country to the responsible government, why have they steadily refused
-to make a clear reply? I am mistaken. M. Méline, the prime minister,
-has answered me: ‘I cannot reply without serving your designs.’ It
-seems that in the country of the Declaration of the Rights of Man
-it is a design to affirm that a person may not be judged on the
-strength of secret documents. But he said to me (and his words are in
-‘L’Officiel’): ‘You shall be answered elsewhere.’ Elsewhere! I thought
-that it would be in the assize court; and it is true that here, by
-surprise as it were, the truth has finally come to light. But I do
-not know that any of the responsible representatives of power have
-come here any more than to parliament to answer the question that
-the country has a right to put, and it is really prodigious that a
-country which believes itself free cannot know whether the law has been
-respected, either in the palace where the law is made, or in the palace
-where it is enforced.
-
-“Everybody foresaw this violation. There were not four deputies in the
-chamber who doubted it; why do they not speak of it, and why do they
-not act? The other day, when I put this decisive question very simply,
-I was sustained by a little group of friends,--fifteen or twenty,--but
-in the chamber as a whole there was a passive silence. Yet, when I
-descended from the tribune into the lobbies, where the parliamentary
-soul recovers its elasticity and its liberty, deputies without number,
-of all groups and of all parties, said to me: ‘You are right, but
-what a pity that this matter was brought up a few months before the
-election!’ Well, I believe that they are mistaken. I believe that,
-in spite of all the passing fogs, in spite of all the insults and
-all the threats,--I believe that this country is yet to have the
-light and truth. But, if the truth is to be vanquished, it is better
-to be vanquished with it, than to become an accomplice in all these
-equivocations and humiliations.
-
-“But, gentlemen, there has been not simply a violation of the law. This
-violation has taken place in particularly aggravating circumstances.
-Not only has a minister of war communicated a secret document under
-illegal conditions, but he has not even taken what I will call human
-precautions against error. He has not even consulted the cabinet.
-
-“I have heard M. Charles Dupuy, I have heard M. Delcassé,--and here
-I violate the professional secret of others,--I have heard these
-gentlemen, who were then a part of the cabinet to which General Mercier
-belonged, declare that there was no mention in the cabinet of any
-secret document except the _bordereau_; that there was no allusion to
-the other secret documents of which there has been talk since. Well,
-gentlemen of the jury, this shows not only that the communication was
-illegal, but that a single man, without official consultation with his
-friends, took it upon himself to throw into the scales of the trial a
-document whose value he alone had dared to measure. I say that this
-man, in spite of the brilliancy of his service and of his stripes, in
-spite of the arrogance of power, is a man,--that is, a miserable and
-fragile being, made of darkness and of pride, of weakness and of error;
-and I do not understand how it is that in this country of law a single
-man has ventured to assume, upon his single conscience, upon his single
-reason, upon his single head, to decide upon the life, liberty, and
-honor of another man. And I say that, if such customs and such habits
-were to be tolerated in our country, there would be an end to liberty
-and justice.
-
-“And that is why citizens like M. Zola have done right in rising to
-protest. While the government, imprisoned in its own devices, intrigued
-or equivocated; while parliamentary parties, imprisoned in their own
-fears, kept silence or abdicated; while military justice set up the
-arbitrary _régime_ of closed doors,--citizens rose in their pride, in
-their liberty, in their independence, to protest against the violation
-of right, and thereby have done the greatest service to our country
-that they possibly could do.
-
-“Oh! I know very well that M. Zola must suffer for this noble service,
-and I know also why certain men hate and pursue him. They pursue in him
-the man who has maintained the rational and scientific interpretation
-of the miracle; they pursue in him the man who has predicted in
-‘Germinal’ the flowering of a new humanity, the springing-up of the
-wretched _prolétariat_ from the depths of suffering to the sunlight;
-they pursue in him the man who has just torn the staff from that
-baneful and arrogant irresponsibility in which unconsciously the way
-is paved for all the disasters of the country. They may pursue him and
-hunt him down, but I believe that I express the feeling of all free
-citizens in saying that before him we respectfully bow.”
-
-At the conclusion of the testimony of M. Jaurès the defence offered two
-motions: first, that the court record its acknowledgment of the fact
-that, Colonel Picquart having been called a liar by Lieutenant-Colonel
-Henry, neither the presiding judge or the attorney-general intervened
-to suppress the insult; second, that, General de Pellieux having
-declared that there was little or no resemblance between the
-_bordereau_ and _fac-simile_, the court order the production of the
-original of the _bordereau_. The first motion was granted, but the
-court refused to order the production of the _bordereau_.
-
-The testimony of the experts being now in order, M. Bertillon took the
-witness-stand.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Bertillon._
-
-“I am absolutely sure,” he testified, “that Dreyfus wrote the
-_bordereau_. I am absolutely sure that it is impossible that any other
-person could have written it. There may be a revision followed by
-an acquittal, but I swear most absolutely that it can not be proved
-that any other person than the individual originally condemned unites
-within himself the calligraphic characteristics that this _bordereau_
-exhibits. It could have been written only at the house of the condemned
-man.”
-
-M. Labori.--“This is very interesting. We pretend to prove that the
-_bordereau_ is the work of Major Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Bertillon tells us that there is only one man who can
-have written it. Well, if he succeeds in proving that, it will have
-to be admitted that the defence finds itself in a very embarrassing
-situation. So I ask M. Bertillon to tell us why the _bordereau_ can not
-be the work of Major Esterhazy, but is necessarily the work of another.”
-
-The Judge.--“Have you Major Esterhazy’s handwriting?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“No, I have proofs that are not exactly calligraphic
-proofs. I have no confidence in expert opinion in the matter of
-handwriting. I believe that it is good for something as an eliminating
-process, but that beyond that it is necessary to make a _tabula rasa_.
-But I have convincing proofs; they are not simply proofs that put one
-on the scent; they constitute a demonstration that the _bordereau_ was
-written by the man originally condemned.”
-
-The Judge.--“And that it could not have been written by anybody else?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“No. The _bordereau_, whatever they may say, is not in
-a running hand. It follows a geometric rhythm, the equation of which
-was found in the blotting-pad of the man originally condemned, and with
-this blotting-pad it is possible to re-establish his handwriting. I
-will do it, if it is desired.”
-
-M. Labori.--“That is precisely what we ask. It is very important. It
-is absolutely necessary that the witness who now addresses us should
-make the requisite demonstration, and that is the point at which I was
-coming. We have a blackboard here. If M. Bertillon wishes to make use
-of it, it is at his disposition.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Produce the documents that were seized at the house of
-the condemned man, and I will make my demonstration. But let me add,
-that you may not take me for a trifler, that this demonstration is
-long and difficult. Nevertheless the practice is easy. Some day I will
-explain myself on this subject. I can reconstitute the _bordereau_ for
-you out of independent elements. But you must give me these elements; I
-cannot speak in the dark.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, M. Bertillon, we will do all that we possibly can
-for you. I promise you that, if we do not get these elements, it will
-not be my fault. Will _Monsieur le Président_ ask M. Bertillon if he
-recognizes this little paper, which I pass first to the court?”
-
-The Judge [stupefied].--“What is this?”
-
-M. Labori--“That is a plan drawn by M. Bertillon in his expert
-testimony. I should like to know if he recognizes it. Notice of its
-production was made to the attorney-general, and the plan has been
-published in ‘L’Aurore’.”
-
-[Illustration: M. BERTILLON’S PLAN OF EXPERT PROOF.]
-
-M. Bertillon.--“That is not at all the plan of my deposition; it is
-a scheme for a special point in my deposition. I do not deny it at
-all; I accept it; only I am astonished that you have not reproduced it
-entire, because there was a very important point that is not indicated
-in it, and that should have been indicated,--namely, the matter of the
-blotting-pad.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Bertillon will make the necessary correction.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Yes, if you will give me the documents to which I have
-referred.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did you mention these documents in your written expert
-testimony?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I furnished no written expert testimony.”
-
-The Judge.--“First of all, M. Bertillon, will you tell us what this
-plan is?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“The significance of this plan in this case is
-sufficiently great, in that it is a material proof that the experts
-in the first trial were of the same opinion as those of the second.
-But I am absolutely determined to say nothing, unless the documents
-are produced,--as well those that were taken from the blotting-pad as
-those that were seized in the war department. I am perfectly willing
-to make my demonstration public, but I ask that the court put me in a
-position to do so by furnishing the documents. Then I will make the
-demonstration. But I warn you that it will be rather long. Perhaps it
-would take two sessions.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What are these documents?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Oh! I do not know their titles. There was a note of
-this, a note of that, etc.”
-
-The Judge.--“Can you not sum up what you said in your report?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I made no written report. The documents seized at the
-war department are various notes concerning the service, writings
-on various questions. The documents taken from the blotting-pad are
-letters from M. Mathieu Dreyfus, one concerning hunting rifles, and the
-other concerning an issue of bonds. But their substance is immaterial.
-Yet these documents must be seen in order to be discussed and analyzed.
-I cannot go farther.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did you not once receive a visit from M. Picquart?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Yes, on May 16, 1896. He brought me a little
-photograph of a few lines of handwriting, an extremely poor photograph,
-with words traced in every direction, and asked me my opinion of
-the writing; Before even looking at the paper, I suspected that it
-concerned the Dreyfus matter, for, if it had been a matter of expert
-testimony in some new case, Colonel Picquart would have had to act
-through my superior, the prefect of police. Laying the paper on the
-table, I said to him: ‘Is this the Dreyfus case again?’ He answered: ‘I
-should like to know your opinion.’ I looked at the writing, and, after
-a single glance, said to him: ‘That singularly resembles the writing
-of the _bordereau_ or the writing of Mathieu Dreyfus. It relates to
-that case.’ Then he said: ‘No, it does not relate to that case. Study
-it, and talk with me about it afterwards. Be good enough to come to
-the war office tomorrow to bring me the original.’ I did what Colonel
-Picquart asked. I had the document photographed, and then I paid no
-further attention to it. I had a handwriting that resembled that of
-the _bordereau_. Now, I have absolute proof that the _bordereau_ must
-have been written by the condemned man. Of what consequence is it to me
-that there are other hand writings like it. Though there were a hundred
-officers in the war department who had this handwriting, it would be
-all one to me, for to me it is a settled matter.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Bertillon will do a service to everybody, and
-especially to the defence, by explaining as far as possible his methods
-of investigation.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I am absolutely determined to say nothing until the
-documents are produced.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Perhaps there is a way of arranging this. The witness
-said just now, speaking of two or three documents, that they were
-letters from Mathieu Dreyfus. Is it necessary to have the same letters?
-Could not M. Bertillon explain his theory with other letters from
-Mathieu Dreyfus?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Oh! not at all.”
-
-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).
-
- In convalescence here, I read deposition of Jaurès. Have already
- contradicted in “Libre Parole.” Beg you, _Monsieur le Président_, to
- excuse my absence, and read to the jury the following declaration:
- Never did I make the remarks reported by Jaurès. Never did I hear
- Esterhazy use such language. Once Esterhazy said in my presence: “They
- thought me ruined because of the resemblance in handwritings. If there
- is a resemblance, I shall prove that Dreyfus has imitated my writing.”
- I saw Esterhazy seven times. Never did I hear him say anything other
- than that. Therefore I protest against the Jaurès account, which is a
- veritable falsehood, the more blameworthy because I, being sick here,
- cannot appear before the court. Therefore I count on you, _Monsieur
- le Président_, to establish the truth, and beg you to accept the
- assurance of my distinguished sentiments.
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, we do not complain at all at the
-introduction of these documents into the trial. Only I permit myself to
-point out that no notice of them has been given, and we shall ask the
-same right for documents emanating from us.”
-
-The Judge.--“These are not documents of the trial.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If, in the course of the trial, we receive documents of a
-similar character, we shall ask the court to read them.”
-
-The Judge.--“I have read these by virtue of my discretionary power.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, it is to your discretionary power
-that we shall appeal.”
-
-M. Jaurès.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I regret more than anyone that
-the health of M. Papillaud does not permit him to be here, for I am
-sure that, before the clearness of my declaration and the precision
-of my recollections, he would not be able to maintain his denial
-for a moment. I declare once more, under oath, that M. Papillaud
-twice said to me that he had heard M. Esterhazy say to him, when ‘Le
-Matin’ published the _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_: ‘I felt that
-I was ruined.’ I give the circumstances in detail. Once he said it
-as we were leaving the senate, after M. Scheurer-Kestner had made
-his interpellation. We had met at the foot of the grand staircase,
-and we were talking of the result of the session. We agreed that, in
-spite of appearances, M. Scheurer-Kestner had obtained an important
-result in securing the admission of the _bordereau_ as evidence in the
-investigation. That was the starting-point of a conversation concerning
-the _bordereau_, in the course of which M. Papillaud said to me: ‘If it
-were only a matter of the _bordereau_, the thing would be soon settled,
-for I am convinced that the _bordereau_ is the work of Esterhazy. I
-know that by the agitation that he showed when, at a time when his
-name had never been uttered in connection with the affair, he said,
-on seeing the _fac-simile_ in ‘Le Matin,’ that he felt that he was
-ruined.’ Another time, in the Salle des Pas-Perdus of the chamber, I
-approached M. Papillaud, who was standing in a group of journalists,
-and said to him: ‘How can you still march behind this man after the
-publication of the letters in “Le Figaro?”’ He answered: ‘We can the
-less march behind him because, when he came to the office of “La Libre
-Parole,” he showed a singular agitation in consequence of seeing the
-_bordereau_ in “Le Matin.” He felt that he was lost. From that moment
-I, who was, and am still, convinced of the guilt of Dreyfus, said to my
-friends in the office of “La Libre Parole:” “At any rate we will not
-march behind Esterhazy.”’ These, gentlemen, are precise affirmations,
-and, since I was not present just now when M. Papillaud’s telegram
-was read, I may be permitted to point out to the jurors the singular
-conditions under which this contradiction was obtained. To facilitate
-M. Papillaud in his contradiction, an inexact version of my testimony
-was telegraphed to him. ‘La Libre Parole’ reproduces this morning the
-telegram that was sent to M. Papillaud, which says that I declared that
-M. Esterhazy said to M. Papillaud: ‘I feel myself ruined.’ That is not
-what I said. I repeated exactly a much more serious remark,--namely,
-that fifteen months before, on seeing the _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_,
-Esterhazy felt himself ruined. I am astonished that this disavowal
-could have been obtained from M. Papillaud, unless they distorted the
-meaning and text of my words, and my astonishment is the greater since
-all the newspapers, with the exception of ‘La Libre Parole,’ have
-printed my deposition exactly. And it is surprising that that paper,
-which is directly interested in the incident, is the only one that has
-not reproduced it exactly. But I understand the interest that they
-have in denying the remark. It is twofold. In the first place, it is
-extremely serious in itself, as a moral indication of M. Esterhazy’s
-state of mind fifteen months ago, and, secondly, it demonstrates,
-contrary to the allegation of General de Pellieux, that between the
-_fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_ and the _bordereau_ itself there is
-not the difference that he has proclaimed, and the proof is that M.
-Esterhazy, before the council of war, where I was present, recognized
-a striking resemblance between his own handwriting and that of the
-_bordereau_, having previously recognized the same resemblance between
-his own handwriting and that of _fac-simile_. Therefore there is no
-difference between the _fac-simile_ and the _bordereau_.”
-
-The judge then reread the telegram from M. Papillaud, and M. Jaurès
-added:
-
-“I reassert most absolutely the declarations made in my deposition.
-I add that in controversies between friends--for the most intimate
-friends have been divided for many weeks past--many have not agreed
-with me as to the case of M. Esterhazy and the conduct of the trial.
-And to these I have often made use, especially in discussion with my
-friends of ‘La Dépêche,’ of the statements made by M. Papillaud.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Gentlemen of the jury, ‘La Libre Parole’ of this morning
-publishes under the heading, ‘The Defender of Zola,’ the following
-note, the meaning of which it is impossible for me to misunderstand.
-
- One of our readers asks us if we know a member of the Paris bar, of
- German origin, naturalized as a Frenchman, who married an English
- Jewess, and whose father, still a German, is now a railroad inspector
- on the other side of the Rhine. Is this question aimed at M. Labori,
- the theatrical defender of Zola? At any rate it is certain that,
- like all who are engaged immediately or remotely in the anti-French
- conspiracy, M. Labori has foreign attachments. He married a young
- woman named Ockey, a Protestant by origin, after her divorce from M.
- Pachmann, a German, if I am not mistaken, by whom she has children,
- whom their father visits in their new family. I give this information
- to show that M. Labori has been under influence not precisely
- nationalistic, though I take good care not to follow his example in
- bringing into the matter women who have nothing to do with it.
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, upon this note I shall make no comment. I
-answer with facts, and, as I am determined to let nothing stop me in
-the task that I have undertaken, and as I expect other attacks to be
-made, I declare that I answer once for all. This is my reply: I am not
-naturalized. I was born at Reims, of a French father. My wife is not
-an Israelite. M. Pachmann so seldom makes visits at my house that I
-have not the honor of his personal acquaintance. He is not a German;
-he is a Russian. He was born at Odessa; his father was a professor in
-the Odessa University; his brother is now a Russian senator at St.
-Petersburg. My father was an Alsatian. For forty-five years he has
-been in the service of the Eastern Railway Company. In that capacity
-he was in the campaign of 1870, during which he was entrusted, at the
-camp of Châlons, with the embarkation of the French troops. In 1871
-he was delighted to receive, at the Reims railway station, from the
-hands of the Prussians, the service of the French railways. It was
-in that period of his life, perhaps, that he was called upon for the
-greatest proof of his patriotism. Since 1871 he has been entrusted,
-in unison with the military commissions, with the organization of the
-national defence over the line of railway with which he is connected.
-Seven years ago, in January, 1891, if I am not mistaken, my father was
-decorated with the order of the legion of honor, at the request and
-by the mediation of the fourth bureau of the staff of the minister of
-war, and it was General de Boisdeffre who announced his decoration to
-him, with the congratulations that he thought it his duty to add. Such,
-gentlemen of the jury, is my reply. I simply ask you to judge from this
-incident of the value of certain attacks and certain assertions.”
-
-After these incidents the witness-stand was again taken by M.
-Bertillon, who declared, in answer to a question, that he had not
-succeeded in obtaining from the war department the documents of which
-he had spoken on Saturday.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Under what conditions did M. Bertillon ask for them,
-and under what conditions were they refused?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I remain on the ground of my previous deposition.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Clemenceau asks you how you asked for these documents,
-and how they were refused.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“The war department paid eight hundred francs for these
-documents. I turned that sum into the municipal treasury, considering
-that these documents had been made with the products of my laboratory.
-They remain the property of the war department; I have them temporarily
-in my possession. Really, I ought to have deposited them with the
-clerk of the war department. I am only a witness; it is not my duty to
-execute commissions.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“M. Bertillon told us day before yesterday that he
-could not produce the documents without the authorization of his
-superiors,--the prefect of police and the minister of war. It was an
-important point, for the minister of war is the complainant in this
-case. Then the court said to him: ‘Will you ask your superiors for
-authority to bring these pieces, and answer here on Monday?’ Today M.
-Bertillon tells us that he has not obtained them. I ask him to tell us
-under what conditions he asked for them, and under what conditions they
-were refused.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I have answered that question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“M. Bertillon must have gone to the war department and
-said something to somebody, who must have made him some answer.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I believe that I have explained sufficiently that in
-my relations with the war department I have acted in my individual
-capacity.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“You do not answer my question.”
-
-The Judge.--“You are asked what steps you have taken to obtain the
-documents.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I have reflected upon the situation, and have realized
-that these plates are the property of the minister of war.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then, contrary to what the witness just said, he has
-not been forbidden to produce these documents.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I have been forbidden nothing at all.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then the witness has seen nobody?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I have seen nobody. I have consulted the situation.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then the witness, instead of consulting the prefect of
-police and the minister of war, has consulted the situation?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I said that I would refer the matter to my superiors.
-But a moment’s reflection showed me that I was in error. I have not to
-refer to my superiors facts that concern me personally, especially when
-I am acting as a witness.”
-
-M. Labori [passing a copy of M. Bertillon’s scheme to the witness,
-and another copy to the court]--“Will you ask M. Bertillon if this
-is an exact representation of the bastions, intrenchments, and lines
-of battle which he presented to the council of war after his expert
-testimony?”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, will you explain to us what this document is?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I handed this little work to M. Bertillon at the last
-session.”
-
-The Judge.--“But will you explain to us, M. Labori, of what it
-consists?”
-
-M. Labori.--“That is the explanation which I am trying to get at.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“What is the question?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask if this little work really emanates from M.
-Bertillon.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“It refers to my deposition of 1894 in the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“What conclusion does the witness draw from it?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I recognize that I was wrong Saturday in allowing
-myself to be dragged upon this ground. But I will add one word to
-settle the question,--namely, that the point to which I called
-attention is still missing. But I am fully determined, from this on, to
-take shelter behind the court’s decree forbidding any mention of the
-Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And I am determined, as counsel, to demand that the
-decree of the court shall be observed completely, or not at all. I
-affirm that this is an exact copy of the document of which M. Bertillon
-made use in 1894. In vain will he affirm the contrary.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Was it from his consultation of the situation
-yesterday that he got the idea of sheltering himself behind the court’s
-decree? M. Bertillon has seen neither the minister of war or the
-prefect of police. He tells us that he has consulted the situation. We
-ask how this situation led him to refuse to speak today of the things
-of which he spoke day before yesterday.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“The counsel will understand that, in my personal
-situation, after having been concerned in the serious matter of 1894,
-I feel from time to time internal ebullitions,--that my situation is
-painful and tormenting.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“The witness tells us that his situation is tormenting.
-He means that he is an official, and that, as such, there are things
-that embarrass him.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“That is not it at all.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then I ask an explanation of the word ‘tormenting.’
-This word is now in the trial, and I hold to it. It must be explained,
-for it is a very pregnant matter.”
-
-The Judge.--“Let us say that the witness will not speak.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I burn with only one thing--to make known my
-deposition. But there are a thousand obstacles in the way. I am
-tormented every day by a thousand plots. Then from time to time the
-dike bursts, _sapristi!_”
-
-The Judge.--“You see that the witness will not speak. Come, M.
-Bertillon, have you photographs of the letters which served you for
-comparison?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“In which case?”
-
-The Judge.--“In the first, since you have declared that you had nothing
-to do with the second.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“In the case of ex-Captain Dreyfus? I thought that this
-case was not to be treated here.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is not a question of treating it. You are asked if you
-have documents.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“That is to speak of that case.”
-
-M. Labori.--“How does it happen that the witness perceives the
-obligation to be silent concerning the Dreyfus case only in the
-court-room, and that we find in the newspapers detailed interviews with
-him regarding the matter?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“As regards interviews relating to the Dreyfus case,
-you will not find many from me. I have received many reporters, and
-have dismissed as many.”
-
-M. Labori then read an interview from “L’Echo de Paris.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“For every word, an inaccuracy; but to rectify them it
-would be necessary to go into the case of 1894. That I will not do.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Very well; then will M. Bertillon prove to us, by the
-interesting methods that are peculiar to him, not that the _bordereau_
-is the work of Dreyfus, because the court will stop him, but that it is
-not the work of Esterhazy?”
-
-The Judge.--“You hear the question. Under these conditions I can put
-it to you. On your soul and conscience, is it possible that this
-_bordereau_ came from the hand of Major Esterhazy?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“It is impossible.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The experts are not yet oracles, and we ask them for
-explanations.”
-
-The Judge.--“Wait, I have not asked why.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have been waiting a long time.”
-
-The Judge.--“Witness, what makes you think that the _bordereau_ is not
-the work of Major Esterhazy?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Because it is the work of another.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“And what makes him think that it is the work of
-another?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Now we are falling back upon my depositions of
-Saturday. This will never end.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Since the affair of 1894, has not the witness made a
-demonstration to strangers or to friends, I do not say of the guilt of
-Dreyfus, but of his system?”
-
-The Judge.--“Have you made a demonstration of your system? What is the
-system which you have employed to arrive at the result of which you
-have just told us?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“You are asking me for a theoretical course in the
-expert examination of handwriting. I published two articles on that
-subject a few weeks ago in ‘La Revue Scientifique.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“We have read them, but I do not find there what I ask.
-On the contrary, I find there a demolition of expert examinations of
-handwriting, leaving nothing of them.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“At the end of the article I say that only material
-proofs can lead to the truth in matters of this kind. These material
-proofs are in the file of 1894.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No equivocation. I have the honor to be acquainted with
-the file of 1894, since I am the counsel of Mme. Alfred Dreyfus, the
-guardian of Dreyfus. I know this file, as well as the expert testimony
-of M. Bertillon. It is there. I say nothing more. But there must be no
-equivocation here, and M. Bertillon must not try to make us believe
-that he has judged as a judge concerning material proofs touching
-the substance of the trial. I ask him if the documents that were
-delivered to him were secret documents concerning the treason, or mere
-handwritings from which he has drawn conclusions.”
-
-The Judge.--“Will you answer?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Of which case is he speaking?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Of the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I thought that there was a decree of the court
-forbidding us to speak of that case.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is not for the witness to tell the court the
-meaning of its decrees.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I will not insist, because it would take us a month.
-But could M. Bertillon tell us the difference between dextrogyrate
-writing and sinistrogyrate writing, and the consequences that he draws
-therefrom as an expert?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I know the theory of that matter, but I did not use it
-in my expert examination.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Without concerning ourselves with the Dreyfus case, I
-take the words _A. Dreyfus_ and the word _adresse_, and I ask him what
-scientific consequence he can draw from the possible superposition of
-the words, both of which begin with _adr_, but the first of which has a
-period between the A and the D. Will the witness explain to us by what
-method these two writings can be compared?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“This question relates to my deposition of 1894, and,
-moreover, is of no importance.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will the witness tell us if the _bordereau_ is written in
-a running hand?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“It is absolutely impossible for me to answer that
-question without entering into my deposition of 1894.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Permit me, _Monsieur le Président_, I have not to occupy
-myself with M. Bertillon’s demonstration of 1894. That did not place
-an eternal gag in his mouth. I know but one thing. We have a witness
-here,--I may say an official witness; he is bound to testify, and I
-ask him a question of the first importance. It does not concern the
-Dreyfus case, which for the moment I forget. I speak of the Esterhazy
-_bordereau_. I know why the witness cannot answer, and I will give the
-reason in my summing-up. But my question is: Is the writing of the
-_bordereau_ in a running hand, or is it made up of traced words?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“It is impossible to answer that question without
-entering into my deposition of 1894. It is neither one or the other. It
-is in a running hand, and it is not. I will throw light upon all that.
-I must go to the heart of the question, or say nothing at all.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The jurors desire proofs. I shall furnish them by opposing
-the three official experts of 1894 to the three official experts of
-1898 who passed on the same _bordereau_, for it is impossible to
-reconcile their testimony. That is why the witness will not answer. I
-repeat: Is the _bordereau_--and here I pay no attention to Dreyfus;
-call him Tartempion, if you will, but answer me--is the _bordereau_
-written in a running hand, or is it made up of traced words?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“It is impossible to answer that in a single word.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We do not ask that you shall answer it in a single word.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“That is to enter into my deposition of 1894. I cannot
-do it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has the witness seen the Esterhazy _bordereau_?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“You torment me with questions.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Has the honorable witness seen the thin paper original of
-the _bordereau_ attributed to Major Esterhazy before the council of
-war of 1898, which is the same that led to the condemnation of Captain
-Dreyfus in 1894?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I am willing to answer yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“You are very accommodating.”
-
-M. Labori.--“This is something, at any rate.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Perhaps I did wrong to say so.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No, you did not. Did the witness base his expert testimony
-on the original, or on photographs, or on tracings, or on all three?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Now we are going straight into the Dreyfus case. It is
-evident that I am burning to speak of these questions, concerning which
-so many errors have been attributed to me.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I beg the court to ask M. Bertillon if the writing of the
-_bordereau_ is natural or disguised.”
-
-The Judge.--“Can you answer that?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Absolutely no, not without entering into my deposition
-of 1894.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, in the Dreyfus case three
-experts say that it is in a running hand; three say that it is
-disguised; three that it was written by Dreyfus, and three that it was
-written by Esterhazy. If I show this, I do not say that we shall have
-made progress toward the manifestation of the truth, but we shall have
-thrown some light on the value of expert testimony, and that is what I
-am trying to get at. Consequently I ask the witness, in a general way:
-Is the Esterhazy _bordereau_ in a natural handwriting or in a disguised
-handwriting?”
-
-The witness made no answer.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has not the witness demonstrated his system to
-friends?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I have been the object of a thousand attempts, of a
-thousand plots, but” ...
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“By a lawyer?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“I repeat, attempts have been made” ...
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Yes or no, has he demonstrated the principle of his
-system to a lawyer of the appellate court of Paris?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Certainly not. I have often defended myself against
-the imputations of Bernard Lazare and company. But the most absurd
-statements have been attributed to me.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“M. Bernard Lazare is not a lawyer of the appellate
-court of Paris. Has the witness had a twenty minutes’ talk concerning
-the principle of his system with a certain lawyer of the appellate
-court of Paris?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“When you shall make your questions more precise, I will
-try to remember more precisely. I repeat that it is impossible to speak
-intelligibly of the Dreyfus case without the documents before us. If
-you only knew how for the last three years I have been pestered in all
-ways! They ask me insidious questions. They accuse me of this and of
-that. How many friends have become cool toward me because of the _rôle_
-attributed to me in this matter! I assure you that it is not funny. My
-conscience is at ease, but I have suffered much during the last three
-years. Now they make me one of the accused. That has nothing to do with
-the Zola case.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has the witness had a twenty minutes’ talk with our
-_confrère_ Decori, a lawyer of the appellate court of Paris, concerning
-the principle of his system?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Oh! it is possible that I have spoken to M. Decori, as
-to many others, of the Dreyfus case, and of the insults that have been
-heaped upon me in connection therewith.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Now we will go on to something else. If tomorrow a
-new traitor were to be discovered in France, and if M. Bertillon were
-to be asked to demonstrate the guilt of this new traitor by an expert
-examination similar to that of which we have been speaking, is it
-probable that M. Bertillon’s system would be applicable to this new
-traitor and his handwriting?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“All these questions relate to the Dreyfus case.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, no, this is a general question. It has nothing to do
-with the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“That is, you transform into an accusation” ...
-
-The Judge.--“You are asked, if a similar case were to come up, whether
-you would use the same system. That has nothing to do with the Dreyfus
-case; it is a general question.”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“You always come back to the affair of 1894.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, I can say to the jurors only one thing, the
-accusation of 1894, and there you are! And now I have done with this
-witness.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I have nothing more to say, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-M. Labori.--“There has been but one charge, the _bordereau_; and there
-you see the expert, the principal expert.”
-
-The Judge.--“Then you pretend that, without speaking absolutely of the
-case of which you have no right to speak, you cannot explain yourself?”
-
-M. Bertillon.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Bertillon was succeeded on the witness-stand by M. G. A. Hubbard,
-representing Seine-et-Oise in the chamber of deputies.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. G. A. Hubbard._
-
-He testified as follows:
-
-“On November 15 my cousin, M. Alphonse Bertillon, came to see me,
-after having previously made an appointment with me, desiring to inform
-me concerning certain details of his expert examination of handwriting,
-and especially concerning the _bordereau_ that had appeared in ‘Le
-Matin’ a few days before. I was very willing to listen to what he
-had to say, especially as he made no secret of the matter, and was
-trying to plant in me the germ of an opinion on matters under public
-discussion. He gave me a long explanation, which you already know in
-part from his testimony, but which I did not quite comprehend in all
-its details, of his plan, his scheme, his comparisons of handwriting,
-which led him very clearly to the opinion that the original of the
-_bordereau_ was a tracing from a writing of Dreyfus. He told me that
-he had had other documents in his hands which had enabled him, by the
-fitting of margins and other mathematical deductions, to see that this
-was the only possible conclusion, and he told me that I need not be
-disturbed by anything that I might hear during the trial. I was left
-under this impression, and, after that, wherever I found myself, and
-whenever the matter came up, I made haste to give the opinion that he
-had given to me and the reasons therefor. When the newspaper published
-the first _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_, then attributed to M.
-Esterhazy, I remembered the conversation with my cousin, and applied
-for myself to the handwriting of Major Esterhazy the observations made
-to me by my cousin upon the _bordereau_ of which he had brought me the
-photograph. Immediately it appeared to me that the differences which
-Bertillon had pointed out to me between the _bordereau_ and the writing
-of Dreyfus disappeared upon comparison with the writing of Esterhazy.
-
-“I was much agitated; so I went to my cousin, and said to him: ‘You
-came to me in 1896, at the time of the Castelin interpellation, to
-tell me that you were sure that the _bordereau_ was a tracing from a
-writing of Dreyfus. Yet here is a writing which seems to me to be that
-of Esterhazy. I beg you, on your soul and conscience, to make once more
-the application of your system. After having brought me so decided an
-opinion previously, you cannot now leave me in doubt, in view of the
-new charge against a certain Esterhazy.’ Straightway my cousin said to
-me: ‘I don’t want to see the handwriting; I don’t want to see it. I
-know it. It is Esterhazy’s. I know that Esterhazy is the Jews’ man of
-straw, and he will finally confess it. The _bordereau_ is not dated or
-signed. It would not be a forgery or a swindle, and thus it is hoped to
-get out of the affair. But I don’t want to see the writing. Besides,
-there can be, there must be, no revision. A revision would mean civil
-revolution. The people would go down into the streets. There would be
-riot. There must be no revision.’
-
-“I answered: ‘That is politics. One may hold that opinion, but it is
-not scientific criticism; it is not a scientific expert examination
-based upon a verification of documents. I remember what you told me
-a year ago. I marked the gravity of your words. You told me, when
-you came back from the war department with your demonstration, that
-they would not allow you to testify in a certain way, saying to you:
-“Your demonstration would tend to the acquittal of Dreyfus.” And now
-you say that you will not look into the question of handwriting.’ But
-he still refused to make the comparison, and even added,--I remember
-that his wife was present at the interview,--‘There are moments when
-the prefects of police tell you to speak, and there are others when
-they tell you to be silent.’ I understood that ‘the moments when the
-prefects of police tell you to speak’ referred to the evening of
-November, 1896, when he came to me to make his demonstration. I have
-always been on most friendly terms with my cousin. I have always had
-the highest esteem for his character, and anything which he could say
-to me was calculated to carry conviction. But I must say that, as much
-as I was attached at first to the idea that there was certain proof
-that the writing of the _bordereau_ was a tracing from the writing
-of Dreyfus, I later saw that there was reason to doubt, and that
-the writing of Esterhazy bore a resemblance to it that could not be
-attributed simply to chance. The incidents that have occurred since in
-the chamber and in the senate troubled me much. Then came the partial
-closed doors of the Esterhazy trial, and the failure to reveal to the
-public the testimony of the experts, which I especially awaited in
-order to compare it with what my cousin had said, and my trouble became
-only the greater. And when, in the chamber, M. Jaurès asked the prime
-minister if a secret document had been communicated, I considered that
-the silence of the government gave consent. General Iung, my friend
-and colleague in the chamber, entertained the same distrust, and
-very squarely declared that the conduct of the war offices had been
-abominable.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Yves Guyot._
-
-The witness-stand was then taken by M. Yves Guyot, who testified
-concerning a lesson in expert examination of handwriting which he had
-received from M. Bertillon.
-
-“M. Bertillon told me that there were two kinds of
-handwriting,--sinistrogyrate and dextrogyrate. It seems that
-in sinistrogyrate writing the loops turn to the left, while in
-dextrogyrate writing the curves and loops turn to the right. I confess
-that today it would be as impossible for me to tell one from the other
-as it was before I received the lesson. Then I said to M. Bertillon:
-‘Well, when you compared the incriminated document with the writing
-of the accused, you doubtless found that the two documents were in
-the sinistrogyrate writing?’ ‘Not at all,’ said he; ‘the writing of
-the accused is dextrogyrate, while that of the incriminated document
-is sinistrogyrate; but I saw by certain contractions of the pen that
-the accused had disguised his handwriting, changing his dextrogyrate
-writing into sinistrogyrate writing.’ ‘Then,’ said I, ‘it is not
-because of identity of writing that you attribute the document to the
-accused, but because of a difference in writing.’ ‘Yes,’ he said. I
-answered that I was surprised that he should make such a declaration
-on such a basis. ‘Pardon me,’ said he, ‘I did not conduct the
-examination. I proposed that other means should be employed. I said,
-for instance, that a chemical composition could be put in the inkstand
-of the accused, and if, after that, a document was found, a test with
-the chemical reagent would show whether the document was written with
-ink from that inkstand. I also indicated four or five other ways of
-determining whether the accused was guilty, but they did not follow my
-advice. I simply gave my opinion, declaring that a document written in
-a sinistrogyrate writing must be the work of a man whose writing is
-dextrogyrate.’”
-
-M. Guyot was then asked his opinion of M. Zola’s good faith. He
-answered:
-
-“Gentlemen, I have a very clear opinion of my own, and this opinion I
-share with the intellectual _élite_ of France. Moreover, as I was a
-member of the cabinet for three years, I am more or less intimate with
-_personnel_ of the departments. Well, there I find many men who do
-not hesitate to say in private conversation that the Esterhazy trial
-was a parody on justice. And not only do these persons believe in M.
-Zola’s good faith, but so do many foreigners--specialists and men of
-science--with whom I am in relations. The truth is known beyond our
-frontiers, and will be appreciated there, though we stifle it here. In
-foreign countries the military officers and the diplomatists understand
-the Esterhazy case exactly.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Teyssonnière._
-
-The next witness was M. Teyssonnière, who, as one of the experts in
-handwriting connected with the Seine court, served in the Dreyfus case
-of 1894, but, a few days before the trial, was stricken from the list
-of experts, in consequence of a charge that in another case he had
-called on one of the parties thereto for a payment of 2,000 francs
-before beginning his report. He told at length of his troubles at that
-time, and said that before the first council of war he had demonstrated
-mathematically that the _bordereau_ was written by Dreyfus, he having
-found that certain words in it were identical with the handwriting of
-Dreyfus. Later he called upon M. Trarieux, who was then minister of
-justice, by whose intercession he was enrolled as one of the experts of
-the appellate court.
-
-“It was on this occasion,” said M. Teyssonnière, “that I spoke of the
-Dreyfus case to M. Trarieux, and afterwards to M. Scheurer-Kestner,
-to whom he sent me. M. Scheurer-Kestner told me in June, 1897, that
-he had conceived doubts concerning the guilt of Dreyfus, and that he
-would like me to give him light. I brought to him the photograph of
-the _bordereau_, and demonstrated by a comparison of handwritings
-that the guilt of Dreyfus was certain. He seemed convinced. On July
-9 he sent for me again, and showed me originals of the handwriting
-of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, and we compared them with the _bordereau_.
-I called his attention to entire syllables in the _bordereau_ which
-were exact tracings of the handwriting of Dreyfus. M. Scheurer-Kestner
-then told me that he had had occasion to call upon the staff since
-my first visit, and that they had said to him: ‘Don’t talk to us of
-Teyssonnière; he is a thief. It was the testimony of Bertillon that
-convicted Dreyfus.’ Nevertheless, I have made twenty-five decisive
-comparisons with the handwriting of Dreyfus, and these comparisons
-reveal five complete superpositions. There is no doubt; it is a case of
-identity.”
-
-The witness then told of his relations with another expert, M.
-Crépieux-Jamin, who had been asked by M. Bernard Lazare to examine the
-_bordereau_.
-
-“I received a visit,” said the witness, “from M. Crépieux-Jamin. I
-remember it only too well, for he came on a day when I had just cut
-myself to the bone with a table-knife. As he is a doctor, I was not
-sorry to see him. He attended me professionally for several days, and
-during that time we naturally talked of the Dreyfus case. I told him
-that the _fac-similes_ of the _bordereau_ published in the newspapers
-were very rough pieces of work, and calculated to deceive the public.
-He tried to inspire me with doubts as to my own conclusions. Not until
-the last day did I perceive the purpose of his questions. One evening,
-suddenly, he asked me how much I had received for my report. ‘Two
-hundred francs, I believe,’ said I. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘you could have
-had a hundred thousand.’ ‘But, my dear friend,’ said I, ‘you know that
-I was formerly connected with the department of roads and bridges, and
-that I have a pension of 4-1/2 francs a day. My little house is mine;
-I have lived in it honorably, and I wish to die in it honorably.’ This
-convinced me that M. Crépieux-Jamin had come to sound me.”
-
-M. Zola.--“At the time of your report in 1894 had you been offered
-money?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“No.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Nor afterward, either?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“I can say only one thing,--that M. Crépieux-Jamin
-told me that I could have had for my report a hundred thousand; the
-word ‘thousand’ was cut in two by my reply.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did he tell you that he was sent by anyone?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“No, but I felt that he was endeavoring to get me to
-express a doubt as to the conclusions of my report. He buried that in
-my brain as with a gimlet.”
-
-On the demand of M. Labori, M. Trarieux was recalled for confrontation
-with M. Teyssonnière.
-
-M. Trarieux.--“When M. Teyssonnière, who had been sent to me by his
-deputy, M. Descubes, came to tell me of his disgrace, he said that he
-had been denounced by a Jewish magistrate. I asked the judge of the
-civil court who had revoked him to restore him to his position. This
-magistrate explained that M. Teyssonnière had asked of a client an
-advance payment of 2,000 francs, that certain experts were in the habit
-of making these demands, and that an example must be made of some one.
-I fully approved, but I asked him if M. Teyssonnière was unworthy of my
-interest. Receiving a negative reply, I went to the president of the
-appellate court, and asked him to inscribe M. Teyssonnière on his list
-of experts, which he did.”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“And I shall always be grateful to you. Investigation
-showed, however, that, far from having asked 2,000 francs too much, I
-was a loser by 600 francs.”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“I remained on excellent terms with M. Teyssonnière.
-He came to see me several times. We talked of the Dreyfus case, and I
-saw that he had been much more struck by the dissimilarities between
-the writing of Dreyfus and the _bordereau_ than by the similarities.
-In the course of one of our discussions M. Bertillon was mentioned.
-‘Bertillon!’ exclaimed M. Teyssonnière; ‘he nearly spoiled everything.
-He made an incomprehensible report. Fortunately I was there.’ I sent
-M. Teyssonnière to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who, though at first convinced
-by his demonstration, soon afterwards was impressed, as I was, by
-certain dissimilarities, especially by certain double _ss_, which were
-written _fs_ in the Dreyfus writing and _sf_ in the _bordereau_. M.
-Teyssonnière maintained that these dissimilarities were intentional.
-
-“Last June M. Teyssonnière came to me to tell me of a strange
-occurrence. The night before, as he was leaving his house, he found on
-the table in his vestibule a package that had been left there by an
-unknown hand. He opened it, and was astonished to find the photographs
-of Dreyfus’s handwriting that had been given to him to report upon in
-1894. ‘How is it,’ he asked, ‘that these documents, which I surely
-returned, have been left at my house? It is the work of the Jews. They
-are trying to compromise me.’ I advised him to return the documents
-to the minister of war, or put them in a safe place. I do not know
-whether it was the same day or later that he told me that he had had
-occasion to go to the war offices for a certain piece of information,
-and had been received very unfavorably, the officer to whom he applied
-saying to him that he was astonished that M. Teyssonnière dared to show
-himself there. M. Teyssonnière was at a loss to understand such an
-attitude toward an expert whose testimony in the Dreyfus case had won
-him the congratulations of the staff.
-
-“Last November I was told that M. Teyssonnière was suspected by the
-government of having communicated to ‘Le Matin’ the _bordereau_
-of which ‘Le Matin’ gave a _fac-simile_ in November. Till then my
-confidence in M. Teyssonnière had been complete. But, beginning now to
-entertain doubt, I wrote about the matter to his deputy, M. Descubes,
-who sent my letter to M. Teyssonnière. Nevertheless I heard nothing
-more from him.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Charavay._
-
-The second expert was succeeded on the witness-stand by the third, M.
-Charavay.
-
-M. Labori.--“Can M. Charavay tell us whether the _bordereau_ was
-traced, or written in a running hand?”
-
-M. Charavay.--“I refuse to answer. It is a custom among experts never
-to give an opinion while a trial is pending.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Then when do they give an opinion?”
-
-M. Labori [handing specimen of the _bordereau_ to the witness].--“Do
-you know these?”
-
-M. Charavay.--“They are writings connected with the Dreyfus case. That
-is very far away.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Certainly you cannot be very curious, if you have not
-heard it spoken of in the last few months.”
-
-M. Charavay.--“At any rate I am determined not to answer. I was one of
-the experts in the first trial. I know nothing of the second.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Would you ever condemn a person solely on the strength of
-an expert examination of handwriting?”
-
-M. Charavay.--“I answer with your authorization, _Monsieur le
-Président_. I answer purely and simply that, as I do not believe in
-my own infallibility, or in the infallibility of anybody under such
-circumstances, never in my life would I condemn anyone on an expert
-examination of handwriting in the absence of material or moral proofs.”
-
-The Judge.--“That is a very natural opinion. But it does not affect the
-situation at all.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You add your impression, _Monsieur le Président_, to that
-of the expert, and I shall have something to say about that in my
-argument.”
-
-Then the witness-stand was taken successfully by the two remaining
-experts in the Dreyfus case,--M. Pelletier and M. Gobert, the latter
-the expert of the Bank of France. Both of them testified that,
-while there were commonplace analogies between the handwriting of
-the _bordereau_ and that of Dreyfus, the dissimilarities were too
-numerous to warrant the attribution to Dreyfus of the authorship of
-the _bordereau_. The day’s proceedings ended with brief examinations
-of the three experts in the Esterhazy case,--MM. Couard, Belhomme,
-and Varinard. M. Couard refused to testify on the ground that he and
-his colleagues had brought suit against M. Zola for 100,000 francs
-damages, but nevertheless declared that he and his two colleagues,
-working independently, had reached unanimously the conclusion that
-the _bordereau_ was not the work of Major Esterhazy. M. Belhomme’s
-testimony was virtually the same, and M. Varinard categorically refused
-to answer, on the ground that his report had been read behind closed
-doors.
-
-
-
-
-EIGHTH DAY--FEBRUARY 15.
-
-After the opening of the court, permission was given to General Gonse
-to make an explanation concerning the testimony of M. Jaurès. He
-protested that the staff, far from having delivered a secret document
-to Major Esterhazy as a cordial, as M. Jaurès had said, and far from
-being desirous of avoiding the light, wished the light most ardently;
-that in the preliminary investigation of the Esterhazy case an inquiry
-was begun to find out how the document reached Major Esterhazy, but
-then, in consequence of the rapidity with which the investigation was
-conducted, the inquiry could not be carried to the end, and so the
-light was not obtained; that it would be a great relief to the staff to
-know who conveyed the document, especially as the only persons in whose
-hands it had been were Colonel Henry, M. Gribelin, Colonel Picquart,
-and himself, General Gonse; that he could answer for Colonel Henry and
-M. Gribelin, but that it was not for him to speak of himself; that
-the newspapers had misreported that part of his testimony in which he
-declared that Colonel Picquart, prior to this affair, had been a very
-good officer, by making him say that Colonel Picquart _is_ capable of
-continuing to be a very good officer, whereas he had spoken, not in the
-present, but in the past tense, to give expression to the fact that
-such was his belief at the time when Colonel Picquart was sent on a
-mission; and that his present feeling regarding Colonel Picquart he had
-stated very clearly before the council of investigation, but could not
-now repeat, because the proceedings of that council were secret.
-
-M. Labori.--“General Gonse declares that the staff is desirous of the
-light, and that he and his superiors are ready to contribute thereto
-as far as possible. Therefore I invite him to ask the minister of
-war to authorize General Mercier to explain the communication of the
-secret document, which is now proved; to release Colonel Picquart
-from the obligation of professional secrecy, except on matters vital
-to the national defence; to consent to the production in court of the
-original _bordereau_, and of the papers used by M. Bertillon in his
-expert examination; and to instruct M. Bertillon and the experts in the
-Esterhazy case to testify.”
-
-General Gonse.--“I am not authorized to speak of these questions, or to
-transmit them.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then don’t come here again to talk to us of the light, and
-to tell us that you love the light.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Crépieux-Jamin._
-
-M. Crépieux-Jamin then took the witness-stand to answer the charges
-made by M. Teyssonnière the day before.
-
-“The testimony of M. Teyssonnière,” said the witness, “is a pure
-romance from one end to the other. In the first place, there is only
-one man capable of valuing M. Teyssonnière at 100,000 francs, and that
-is M. Teyssonnière himself. When I went to his house, I was absolutely
-ignorant of his report. He asked me to dinner, and we did not talk of
-this matter at all. After dinner he took me aside, and said: ‘Come, let
-us talk of the case.’ ‘Of what case?’ ‘The case of Dreyfus.’ Today, of
-course, everybody would understand that it was the case of Dreyfus, but
-at that time it was still possible for people to meet without talking
-of the Dreyfus case. My wife was engaged in some trifling work. M.
-Teyssonnière said to her in a theatrical tone: ‘Madame, drop what you
-are doing; I am going to show you things of much greater interest.’ And
-to my astonishment M. Teyssonnière spread before me the entire file of
-the first council of war. We talked at length about this file. I had
-all the documents--which were secret documents--in my hands, and M.
-Teyssonnière said to me: ‘Promise me that you will say nothing.’ I have
-kept my promise until today, and now it is only to defend myself that
-I declare that M. Teyssonnière showed me the file, which he got I know
-not where, I know not from whom, and which he certainly had no right to
-show me. I listened while M. Teyssonnière told me of his report. Every
-moment or two he stopped to ask me: ‘Well, are you convinced?’ ‘Oh,
-dear, no, and I assure you that your proofs are only quarter-proofs.
-There is absolutely nothing in your report that is convincing.’ We
-talked at length about the _bordereau_ and the _fac-simile_ in ‘Le
-Matin.’ There is only one little difference between them; the ‘Matin’
-plate was slightly damaged at the bottom. M. Teyssonnière said: ‘What
-annoys me is that they accuse me, or will accuse me, of having given
-the _bordereau_ to “Le Matin.”’ I asked him why. ‘Oh!’ he said,
-‘because each photograph of the _bordereau_ has its peculiar margin,
-and it seems that the photograph which ‘Le Matin’ obtained has the same
-margin as the photograph which I had upon which to make my report.’
-‘Well,’ I answered, ‘you have reason to be troubled, since in that case
-the document can have been communicated only by you or by the officers
-of the council of war.’ ‘Well,’ said he, finally, ‘I have not convinced
-you?’ ‘No,’ I replied, ‘and I believe that of all your reports this
-is the worst. You pretend to infallibility, and your report is
-indisputably false.’
-
-“Now, gentlemen, if I had been sent by the Dreyfus family to bore
-a gimlet into M. Teyssonnière’s head, as he claims, evidently he
-would not have waited four days, but would have speedily turned me
-out of his house. But nothing of the kind. I was not lodging at M.
-Teyssonnière’s. I was at a neighboring hotel. As my departure drew
-near, M. Teyssonnière said to me: ‘Excuse me, I have something to do.
-Wait five minutes.’ He went out. When I arrived at my hotel, I called
-for my bill. M. Teyssonnière said: ‘Dear friend, I am too happy to have
-had you for my guest. I have paid everything.’ That was not the conduct
-of a man who had just received impudent proposals. A fortnight later M.
-Teyssonnière wrote me an extremely affectionate letter, which I have
-in my pocket. My visit was on August 23; it was on September 3 that M.
-Teyssonnière gave me this evidence of affection. If my purpose in going
-to his house was to buy him, it is curious that a fortnight later he
-should have written me in such terms.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Has not the witness refused to testify as an expert in the
-present trial?”
-
-M. Crépieux-Jamin.--“That is a proof of my honesty and my independence.
-If I had been a paid agent of the Dreyfus family, I would not have
-refused. When I was approached about this matter, I answered: ‘Thank
-you; I am a physician and a dentist, not an expert in handwriting.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“If I am well informed, the witness declined to testify for
-motives of prudence?”
-
-M. Crépieux-Jamin.--“Yes; I am not particularly fond of having my
-windows broken. In the first place, I am not a professional expert in
-handwriting; I am only an amateur. When I was asked for a first report,
-I gave it, because it suited me to give it. When I was asked for a
-second, I refused, because it did not suit me to give it, and because
-I saw danger in doing so. I did not want people to come to me and say:
-‘You have done such and such things; hereafter you shall not fill our
-teeth.’”
-
-The witness being asked if the photographs shown him by M. Teyssonnière
-resembled the _fac-simile_ in “Le Matin,” he answered:
-
-“It is inconceivable that any one should deny it. A fact is a hard
-thing to kill. Sooner or later the time will come when the original
-photograph of the _bordereau_ will be in the hands of everybody, and
-then the persons who have declared these _fac-similes_ to be false will
-see that they have been guilty of an impudence which lays them under
-suspicion.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What is the difference between the official photographs
-and the _fac-simile_?”
-
-M. Crépieux-Jamin.--“The difference is slight. It is more or less
-marked, according to the copy of ‘Le Matin’ that you happen to get. In
-my opinion, that newspaper had several plates. One of these plates must
-have received a blow in the lower right-hand corner that crushed a few
-of the words. The rest is so typical that there is not the smallest
-difference. Besides, if there is any forger here, it must be the sun,
-because these things are obtained by purely mechanical processes. One
-must be ignorant of the methods of reproduction to say that a plate has
-been altered. You can no more alter a plate of this kind than you can
-alter a photographic plate. What retouching process could it have been
-submitted to? It would have been necessary to efface entire words, and
-replace them with other words. But, I repeat, facts have a long life;
-they have time to live, and the truth that I am telling you will be
-very plain one of these days.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Paul Meyer._
-
-The next witness called was M. Paul Meyer, director of the Ecole des
-Chartes, member of the Institute, and a professor in the College of
-France.
-
-M. Labori.--“Is the witness an Israelite?”
-
-M. Meyer.--“I was going to say a word on that point. In 1882, the year
-that I entered the Institute, when I took the biennial Grand Prize, the
-most important that the Institute awards, M. Drumont, in three odious
-pages of the first edition of ‘La France Juive,’ declared that I was
-the son of a German Jew, and that that was the reason why I had been
-awarded the principal of the Academy prizes. I wrote to M. Drumont to
-deny that. I was born in Paris of French parents. My grandfather on my
-father’s side was a native of Strasbourg, which explains my Alsatian
-name. I was baptized at Notre Dame. I made my first communion, and
-was confirmed, at Saint-Sulpice, where I studied the catechism until
-I was sixteen. It is provoking that without proofs a statement should
-be printed that I am of another religion, or have changed my religion,
-which I declare that I have not done, and have no intention of doing. I
-am glad to make this declaration, in order to save myself the trouble
-of writing letters of correction to newspapers in which I should not
-like to see myself in print.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you give us your opinion of the _bordereau_?”
-
-The Judge.--“Did you ever see the original?”
-
-M. Meyer.--“I have seen only _fac-similes_, the original not being
-visible to the naked eye of the profane. One witness has testified here
-that the _fac-similes_ resembled forgeries, and that nothing is less
-like the original than these _fac-similes_. It is clear that, if they
-resemble forgeries, they do not resemble the original. But I believe
-that this witness, who is not accustomed to the precise formulation
-of thought, went farther than he intended. I shall try to dissect his
-declaration, and see what there is in it. These _fac-similes_ are
-produced by what is known as the Gillot process. It is a zinc relief,
-the zinc being eaten in certain parts. When a plate of this sort is
-put on a rotary press, the zinc crushes a little, and the letters fill
-up. But this effect can be discounted in advance, and any comparison
-of writings should eliminate all difference between clear and filled
-letters. The process is not a particularly good one, but it has the
-advantage of being cheap; and, besides, it does not lend itself easily
-to retouching, which is a guarantee of sincerity. It alters in no way
-the form of the letters. If a person is in the habit of crossing his
-_t_’s on the bias, on the bias the crosses will remain. If he crosses
-them horizontally, they will remain horizontal. There is no possibility
-of error of this sort. The witness referred to says that the
-_fac-simile_ resembles a forgery. No. There is the sort of alteration
-that I have pointed out, and there is another equally unimportant.
-The original is written on two pages, while the _fac-simile_ is on a
-single page for convenience of publication. But this difference is
-purely external, and has no bearing on the form of the letters; so I
-do not see what they mean when they say that the _fac-simile_ does
-not resemble the original. Let me say, in passing, that I have had
-a conversation with M. Bertillon about all sorts of things. He said
-to me,--I quote him because it is a point of fact and not a point of
-reasoning,--‘These _fac-similes_ are not so bad.’ M. Bertillon knows
-photography and knows this process of reproduction. Consequently it
-seems to me audacious to say that the _fac-simile_ resembles a forgery.
-
-“But the day after the deposition of the witness in question certain
-newspapers said: ‘It is a forgery.’ Such is the way in which a legend
-springs up. An inexact report in the first place, then a falsehood
-mingles with it, and then you have the legend. Well, the legend must
-be destroyed absolutely. I should like the witness who said this
-_fac-simile_ resembled a forgery to explain to me how it is, seeing
-that this _fac-simile_ was published at the beginning of 1896, that
-anyone could have had the idea of making a _fac-simile_ of Major
-Esterhazy’s handwriting, when at that time he had not been heard of in
-connection with the case. Well, these _fac-similes_ show the writing
-of Major Esterhazy; as to that I have no sort of doubt. Is it Major
-Esterhazy’s hand? Ah! here is a distinction, and a subtle one. At
-least it seems to me subtle. It appears to result from the report of
-the experts in the second trial. I do not know that report, but I have
-read in a newspaper that it is the theory of these experts that the
-_fac-simile_ is the writing of Major Esterhazy, but not his hand. That
-may be; I do not know. I have tried two or three hypotheses to explain
-this dualism,--on the one hand the writing, on the other the hand. I
-will spare you these hypotheses. I think it would be hardly charitable
-on my part to attribute them to the experts, because I, their author,
-consider them absurd. I hope that these gentlemen have found a
-hypothesis that has escaped me, and that will explain this difficulty.
-
-“There is a certain way of refuting me, if I am wrong. I do not ask
-that the original be brought here,--to ask that would be enormous;--I
-ask simply for a more delicate photograph, simply two pages on albumen
-paper, something very clear. Or, better yet, I would like glass
-negatives. When a photograph is printed, there is always a negative. It
-would be as well to bring the negative. Now, by looking at the gelatine
-side of the negative, you can see whether it has been retouched or
-not. For me this glass plate is as good as the original, except in
-one point,--the quality of the paper, which cannot be seen on a glass
-plate. From it one could tell whether there is a difference between the
-original represented by the photograph and the original more or less
-imperfectly represented by the published _fac-similes_. If they will
-show me these plates, I will ask nothing better than to confess. If it
-proves to be true that the _fac-similes_ made by the Gillot process and
-published in ‘Le Matin’ are bad, I will say so frankly. But, if this
-request be refused, then I say that I am right. I felt very sad when I
-read the demonstration of a certain expert, for I had talked formerly
-with this expert, who in some respects is a very remarkable man, and
-has invented a really magnificent thing--anthropometry. Well, this
-conversation at first interested me--one always learns; then it amused
-me, and finally it distressed me, gentlemen. I was distressed to think
-that it was possible to entrust an expert examination in so serious
-a matter to a man whose methods of investigation it is impossible to
-dispute, because they are entirely foreign to common sense.”
-
-M. Labori asked the court to recall the three Esterhazy experts that
-they might be confronted with M. Meyer.
-
-The Judge.--“They are bound by professional secrecy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But, _Monsieur le Président_, I pray you.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, no, they were right.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I insist. M. Paul Meyer has told us that all the
-hypotheses which he could frame in order to understand that this
-document, while being Esterhazy’s writing, was not in his hand, had
-seemed to him impossible. Did I rightly understand?”
-
-M. Meyer.--“Perfectly. But perhaps these gentlemen have found something
-that I have not found.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then it would be interesting to hear MM. Couard, Varinard,
-and Belhomme.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, no, I have said” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“But I have a question to put.”
-
-The Judge.--“You shall not put it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I insist, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-The Judge.--“I say that you shall not put it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Oh! _Monsieur le Président_, it is interesting” ...
-
-The Judge.--“It is useless to shout so loud.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I shout, because I need to make myself heard.”
-
-The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You say that; but I say I wish to put it.”
-
-The Judge.--“Well, I say that it is an understood thing. The court must
-keep out of the debate anything that would uselessly prolong it. I say
-that this is useless, and it is my right to say so.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You do not even know the question.”
-
-The Judge.--“I know very well what you wish to ask.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, I offer a motion in order to get a decree from the
-court on this point.”
-
-The Judge.--“Offer all the motions that you like.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If you think that this shortens the debate, you are
-mistaken.”
-
-The Judge.--“Well, we will pass on the motion during the recess. Next
-witness.”
-
-M. Auguste Molinier is ushered in.
-
-The Judge.--“What is the question, M. Labori?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am drawing up a motion, and I consider it absolutely
-indispensable that the deposition of M. Meyer and the incidents to
-which it has given rise should be finished before the next witness
-testifies.”
-
-The Judge.--“But ask your question now. It is useless to waste our
-time.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, _Monsieur le Président_, we must hear first
-MM. Couard, Belhomme, and Varinard. It is indispensable to the truth,
-and I insist that my motion shall be formally denied before the next
-witness testifies. I consider it indispensable from the standpoint of
-the defence.”
-
-M. Labori then offered a motion that the court formally acknowledge its
-refusal to put to the Esterhazy experts a question that had not been
-framed, and order that these experts be heard regarding the interviews
-with them.
-
-The court retired, and, returning five minutes later, rendered a decree
-refusing to order that the witnesses be heard, on the ground that they
-could plead professional secrecy, and that their testimony would only
-prolong the trial without useful results.
-
-“Now,” said the judge, “the principle is laid down. Every time that you
-insist, the same decree will be rendered. Let that be understood.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then it is a standing decree?”
-
-The Judge.--“It is a standing decree.”
-
-M. Labori.--“There was nothing like that in the old _régime_. It is
-inaugurated in this assize court. I can only bow, while I protest.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is the law, according to Article 270 of the code of
-criminal examination.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is the first time that a court of justice has declared
-that a decree rendered constitutes a standing decree, and that all
-incidents to come will be decided by the same decree. It is the first
-time, and, while I bow before your words, I can only protest.”
-
-The Judge.--“Protest as much as you like. But every time, under the
-same circumstances, the same decree will be rendered.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Auguste Molinier._
-
-The next witness was M. Auguste Molinier, a professor in the Ecole des
-Chartes.
-
-“I have lived among manuscripts,” said the witness, “for 25 years,
-and I have observed them in such detail that now, by signs almost
-imperceptible to others, I can recognize the identity of handwritings,
-and tell about how long a certain manuscript has been written. I have
-had in my hands a _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_, and, after examining
-the formation of the letters therein, and comparing it with letters
-written by Major Esterhazy, I affirm, on my soul and conscience, that
-I find in Major Esterhazy’s letters all the principal formations that
-occur in the _bordereau_.”
-
-The Judge.--“At whose request did you make this examination?”
-
-M. Molinier.--“I made it of my own accord, for, in common with all
-Frenchmen, I am interested in this case.”
-
-
-_Testimony of Mme. de Boulancy._
-
-At this point M. Clemenceau read the report of the magistrate, M.
-Bertulus, who had been appointed to put certain questions to Mme. de
-Boulancy. The answers of Mme. de Boulancy, as stated in this report,
-were in substance to the following effect: that she was in possession
-of letters and telegrams from Major Esterhazy, some of which, notably
-two telegrams, were of recent date; that she had deposited these
-documents in a safe place, intending to preserve them as a means of
-self-defence; that the telegrams contained no threat, but urged her
-in polite, but most pressing, terms to restore to Major Esterhazy the
-letters which he had written to her between 1881 and 1884; that these
-letters are perhaps as compromising as the letter in reference to the
-Uhlans, and that they say certain rather serious things in regard to
-the army and to France; that she would not consent that these letters
-should be handed to the judge by those in possession of them, as she
-wished to be well armed, in case she should be charged with forgery;
-that Major Esterhazy had come to her door four or five times, but that
-she had refused to let him in; that, seeing that he was unwilling to
-leave the stair-landing, or was too persistent in his attitude toward
-the servant, she came to the half-open door, which was secured by
-a chain, and asked him to go away, pointing out to him that he was
-compromising her; that the object of each of these visits was to ask
-for a return of the letters and the telegrams; that she had always
-answered that she would not publish them, but must keep them for her
-defence; that she told him that the letters that had been published
-were published against her will, and in consequence of her too great
-confidence in the word of a person whom she had supposed to be a
-devoted friend; that Major Esterhazy had never said, in answer to
-her refusal, that he would kill himself; that on Saturday, February
-5, 1898, when she had already taken up her residence at Neuilly,
-Major Esterhazy was seen on the stairs of her previous residence, 22,
-Boulevard des Batignolles, by the tenant occupying the floor above; and
-that she did not know what attitude Major Esterhazy assumed when he
-heard this tenant coming.
-
-M. Clemenceau then offered a motion that a magistrate be appointed
-to ask Mme. de Boulancy whether Major Esterhazy did not say in these
-letters; first, that “General Saussier is a clown, and we Germans would
-put him in a circus;” second, that, “if the Prussians were to come to
-Lyons, they could throw away their guns and keep only bayonets, and
-still drive the Frenchmen before them.”
-
-The court postponed its decision, and called another witness, M.
-Emile Molinier, professor at the Ecole du Louvre, and a brother of
-the preceding witness. He testified that the similarity between
-the handwriting of the _bordereau_ and that of Major Esterhazy is
-absolutely complete. “I will even say,” he added, “that, if a _savant_
-were to find in one of the volumes of the National Library by the side
-of Major Esterhazy’s letters the original of the _bordereau_, he would
-be considered disqualified if he did not say that the _bordereau_ and
-the letters were written by the same person.”
-
-M. Molinier was then succeeded by M. Célerier, professor in the College
-of Fontenay-le-Comte.
-
-“The _bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s letters,” said the witness, “are
-absolutely in the same handwriting. The letter _n_ is strangely formed.
-Now it is regular, now it becomes an _x_. Thus the word _tenir_ often
-appears as if it were the word _texir_. Well, I find the same thing
-five or six times out of ten in Major Esterhazy’s letters. One has only
-to open his eyes to see that it is absolutely the same handwriting.”
-
-The Judge.--“Who asked you to make this examination?”
-
-M. Célerier.--“M. Bernard Lazare. He asked me if I would make an
-examination, and I said yes, and afterwards sent him a report of a few
-lines containing my conclusions.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“Was the witness confronted in another case with
-the three Esterhazy experts?”
-
-M. Célerier.--“Yes.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“And there, too, you did not agree with them?”
-
-M. Célerier.--“I did not.”
-
-M. Labori.--“In view of the questions of the attorney-general, I would
-like to ask if a fortnight ago a case was not heard before the court
-of Paris, in which the court refused to recognize the testimony of M.
-Varinard and M. Couard.”
-
-Testimony to the same effect as that given by the preceding witnesses
-was then given by M. Bourmon, a paleographer, who in turn was succeeded
-by M. Louis Franck, a Belgian lawyer.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Franck._
-
-A blackboard was furnished to the witness, upon which he illustrated
-with much detail the similarities between Major Esterhazy’s handwriting
-and the _bordereau_. Among other things he showed that Major
-Esterhazy’s writing and the _bordereau_ were alike in the fact that
-each line was begun a little to the right of the beginning of the
-preceding line, whereas the writing of Dreyfus showed the precisely
-opposite characteristic, each line beginning a little to the left
-of its predecessor; that the _t_’s in the _bordereau_, like Major
-Esterhazy’s _t_’s, were crossed horizontally, while in the writing of
-Dreyfus the crosses are made in an upward direction from left to right;
-that in the _bordereau_ 68 per cent. of the _t_’s are crossed and 32
-per cent. uncrossed,--a proportion almost exactly paralleled in Major
-Esterhazy’s letters, where 65 per cent. are crossed and 36 per cent.
-are uncrossed. After pointing out these and many other similarities,
-the witness said; “The _bordereau_ can have been written only by Major
-Esterhazy. M. Bertillon has told us that, though a hundred French
-officers should have the same handwriting, he would not infer that the
-_bordereau_ was written by Major Esterhazy. Well, M. Bertillon could
-not show us among all the officers of the French army a single one
-whose writing approaches the writing of the _bordereau_ and contains
-all the elements of similarity with an arithmetical rhythm so decisive.”
-
-The Judge.--“Who asked you to make this examination?”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I beg your pardon for
-repeating always the same thing, but it seems to me impossible to allow
-witnesses for the defence to be continually interrupted when they are
-testifying.”
-
-M. Franck.--“Two months ago I was called to Paris in connection with
-the case of Mlle. Chauvin. The Dreyfus case had just begun to attract
-attention. When I read in ‘Le Figaro’ Mme. de Boulancy’s letters and
-the _bordereau_, I had an intuition that the writer of the _bordereau_
-was identical with the writer of the letters. Expressing this opinion
-in the presence of a journalist, he tried to prove to me that I was
-wrong. His explanation being unsatisfactory, I began to look into
-the matter more thoroughly, and, after my return to Belgium, made a
-complete study of it. When this trial came on, I wrote to a friend of
-M. Zola that this study was at M. Zola’s service, if it was of any use
-to him. Hence my presence here.”
-
-The Judge.--“How did the witness come into possession of original
-letters from Esterhazy?”
-
-M. Franck.--“Through M. Bernard Lazare.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Grimaux._
-
-The court next listened to the testimony of M. Grimaux, honorary
-professor in the Faculty of Medicine, professor in the Polytechnic
-School, and member of the Institute.
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury,” said the witness, “the defence has summoned
-me here because I signed a petition in the chamber of deputies in
-which we said that, disturbed by the irregularities of the trial of
-1894, by the mystery surrounding the Esterhazy trial, by the illegal
-searches of the premises of Colonel Picquart, and by the methods of
-examination pursued by the military authorities, we demanded that the
-chamber of deputies should maintain the legal guarantee of citizens.
-Why did I and so many others sign this protest? I will tell you. But
-first I must point out to you the singular movement that enlists the
-interest of so many scientists, _littérateurs_, and artists, men who
-do not follow the fluctuations of politics, and many of whom could
-not tell you the names of the members of the cabinet. But all rise up
-today, because they feel that the liberty and honor of the country
-are at stake. Doubts and then conviction have gradually come to me by
-an examination of official documents undisputed. In the first place,
-though not an expert, I saw the similarity between Major Esterhazy’s
-handwriting and that of the _bordereau_. The reports of the latest
-experts have sustained me. Then I carefully studied the indictments,
-weighed their value, and came to a conclusion. This conclusion is
-that never would any man in the habit of reasoning consent to sign
-such documents. There is nothing in them but unproved insinuations,
-idle tales, and contradictory reports of experts. My conviction was
-further strengthened by the Esterhazy trial. First by the report of
-Major Ravary, in which he accuses of forgery, upon the strength of
-Esterhazy’s stories, one of those brilliant young officers who are the
-hope of the country, and in which he says also that a secret document
-was stolen from the war department, passed into the hands of a veiled
-lady, and was given by her to Major Esterhazy. And Major Ravary does
-not seem to be astonished, but rather finds it perfectly natural, that
-this secret document, which in 1895 the minister of war refused to
-communicate to the honest M. Scheurer-Kestner, should be carried about
-the city by veiled ladies. Then the singular way in which the trial
-was conducted, the judge suggesting answers to the accused whenever
-the latter became embarrassed; and, finally, the contradictions of
-the experts, who declared that the document was not written by Major
-Esterhazy, but was of his handwriting, in contradiction with the first
-experts, who had declared that it was of the handwriting of Dreyfus.
-Thus the first experts were grossly mistaken, and with them the seven
-officers, the seven judges, who, in the loyalty of their souls,
-condemned Dreyfus. It was said also that this document is a tracing
-from Esterhazy’s handwriting, and M. Ravary finds that very natural,
-and does not inquire who could have done the tracing. So that we arrive
-at this singular reasoning: Dreyfus made the tracing, because he is a
-traitor, and the proof that he is a traitor is that he made no tracing,
-but made a _bordereau_.
-
-“I do not wish to abuse your patience, gentlemen, but I must tell you
-that I have arrived at my unshakable conviction in spite of disguised
-threats and attempts at intimidation.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will M. Grimaux tell us what these threats were?”
-
-M. Grimaux.--“If M. Labori thinks it necessary to the defence” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“I think it indispensable, and I beg you to complete your
-great act of courage by telling the whole truth.”
-
-M. Grimaux.--“I have sworn to tell the whole truth; therefore I cannot
-refuse to answer the question. On January 16, the minister of war
-caused the question to be officially put to me whether I had signed the
-protest. Immediately I wrote a letter in which I said: ‘Here is the
-protest that I signed; here is the text; I admit my signature.’ The
-next day, at a meeting of the cabinet, a decree was presented revoking
-my professorship in the Polytechnic School, where I have served science
-and the State for thirty-four years. But the cabinet declared that this
-would be illegal, that my petition was respectful, and that I only
-exercised a citizen’s right in signing it. A week later I was denounced
-in a scandalous, blackmailing sheet, ‘La Libre Parole,’ in which it
-was said of me: ‘M. Grimaux, professor in the Polytechnic School, who
-educates officers, is one of those who abuse the army,’ This insult
-was to me a matter of indifference, coming as it did from a journal
-which, eight months before, although I am a Catholic, had called me a
-‘renegade Jew who had gone over to Protestantism.’ But lately, three
-or four days ago,--on Friday, I believe,--the day before the day when
-I was expected to testify, the minister of war asked the general in
-command of the Polytechnic School to make an investigation concerning
-me and to report thereupon. This letter from the minister of war said:
-‘General, we are informed that M. Grimaux has signed protests; or taken
-part in manifestations hostile to the army.’
-
-“Gentlemen, to the first phrase, ‘has signed protests,’ I answer:
-It has been well known at the war department for the last month that
-I signed the protest, and admitted it. As to the passage, ‘has taken
-part in manifestations hostile to the army,’ I protest energetically.
-I am a patriot. When the flag passes, I salute it with respect, with
-beating heart, for I saw this glorious flag torn by treason from the
-heroic hands of the army at Metz, and I hope to see it floating again
-above the cities that we lost, as a result of the victories that
-shall restore to us our dear provinces. I not a patriot! The general
-has asked about my family and my past. My family? My father in 1805
-was on a frigate that fought an English frigate. In 1814 he rode in
-Champagne. My grandfather by marriage was lieutenant of dragoons,
-aide-de-camp of Marshal Brune, and thirty years ago he told me of
-the interview of Tilsit, at which he was present. I took lessons in
-patriotism sitting on the knees of two naval captains who, in the wars
-of the Revolution and the Empire, fought against the English. And more
-recently he who, during his course at Saint Cyr, was the darling of my
-house fell gloriously, facing the enemy. Still I see his brave, young,
-beardless face. Lieutenant of dragoons, he asked to go to Soudan. He
-was of a line of fighters. He was a true officer, loyal as a sword,
-brave as a sabre. Scarcely was he at Kayes with his captain and eight
-horse-soldiers when he drove back eighty Moorish Arabs. Then soon he
-was at Timbuctoo, charging incessantly. Directly he was surrounded by
-the blacks, a lance pierced his side, he fell as his horsemen were
-about to protect him, and the young hero died with a smile on his lips,
-as was told me by his captain, who received his dying message. He
-died with a smile on his lips, as if he saw the image of his country
-floating before his eyes,--the country to which he had given his young
-life. That is the family of the bad patriot, of the man hostile to the
-army, to which I belong. Gentlemen, I should like to stop here, but,
-being a witness, I must leave no doubt as to my testimony. It must not
-be said that I am a bad citizen, and, if I hurl back the insult, it is
-not because it was uttered by ‘La Libre Parole,’ but because it has
-appeared in an official document, and I wish to wipe it out. And so I
-am obliged to speak of myself, asking pardon of the jury. Forty-four
-years ago I was a naval health officer at the port of Toulon. I carried
-a sword at my side. I held the rank and advantages of an officer. I
-served in the maritime hospital at Toulon during the Crimean war, for
-to doctors and pharmacists hospitals and epidemics are battle-fields.
-During the war I left La Vendée, where I was staying on leave of
-absence, to come to Paris to serve as a national guard and care for
-the wounded. What, no patriot the man who saw the plateau of Villiers
-covered with our dead? I saw those glorious dead, and I remember, among
-others, five artillery officers, lying side by side, struck by shells
-and bullets, elegant, freshly shaven, in brilliant uniform, for the
-French officer goes to battle adorned like a bride who marries death. I
-was honored with the friendship of Gambetta; I helped him to found ‘La
-Republique Française’; I have friends in the army and the navy, from
-the young lieutenants of Fontainebleau to the generals of division,
-and also for twenty-two years I have been connected with that grand
-Polytechnic School, whose glorious motto you know, and where there is
-nothing but patriotism.
-
-“I believe, gentlemen, that there will remain no illusion as to my
-patriotism, and I must say that it is in our ranks, in the ranks of
-those who think as I do, that are to be found the most enlightened
-patriots, who see most clearly the interests of the country. Those who
-insult the army are the rotten journalists who accuse the minister of
-war of having sold himself for 30,000 francs to a pretended Jewish
-syndicate. The insulters of the army are those heroes of fear who
-told you at the beginning of this case: Rather let the innocent
-suffer torture than compromise our security, when a foreign power is
-watching us! What! a foreign power is watching us, and we have an army
-of two millions of men, an entire nation to defend the country, with
-2,000 educated officers, workers, ready to shed their blood on the
-battle-field, who, in time of peace are preparing perfect weapons,
-and you think that we would insult them? The insulters are those who
-run through the streets crying ‘Long live the army!’ without crying
-‘Long live the republic!’--those two cries that cannot be separated.
-The insulters are those who cry ‘Long live the army!’ and then ‘Death
-to Zola!’ and ‘Down with the Jews!’ For who is there that has not in
-the army a brother, a son, a parent, a friend? The army is the flesh
-of our flesh, blood of our blood. Ask rather this noble defendant,
-this courageous citizen who sits here on a bench of infamy, which he
-will transform into a bench of glory,--ask him if he does not share my
-sentiment.”
-
-M. Zola.--“Absolutely.”
-
-M. Grimaux.--“Gentlemen, I believe that I have said all that I desired
-to say in order to wash from my honor imputations that ought not to
-remain in an official document; but I venture to add that my conviction
-grows more and more certain. I declare it again. Neither insults or
-threats or revocation can touch me, for truth wears an impenetrable
-cuirass. We have entered on a path which we shall follow to the end. We
-desire the truth, and we will have it. We will pursue this path from
-which nothing shall turn us, for we are of those who want the light,
-complete light. Our consciences are thirsty for justice.”
-
-As M. Grimaux left the witness-stand, M. Zola arose and shook hands
-with him, and M. Grimaux said something to him in a low voice.
-
-M. Labori.--“Be good enough, M. Grimaux, to say aloud what you have
-just said to M. Zola.”
-
-M. Grimaux.--“I said that I had never seen M. Zola before; I now see
-him for the first time.”
-
-The last witness of the day was M. Louis Havet, professor in the
-College of France, and member of the Institute.
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Louis Havet._
-
-The witness first dealt with the similarities in handwriting between
-the _bordereau_ and the Esterhazy letters, and contrasted them with the
-letters of Dreyfus, pointing out especially that in the _bordereau_ and
-the Esterhazy letters the capital _J_’s are written half above and half
-below the line, while the _J_’s of Dreyfus always stop at the line.
-Passing then from handwriting to orthography, M. Havet testified as
-follows:
-
-“Both Captain Dreyfus and Major Esterhazy spell well. They make no
-mistakes regarding the _s_ in the plural, or in other matters of that
-sort. But let us examine some orthographic minutiæ,--the accents and
-the cedilla. Captain Dreyfus is not much of a grammarian; he has not
-the soul of a grammarian, and he often forgets to put a cedilla where
-one is needed, writing, for instance, _français_ or _façon_ without
-a cedilla, or perhaps he will put a cedilla where there should be
-none,--for instance, _forçe_ and _souffrançe_ with a cedilla. In this
-he is capricious. He writes the word _annonçant_ now with and now
-without the cedilla. And the same as to the accents. If he writes
-the preposition _à_, which should have a grave accent, he sometimes
-gives it a grave accent and sometimes does not. He also uses needless
-accents. The word _nécessaire_, which has an acute accent over the
-first vowel, is written by him with an accent over each e. With
-Esterhazy it is quite the contrary. He is very careful about his
-accents, and his hyphens, and all the little details of orthography.
-He puts a grave accent over the preposition _à_ not only when it is
-a small letter in the middle of a phrase, but when it is a capital
-letter at the beginning of a sentence. Now, the _bordereau_ and Major
-Esterhazy’s letters show absolutely the same orthographical habits,
-while the _bordereau_ differs totally in this respect from the letters
-of Captain Dreyfus.
-
-“Again, as to choice of words. There are many ways of speaking French.
-One may speak French correctly, or one may make blunders. Now, in
-the _bordereau_ there are incorrect turns of phrase which seem to
-indicate a writer unfamiliar with the language, or accustomed to think
-in a foreign language. ‘_Sans nouvelles m’indiquant que vous désirez
-me voir, je vous adresse cependant, monsieur, quelques documents
-intéressants._’ The word _nouvelles_ is one that would never be written
-in such a connection by a Frenchman perfectly acquainted with his
-tongue. Such a Frenchman would say _sans avis_. The author thought in
-German and translated into French. But let us go on. ‘_Sans nouvelles
-m’indiquant que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse cependant,
-monsieur._’ Instead of this, an educated Frenchman, with the instinct
-of his language, would say: _Quoique je n’ai pas reçu d’avis me disant
-que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse_. Or else he would separate
-the phrase. The phraseology of the _bordereau_ is sometimes found
-in the commercial style, but not at all in the literary style, and
-is written especially by foreigners imperfectly acquainted with the
-French language. Farther on, à propos of a certain document, occurs
-this expression: ‘_Chaque corps en reçoit un nombre fixe_.’ The words
-_nombre fixe_ properly mean here that there is always the same number
-for each corps,--that each corps, for instance, receives fifty. But
-that is not what the author of the _bordereau_ meant. He meant that
-each corps receives a definite number, a number known in advance,
-enabling it to be determined whether all the copies are returned. But
-he did not know the proper word. It is such an error as a professor
-would point to as a proof that his pupil did not know French, or was a
-foreigner.
-
-“Now, Captain Dreyfus writes perfectly correct French. There never
-are any mistakes of phrase in his letters. Take this, for instance:
-‘_J’ai légué à ceux qui m’ont fait condamner un devoir_,’ etc. It is
-impossible to find a better phrase than that; and so it is throughout.
-If it were a schoolboy’s copy, the teacher would write ‘Very good’
-in the margin. I have sought in vain for an error of this sort in
-Captain Dreyfus’s letters. But in Major Esterhazy’s such errors
-swarm. In a letter in which he struggles against financial troubles,
-he says: ‘_Telles et telles personnes doivent avoir conservé toutes
-traces de cette affaire_.’ This phrase, instead of _toutes les traces
-imaginables_ is one that occurs in the famous Uhlan letter: ‘_Je ferai
-toutes tentatives pour aller en Algérie_.’ It is a phrase peculiar to
-Major Esterhazy.
-
-“The writing of the _bordereau_, without the shadow of a doubt, is that
-of Major Esterhazy. The orthographical habits are his habits, and, as
-regards choice of words, it is quite impossible that Captain Dreyfus
-should have written the _bordereau_, while, on the contrary, it is
-perfectly natural that Major Esterhazy should have written it.”
-
-This ended the day’s proceedings.
-
-
-
-
-NINTH DAY--FEBRUARY 16.
-
-At the opening of the session the court rendered a decree denying the
-motion of M. Clemenceau that a magistrate be appointed to further
-examine Mme. de Boulancy regarding the contents of the letters from
-Major Esterhazy, basing the denial on the ground that the witness
-had already declined to specify the contents of the letters, and
-that therefore it would be fruitless to question her further. The
-witness-stand was then taken by General de Pellieux, who made the
-following statement:
-
-“I recognize that, of all the _fac-similes_ that have appeared, that
-published by ‘Le Matin’ most resembles the _bordereau_, but I wish
-to point out an essential difference. The _bordereau_ is written on
-both sides of thin paper and in pale ink, the writing on the back
-being much darker than the writing on the front; consequently, when
-the _bordereau_ is photographed, the photograph necessarily shows
-something of the back as well as the front, so that, to print these
-_fac-similes_, it has been necessary to remove the traces of the
-writing on the back by some photographic practice with which I am not
-familiar. The defence absolutely rejects all the expert testimony made
-by sworn experts who have had the originals before them, and admits
-all expert testimony made by experts who have seen only _fac-similes_
-or photographs. The defence has even tried to turn into ridicule
-the testimony of sworn experts, and has brought to this bar some
-professional experts, but especially amateur experts, even a dentist;
-and, further than that, it has brought here--a fact which I leave the
-jury to judge--a foreigner, a foreign lawyer.
-
-“When M. Mathieu Dreyfus wrote his letter to the minister of war,
-he said: ‘I accuse,’--and in that respect he showed himself a
-forerunner,--‘I accuse Major Esterhazy of being the author of the
-_bordereau_.’ I sent for M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and he asked for an expert
-examination of the _bordereau_. I pointed out to him that he rejected
-the first expert testimony based on an examination of originals, and
-I said to him: ‘Will you accept the second?’ He did not answer, and
-I concluded that, if the expert examination proved unfavorable, he
-would ask for still others, which he did. The _bordereau_ was found
-insufficient; so they had another document in reserve, the dispatch.
-There has been testimony to show how far this document is from being
-authenticated, and any government that had prosecuted an officer
-on the strength of such a document would have covered itself with
-ridicule. So, when M. Picquart insisted that Major Esterhazy should be
-prosecuted and arrested on the strength of this simple document, he was
-separated from the war department. And I think that he was treated very
-indulgently.
-
-“Much has been said of the writing of the _bordereau_, but its contents
-have not yet been referred to. I ask your permission, then, to take
-this _bordereau_, which has just been shown to me, and examine, point
-by point, whether it was possible for Major Esterhazy to procure the
-documents that were mentioned in it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask that Colonel Picquart, who is now present at the
-hearing before M. Bertulus in the matter of the complaint against the
-Speranza forgery, be summoned to court to hear the testimony of General
-de Pellieux.”
-
-The Judge.--“Go on, General.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask permission to offer a motion. I ask for the presence
-of Colonel Picquart here.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have not the floor. Go on. General.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I pretend to prove here, documents in hand,
-that the officer who wrote the _bordereau_ is an officer of the war
-department, an officer of artillery, and, furthermore, a licentiate. I
-ask for a copy of the _bordereau_ as it appeared in ‘Le Matin’.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask you to send for Colonel Picquart. I protest against
-the absence of Colonel Picquart.”
-
-The Judge.--“I will send for Colonel Picquart when I get ready.”
-
-M. Labori.--“That is understood. Well, I point that out to the jury.”
-
-The Judge.--“Point out what you like.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I intend to do so. You think to turn the course of the
-debate, because General de Pellieux is here alone.”
-
-The Judge.--“I have told you that you have not the floor. Do not oblige
-me to take measures. Go on, General.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I thank you, _Monsieur le Président_.
-
-“The _bordereau_ contains this item: ‘A note on the hydraulic check
-of 120, and the way in which this piece is managed.’ This is the
-expression of an artillery officer. In speaking of this piece an
-artillery officer says ‘the 120.’ An infantry officer would never say
-that. He would say ‘the piece 120.’ Moreover, the artillery guard their
-secrets very carefully. Although I have been chief of staff of an army
-corps, I am not acquainted with the hydraulic check of the piece 120.
-It has been said that this knowledge would have been acquired at the
-manœuvres. It is absolutely impossible to see the operation of this
-piece at the manœuvres, and I, who was present at the manœuvres of 1896
-and 1897, am unfamiliar with it. Furthermore, this paragraph must refer
-to a report that exists in the war department on the way in which this
-hydraulic check has behaved in experiments. Only an officer of the war
-department could have given information on this point. No infantry
-officer ever saw the piece 120 fired. Though I have been present at
-firing lessons, I never saw it fired.
-
-“The _bordereau_ contains also a note concerning _troupes de
-couverture_, and I call your attention to the second paragraph: ‘The
-new plan of mobilization involves some modifications.’ How could an
-infantry officer in garrison at Rouen have known anything about the
-_troupes de couverture_? It has been said that Esterhazy, being a
-major, was in possession of his regiment’s plan of mobilization. True,
-but in the plans of mobilization of regiments, especially of regiments
-that have nothing to do with _couverture_, there is no compromising
-detail. These plans simply specify the measures to be taken to make
-the regiment ready for transportation. The regiment does not know even
-where it is going. Deposited in the colonel’s office are what are
-called _fiches_. These _fiches_ of transportation give only a point of
-departure and a point of arrival. At the point of arrival the regiment
-receives new _fiches_ from a staff officer sent by the minister of war,
-and only there does it learn its final destination. Consequently Major
-Esterhazy could not possibly have given any detail regarding _troupes
-de couverture_. His regiment did not furnish such troops, and the
-regiments that do could give details only concerning the hour of their
-departure. And how could Major Esterhazy know anything of a new plan in
-progress of elaboration? Such a thing could have been known only to an
-accomplice in the war department.
-
-“Thirdly, the _bordereau_ contains a note on a change in artillery
-formations. How could Major Esterhazy have known anything about that?
-There is no artillery garrisoned at Rouen.
-
-“Fourth, the _bordereau_ contains a note relating to Madagascar.
-Gentlemen, the _bordereau_ is certainly not of earlier date than March
-14, 1894, since it speaks of a document that did not appear until
-March 14, of which I shall speak directly. It is certainly of earlier
-date than September 1, at the time at which it was seized. Well, at
-that time it was known only in the war department what part the land
-forces were to take in the Madagascar expedition. The question was
-not agitated until the 16th or 17th of August, 1894. These details,
-then, must have been given by an officer of the war department; Major
-Esterhazy at Rouen could not possibly have known of preparations for an
-expedition in which a part of the land forces would participate.
-
-“I come now to perhaps the most serious point,--‘the note concerning
-the manual of artillery campaign practice, March 14, 1894.’ This manual
-has never been in the hands of an infantry officer. A very few copies
-were sent to artillery regiments. It is hardly known to the officers in
-the war department, except those of the third division,--the artillery
-division. Major Jamel had it in his drawer in the war department, and
-it was at the disposal of the incriminated officer whom I refuse to
-name here. There has been an endeavor to prove that Major Esterhazy
-once had this manual in his hands, and for that purpose an appeal was
-made to the testimony of a Lieutenant Bernheim, who happens to be an
-Israelite, and who came to testify. This officer was obliged to admit
-that he did not communicate the manual to Major Esterhazy; that what
-he communicated was an artillery regulation regarding siege pieces,--a
-regulation which anybody can buy, which does, indeed, contain
-interesting details regarding the firing of such pieces and something
-about the firing of all other pieces, and which Major Esterhazy had
-made use of in preparing a lecture on artillery to be delivered to
-his regiment. And right here I ask permission to relate an incident.
-M. Picquart sent for a certain Mulot, Major Esterhazy’s secretary,
-presented to him a firing manual, and said: ‘This is the document,
-is it not, that you copied?’ Mulot answered: ‘Not at all. I copied
-extracts from a firing manual, but it was a much larger manual than
-that, containing the rules for firing certain pieces.’ Whereupon M.
-Picquart said to him: ‘Your recollection is not very exact. Go home and
-think about the matter, and, when you have thought about it, write to
-us. You belong to the reserves, and, if you need any permits, apply to
-me, and I will see that you get them.’
-
-“Now, gentlemen, I am coming to the end. What is left of the
-scaffolding that has been constructed? Not much, in my opinion; and yet
-on it rests the infamous accusation that the council of war acquitted
-a guilty party in obedience to orders. Gentlemen, I have not a crystal
-soul; I have a soldier’s soul, and it revolts against the infamies
-heaped upon us. I say that it is criminal to try to take away from the
-army its confidence in its chiefs. What do you think will become of
-this army on the day of danger,--nearer, perhaps, than you think. What
-do you think will be the conduct of the poor soldiers led by chiefs
-of whom they have heard such things said? It is to butchery that they
-would lead your sons, gentlemen of the jury. But M. Zola will have won
-a new battle, he will write a new ‘Débâcle,’ he will spread the French
-language throughout the universe, throughout Europe from whose map
-France has been wiped.
-
-“One word more. Much has been said of revision. Revision--and I shall
-not be contradicted by my comrades--is to us a matter of absolute
-indifference. We should have been glad, had Dreyfus been acquitted. It
-would have proved that there was no traitor in the French army. But,
-gentlemen, what the council of war of 1898 was not willing to admit was
-that an innocent man should be put in Dreyfus’s place, whether Dreyfus
-was guilty or not. I have done.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“What question do you wish to ask?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I appeal to Article 319 of the code of criminal
-examination, which says that ‘after every deposition the court shall
-ask the accused if he wishes to answer what has been said against him,
-and that the accused and his counsel shall have a right to question the
-witness through the court, and to say against him and his testimony
-anything that may be useful for the defence of the accused.’ I ask the
-floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“What questions?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask the floor to say against the witness and his
-testimony anything that may be useful for the defence of the accused.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have the floor only to ask questions.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have the honor, by virtue of Article 319 of the code of
-criminal examination, to ask that the floor be accorded me, and I offer
-the following motion.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Can I retire, _Monsieur le Président_?”
-
-The Judge.--“You may sit down.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have the honor to ask the court to be good enough to
-wait until my motion is ready.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have the floor.”
-
-M. Labori offered a formal motion that the court accord the floor to
-the counsel for the accused, in conformity with Article 319 of the
-code, and asked for the floor in order to speak in support of his
-motion.
-
-The Judge.--“You have the floor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Gentlemen, you have just heard, not a deposition, but
-an argument. It is the argument of the staff, which sends General de
-Pellieux here, not to give explanations, but to throw into the debate,
-speculating on the generosity of a great people” ...
-
-At this moment there was an uproar in the court-room, which led M.
-Labori to say, interrupting himself: “I pay no attention, but I judge
-of the reach of my blows by the protests that they call from my
-enemies.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, pay no attention to what takes place in the
-audience. You talk to everybody except the court.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I answer the protests which the court does not suppress,
-and I add that I have here a letter that one of my _confrères_ has
-just passed to me, which says: ‘M. Labori, lawyers are prevented here
-from making any manifestation. Why, then, are infantry and artillery
-officers allowed to openly applaud?’ I resume. I was saying that they
-speculate on the generosity of a great people which confounds persons
-with principles, which identifies chiefs, who are only fallible men,
-with the flag that we all respect and that no one has a right to
-monopolize, no more General de Pellieux than I. As a soldier, I owe
-respect to General de Pellieux, because he is my chief. I am a soldier,
-as he is, and on the day of battle my blood will be as good as his, and
-I declare that, though I may have fewer stripes, I shall not show less
-resolution or less courage. Every time that the advocate of the war
-department shall ask the floor at the beginning of the day’s hearing,
-in order to make an impression on the men of good faith whose names
-the newspapers of the Rue Saint Dominique print every evening as a
-sort of intimidation,--I say that every time that the advocate of the
-staff shall come to this bar to throw himself into the balance, not as
-a witness, but as a sort of pillar of support, the attorney-general’s
-silence proving inadequate,--I say that, immediately afterward, the
-defender of M. Zola, whatever his fatigue, whatever his emotion,
-whatever his sadness, will rise, and, though this trial should last
-six months, he will struggle until the light, which is becoming more
-brilliant every day, which at first was only a gleam” ...
-
-The Judge.--“This has no relation to your motion. I am going to deprive
-you of the floor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If you deprive me of the floor, _Monsieur le Président_,
-it will be said that General de Pellieux was allowed to speak here for
-half an hour, and that I was not permitted to answer him. I await your
-decision.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have the floor, but in support of your motion. Let us
-have done with it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If this expression, ‘Let us have done with it,’ indicates
-that I am disagreeable to the court, I am very much grieved; but I have
-no desire to have done with it. I want the light. Entrusted with the
-defence of Emile Zola, I will go to the last extremity to get it. I
-assure you that you do not excite me at all. I ask only for a moment’s
-rest, and will then speak to the end with tranquillity.”
-
-The Judge.--“You speak of all sorts of things. That is why we shall
-come to no end, and you have not said a word regarding your motion.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am saying something now of greater consequence than my
-motion.”
-
-The Judge.--“But we are not here to hear all these things. This is the
-first time that I witness such a struggle.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Because it is the first time that there has been
-maintained, in the name of the law, a judicial error which must come to
-light,--which will come to light in a few days, if it does not today.
-General de Pellieux has said: ‘Innocent or guilty.’”
-
-The Judge.--“According to Article 311 of the code of examination, I
-tell you that you must explain yourself with moderation.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you tell me, _Monsieur le Président_, what expression
-has fallen from my lips that was lacking in moderation?”
-
-The Judge.--“Everything that you say.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, I do not accept your warning, unless it is made
-more precise.”
-
-The Judge.--“I repeat that this incident has now taken up ten minutes.
-Develop your motion simply.”
-
-M. Labori.--“If you ask me to be moderate, and ask me in terms that
-resemble a warning or a censure, and if you do not tell me why you
-inflict this censure upon me” ...
-
-The Judge.--“Will you speak in support of your motion?”
-
-M. Labori.--“But, _Monsieur le Président_, do you hold to what you just
-said?”
-
-The Judge.--“I have no account to render to you.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Very well. This observation made, it is agreed that not
-one of my words can be reprimanded or blamed, and I continue. Article
-319 declares that the witness, no matter how many stripes he may wear,
-cannot have the upper hand of the defence. M. de Pellieux is not the
-accused party here. If he were, he would have the same right that we
-have, and, if he were the complainant against the accused on behalf
-of the public, he could take the floor. But he is not. The staff has
-said to itself that it has in General de Pellieux a distinguished
-orator, and so it sends him here every day to begin the hearing with an
-argument against such portions of the demonstrations and evidence of
-the day before as seem overwhelming. Well, I say that, if ever Article
-319 is to be applied, this is the time for it.”
-
-The court retired for five minutes, and then rendered a decree
-refusing the floor to the counsel for the defence for the purpose for
-which he asked it, on the ground that it was the duty of the court,
-according to Article 270 of the code of criminal examination, to
-exclude everything that would needlessly prolong the trial.
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard.”
-
-The Judge.--“He is not here.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I know it, but his place is here. I ask that he be sent
-for, and confronted with General de Pellieux.”
-
-The Judge.--“He will come when he is free.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes, at five o’clock tonight, when the hearing is over.”
-
-The Judge.--“We will send for him soon.”
-
-M. Labori.--“At once. I will ask no other question until he is
-summoned.”
-
-But, in spite of this, Colonel Picquart was not heard, the witnesses
-that were called to the bar in the meantime occupying the rest of the
-session. The first was M. Scheurer-Kestner, who appeared in order to
-contradict some points in the testimony of the expert, Teyssonnière.
-
-“M. Teyssonnière,” said M. Scheurer-Kestner, “made an incredible
-blunder when he said that I showed him on Sunday, July 11, specimens
-of Esterhazy’s handwriting. It is a monstrous error, for on July 11,
-when M. Teyssonnière came to see me,--and we have not met since,--I had
-never heard the name of Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“I thought that Esterhazy’s name was mentioned. At
-least I found it on my notes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What notes?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“The notes that I take daily.”
-
-M. Labori.--“How could you have found the name of Esterhazy on your
-notes at a time when nobody was thinking about it? Your conversation
-with M. Scheurer-Kestner was in July, and it was on November 17 that
-M. Mathieu Dreyfus pronounced Esterhazy’s name for the first time in
-denouncing him to the minister of war. Now, M. Teyssonnière, ‘La Libre
-Parole’ publishes this morning an article in which it is said that
-M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux tried to get you to modify your
-opinions. Are you in any way connected with the publication of this
-article?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The article contains a letter written to you by M.
-Trarieux. Who gave the letter to that newspaper?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“I did.”
-
-M. Labori.--“M. Trarieux, keeper of the seals, secured your
-restoration to the list of experts, after your name had been stricken
-from it. You have a way of showing gratitude that is peculiar to
-yourself.”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“M. Trarieux in his testimony committed errors
-concerning me which I will qualify as lies. I did not go in search of
-him. I was sent to him.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Have M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux brought any
-pressure to bear upon your conscience?”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Well, then, be off.”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“Pardon me. I should like to know on what point M.
-Teyssonnière pretends that I lied. He cannot say. He admits that I took
-an interest in him at the time when his name was stricken from the list
-of experts, and now he covers me with odious slander, and pretends that
-I drew him into some trap to get him to modify his conclusions as an
-expert.”
-
-M. Teyssonnière.--“I have not said that.”
-
-M. Trarieux.--“Then why do you carry a letter to ‘La Libre Parole,’ if
-not to permit that journal to publish it with venomous insinuations? I
-will not rest quiet under these calumnies. Never did I ask anything of
-you. It was you who wanted to force your opinions upon me.”
-
-M. Trarieux then produced a letter from M. Teyssonnière in which he
-insisted on coming to show him his report in the Dreyfus case, and to
-scientifically prove the guilt of the condemned man.
-
-M. Labori.--“Why did General de Pellieux declare that we reject the
-official experts, while appealing to foreigners and dentists? Why! when
-the staff experts are questioned by us, they preserve an obstinate
-silence. Could not General de Pellieux loosen their tongues? It is
-not words that we want, but reasons. What answer, indeed, can be made
-to men like M. Louis Havet, M. Molinier, or the director of the Ecole
-des Chartes? I fancy that you will not disdain these men as dentists.
-You think that you have said all when you have cried: ‘Good jurors, we
-shall have war.’ War? Who here is afraid of it? Not you or I, General
-de Pellieux. But we are entitled to know whether our chiefs are worthy
-of us. Then let them fear neither discussion or light. I ask that
-General de Pellieux be confronted with M. Meyer.”
-
-The court gave its consent, and M. Labori put this question to General
-de Pellieux: “Will you explain your statement that the _fac-simile_
-‘Matin’ was a forgery?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I maintain that among the _fac-similes_
-reproduced by the journals there are some that singularly resemble
-forgeries.”
-
-M. Paul Meyer.--“But what interest had ‘Le Matin’ in committing a
-forgery in 1896, when nobody was thinking of Major Esterhazy?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have always said that the reproduction made by
-‘Le Matin’ was the least imperfect of all. It is not the same with the
-_fac-similes_ that have appeared in certain pamphlets.”
-
-M. Meyer.--“I have made no use of those. But the resemblance, according
-to ‘Le Matin’s’ _fac-simile_, between Major Esterhazy’s writing and the
-writing of the _bordereau_ is undeniable.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“You have never seen the original of the
-_bordereau_.”
-
-M. Meyer.--“I have seen the ‘Matin’ _fac-simile_, the fidelity of
-which has been admitted by M. Bertillon. That is sufficient for me.
-No one called your word in question, my general, but you are lacking
-in the power of observation. As for your experts, you perhaps will
-permit me to say that I do not consider myself beneath them in point of
-intelligence. The president of the civil court asks me to select most
-of them. Do you think that, if I had selected myself, he would have
-blackballed me? I prefer an expert examination made by myself from a
-_fac-simile_, to an expert examination made from an original by people
-whom I do not know.”
-
-M. Meyer then asked General de Pellieux to procure for him at least the
-original photographs of the _bordereau_.
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Oh! I would like nothing better, and I regret
-that the reports of the Esterhazy experts cannot be brought here and
-discussed. I was absolutely opposed to closed doors. They were declared
-in spite of me, but I have no right to violate them.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But certainly somebody has a right to authorize this
-production. Let the order be given, and the light will stream forth.
-Oh! we have made some progress in the last week. Here we are, almost in
-agreement. If this trial goes on, we shall all walk out of here like
-honest people, arm in arm. It will be admitted that there has been only
-an immense misunderstanding between us, and that nothing is easier than
-to honestly repair a judicial error involuntarily committed. Well,
-my general, do what we ask. Get the minister of war to produce the
-_bordereau_. Pray him to show us this bit of transparent paper which
-is so securely locked up in his department, and let everybody see it.
-If it were not that certain minds are anchored in a blind obstinacy,
-we should soon see that in this whole matter there is not wherewith to
-whip a cat. It is a great pity that M. Couard is not here. It would be
-a pleasure to witness a discussion between him and M. Meyer, his former
-professor in the Ecole des Chartes.”
-
-“I ask nothing better,” cried a stentorian voice, from the middle of
-the auditorium, and through the crowd pushed M. Couard, carrying a
-large package.
-
-“I do not wish it to be said,” he shouted, “that I have not the
-profoundest respect for my old teacher. But what is the Ecole des
-Chartes? The Ecole des Chartes, I know it. I have been through it.
-Do they teach anything there about the handwriting of the nineteenth
-century? The fifteenth, the sixteenth, I even grant you the seventeenth
-and eighteenth, if you please; but contemporary handwriting? Why, there
-is not a single chair of modern handwriting there. I revere M. Meyer
-as a professor of Roman philology, but as an expert in handwriting he
-is like a child just born. Why, I was present at the development of a
-thesis on the famous flag of Jeanne Hachette, which is preserved at
-Beauvais. The candidate had deciphered upon it all sorts of interesting
-fifteenth-century inscriptions. I twisted with laughter. His
-description was based upon a flag manufactured in 1840 to replace the
-true one, which is worm-eaten, and of which nothing is left but shreds,
-upon which it is impossible to read anything. ‘Each one to his trade,
-then the cows will be well kept.’”
-
-M. Meyer.--“If there is no instruction in writings at the Ecole des
-Chartes, where did you get your instruction, Monsieur Expert?”
-
-M. Couard.--“By practice, my dear master,--practice for eight years.”
-
-M. Meyer.--“Pardon me, I do not defend myself. Pupils are always the
-best judges of their professors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What is the package, so preciously wrapped, that you have
-there under the table? Does it contain, perchance, photographs of the
-_bordereau_?”
-
-M. Couard.--“No, it is the famous dissertation upon the flag of Jeanne
-Hachette. I see what you are after. You wish to turn the course of my
-testimony. But it is established, nevertheless, that my old teacher is
-only an expert on occasion.”
-
-
-_Testimony of M. Paul Moriaud._
-
-The next witness was M. Paul Moriaud, professor in the Geneva law
-school. He desired to use a blackboard for his demonstrations, as M.
-Franck had done the day before, but the court refused to permit him
-to do so. After declaring that there were never two handwritings so
-nearly identical as that of Esterhazy and that of the _bordereau_, he
-discussed the question whether the _bordereau_ was produced by tracing.
-
-“Tracing,” said the witness, “can be done in two ways. There is first
-the tracing of entire words separately. Suppose you desired to produce
-this phrase: ‘You are right, Monsieur,’ signed ‘So and So.’ You
-procure a specimen of the writing of M. So and So, and you look for
-the word ‘are,’ the word ‘right,’ etc. You paste them side by side,
-you cut out the signature and paste it beneath, and you photograph the
-whole; or else you trace them. In this case we may suppose tracing,
-for the _bordereau_ is on tracing-paper. Here you have 181 words,
-almost all different. There are rare words among them,--Madagascar,
-check, hydraulic, indicating, etc. Well, if you should collect Major
-Esterhazy’s letters for ten years, and try to find in them all the
-words that are in this _bordereau_, you would not succeed. The process
-is an utter impossibility.
-
-“You have been told by previous witnesses of the style and punctuation
-of the _bordereau_. I wish to say something of the way in which the
-words are placed. M. Esterhazy begins his paragraphs without indention.
-The lines that begin paragraphs are as long as their predecessors.
-Furthermore, he never divides a word at the end of a line. If there
-is not room for it, he runs it over to the next line. Now, you find
-that in the _bordereau_. Another thing. The _bordereau_ is not in
-the same handwriting throughout. Now, M. Esterhazy’s handwriting is
-very variable. He writes coarse or fine, according to circumstances.
-Now, these two handwritings of Major Esterhazy are to be seen in the
-_bordereau_. The first fourteen lines are written in a more compact,
-more calm, more legible, finer handwriting, the last sixteen in a
-larger, looser hand. Now, if the _bordereau_ had been traced, what
-would have been the result? All the words would have been in the same
-handwriting, either one or the other; or else there would have been a
-mixture, one word in one handwriting and the next in the other. But in
-the _bordereau_ all the first part is in one handwriting, and all the
-second part in the other, which clearly shows that M. Esterhazy wrote
-the _bordereau_ at two sittings, in two different states of mind.
-
-“Some words are repeated in the _bordereau_. The word _ne_, for
-instance, occurs four times; the word _de_ seven times. It is very
-evident that, if these words had been hunted for in M. Esterhazy’s
-letters, in order to trace them, on finding the word _ne_ they would
-have copied it four times. But such is not the case. If we had time,
-I would propose a little experiment. I would ask you to cut from the
-_bordereau_ one of the four words _ne_, and give it to me; whereupon I
-would immediately tell you which one of the four it was. Or you might
-do the same thing with the word _vous_, which occurs six times. If
-you will cut it out and show it to me, I will tell you whether it is
-the fourth, the fifth, or the sixth. They are so different that, from
-memory, in spite of the inevitable confusion that takes possession of
-a man when he speaks in public and among strangers, I should be able
-to recognize them, which proves that each of these words was written
-individually by M. Esterhazy. No two persons ever write the same word
-exactly like, and no person ever writes a word twice in exactly the
-same way. And so in the _bordereau_ there is this variety of form which
-life always gives.
-
-“The last argument. As I said, M. Esterhazy never divides his words,
-but, if the end of the word is far from the end of the line, he makes
-a long final stroke, often immoderately long; and a curious thing,
-that I have never seen in the handwriting of anybody else, is this: if
-the word at the end of a line is a little word, and if M. Esterhazy
-has much room, he writes the word in a larger hand. You will find,
-for instance, at the end of a line an immoderately large _ne_, which
-seems almost in another handwriting. Now, that is precisely what you
-will find in M. Esterhazy’s letters, the elongation of the final
-strokes to fill out the blank space at the end of a line; which proves
-clearly that these words were not taken here and there from Esterhazy’s
-letters. I consider this demonstration irresistible, and, whether its
-truth be admitted or not today, the day will come when _savants_ will
-take these documents and say that M. Esterhazy wrote the _bordereau_,
-and there will be no doubt about it whatever. There may have been an
-original corresponding as a whole to the _bordereau_, but in that case
-M. Esterhazy wrote the original. If it be insisted that somebody has
-imitated M. Esterhazy’s handwriting, the imitator was M. Esterhazy
-himself.”
-
-At the end of this demonstration the court adjourned.
-
-
-
-
-TENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 17.
-
-After a renewed demand on the part of the defence for the production
-of the original of the _bordereau_, and a refusal of the court
-to order its production, M. Paul Moriaud again took the stand to
-testify concerning the Uhlan letter. In this letter he pointed out
-various peculiarities tending to identify M. Esterhazy as the writer,
-especially the _x_ form given to the letter _n_, giving the word
-“Uhlan” the appearance of “Uhlax,”--a peculiarity which had been
-pointed out in the _bordereau_ a year previously by an expert to whom
-M. Esterhazy’s writing was unknown.
-
-M. Moriaud was confronted with M. Varinard, who persisted that the
-Uhlan letter is a forgery, though saying that he could not give his
-reasons without having the original before him. The defence then asked
-for the production of the letter.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does not General de Pellieux think that it is of
-interest to the honor of the army to know whether a French officer
-wrote such a letter?”
-
-General de Pellieux [advancing to the bar].--“Of the highest interest.
-On this point I agree with the defence, and there is not a single
-officer who does not share my sentiment. Major Esterhazy’s letters were
-written in 1882. I myself ask for their production.”
-
-It was agreed that the letter should be produced the following day, and
-publicly examined by experts. Before the closing of the incident M.
-Clemenceau asked General de Pellieux whether any alterations to which
-the letter had been subjected must not have occurred while it was in
-Mme. de Boulancy’s possession.
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Surely; it was placed under seal by me.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Under open seal (by sealing a thread passed through
-the corner of the document). Does not that sort of seal leave the
-document uncovered?”
-
-Testimony was then given by M. Giry, professor in the Ecole des
-Chartes, and by Dr. Hericourt, editor of the “Revue Scientifique,” to
-the effect that the similarity between the writing of the _bordereau_
-and that of Major Esterhazy amounts to identity, after which Colonel
-Picquart was called to the stand.
-
-M. Labori.--“Yesterday General de Pellieux declared that Major
-Esterhazy could not have procured in 1894 the documents enumerated in
-the _bordereau_. What has Colonel Picquart to say in answer to that?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I should not have approached this question, if it
-had not been brought up here yesterday; but now my duty to tell the
-truth obliges me to give my opinions in regard to this _bordereau_. I
-beg that my words may not be misinterpreted. Some things that I shall
-say perhaps will contradict what General de Pellieux has said, but I
-believe it my duty to say what I think. Permit me to view this question
-of the _bordereau_ in a general way. I am accustomed to deal with these
-questions, having been occupied with them on other staffs, prior to my
-service of a year and a half as chief of the bureau of information.
-Well, the _bordereau_ enumerates documents of much less importance, in
-my opinion, than that which has been attributed to them. I note in the
-first place this passage:
-
- I address you meantime:
-
-  (1) A note on the hydraulic check;
-  (2) A note on the _troupes de couverture_;
-  (3) A note on the firing manual;
-  (4) A note relating to Madagascar.
-
-“Well, these are only notes. Anyone who had had anything serious to
-furnish, and not simply what he had picked up in conversation, or seen
-in passing, would have said: ‘I send you a copy of such and such a
-document.’ When one wishes to give value to his merchandise, he points
-out its origin. Now, a note indicates simply a personal observation, or
-perhaps a little copy of something or other drawn from memory, or from
-the newspapers, or from some other source. I note also this,--that,
-in the case of the only authentic document, which is not of capital
-importance, the firing manual, the author of the _bordereau_ said:
-‘Project of a firing manual,’ adding: ‘This last document is extremely
-difficult to procure,’ thus showing the difficulty that he had in
-procuring it. Now, could Major Esterhazy have obtained these points of
-information?”
-
-The Judge.--“That is the question.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I say: ‘Yes.’ When the famous dispatch brought
-Major Esterhazy’s name to my attention, I, in search of information,
-applied first to a person belonging to his regiment, who said to me:
-‘This man has singular ways. He has been twice to the artillery firing
-schools, and he asked permission to go a third time at his own expense.’
-I know that he explains these frequent visits by saying that he had a
-country house not far from the Châlons camp. But I would like to know
-whether on each occasion he went to the Châlons camp. The last time,
-yes; but the other times I do not think that he did. I cannot assert
-it,--because I never assert anything of which I am not sure,--but it
-seems to me that one of the firing schools was at Mans.
-
-“Another thing. An agent informed us that a major wearing decorations,
-and about fifty years old, was furnishing documents to a foreign power,
-especially documents concerning artillery and firing. This points
-to the conclusion that Esterhazy could give information concerning
-artillery.
-
-“A third thing. The member of Esterhazy’s regiment to whom I applied
-told me that Esterhazy had asked him whether he knew anything about the
-mobilization of artillery. Why did he desire to know that? Consequently
-I believe that Esterhazy could furnish a personal note as to what he
-had seen of the hydraulic check and the modifications in artillery
-formations. The newspapers have said that this matter of a modification
-in artillery formation was the subject of a legislative bill, and was
-known, before its introduction, to not a few senators, deputies, and
-journalists. Now, Esterhazy knew not a few deputies, and was a frequent
-visitor at newspaper offices.
-
-“Concerning the statement of the _bordereau_, in relation to the
-_troupes de couverture_, that some modifications will be made by the
-new plan, I maintain that this expression evidently came from someone
-not connected with the department, and, if desired, I will go into
-detail on that matter, but behind closed doors.
-
-“Now I pass to the note concerning Madagascar. It has been said that
-it could not have been known at the beginning of 1894 that there would
-be a Madagascar expedition. In the first place, this is simply a note
-relating to Madagascar. It has nothing at all to do with a project for
-the participation of land forces in a Madagascar expedition. It may
-have been copied from a geographical document. There is nothing to
-indicate that it was of a military character. If it should be said that
-it must have been of a military character, I would answer that, since
-the first Madagascar expedition, there has been every year a question
-of sending somebody there; and I have received letters from many of
-my comrades, who, knowing that I had served in the colonies, asked me
-if I could not give them some information, in view of the widespread
-report that there was to be a Madagascar expedition. I mention this
-to show that in the beginning of 1894 there was already much talk
-about Madagascar, though it was not then known that there would be an
-expedition in which the land forces would take part.
-
-“Now as to this passage from the _bordereau_:
-
- (5) The project of the manual of artillery campaign practice. This
- last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at
- my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite
- number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each
- officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.
-
-“Are those the words of an artillery officer connected with the war
-department? ‘The minister of war has sent a definite number to the
-corps.’ Why does he talk of the corps? That seems to me to indicate an
-officer not connected with the department.
-
-“Now I must speak of two very serious matters in the _bordereau_.
-It contains this phrase: ‘Unless you wish me to have it copied _in
-extenso_.’ Now, one who wishes to have a document copied _in extenso_
-must have someone at his disposition to make the copy. The writer does
-not say: ‘Unless I copy for you,’ but ‘Unless you wish me to have it
-copied.’ When my attention was called to Esterhazy, I said to myself:
-How, in 1894, could he have had at his disposition secretaries, persons
-who could copy? The person to whom I applied for information said to
-me: ‘Esterhazy has always had documents copied for him at home by
-secretaries, and he is even now having some copied.’ Furthermore,
-this party said: ‘Esterhazy in 1894 was a major,’--that is, he had a
-secretary under him. The information that Esterhazy was then a major
-astonished me, for the _bordereau_ says: ‘I am about to start for
-the manœuvres,’ and majors generally do not take part in the spring
-manœuvres. But, on consulting the reports of the 74th of the line, I
-found there the statement that Major Esterhazy will take part in the
-manœuvres. Thus I found all the evidence in harmony.
-
-“General de Pellieux spoke yesterday of a secretary named Mulot whom I
-had questioned. It is perfectly true, and General de Pellieux got the
-information from me. I ask the jurors to remember the letters written
-to me by General Gonse, and the testimony given here by General Gonse
-on February 9. General Gonse, in his letter, told me not to continue
-with the experts, but to try to find out how the documents were
-obtained and copied. In his testimony General Gonse said that it was
-necessary at that moment for me to question the artillery officers with
-whom Major Esterhazy might have been at the manœuvres and the firing
-school, and find out what they perhaps had copied. Well, gentlemen, I
-am astonished that I am now reproached at having sent for Mulot, who
-was one of the two secretaries employed by Esterhazy. I thought that,
-if I could be reproached with anything, it was with having questioned
-only him; and I will tell you why. I had been advised to question the
-sub-officers, but very discreetly, so that the matter would not be
-noised abroad. Well, the difficulties that I met convinced me that
-it was impossible to get this information without asking for it. So
-I sent for Mulot, and said to him: ‘There have been indiscretions in
-the press. The minister desires to know if any documents have been
-copied in the offices that should not have been.’ He answered: ‘I was
-the secretary of Major Esterhazy, and copied such and such documents,’
-which he enumerated. I could not press him without putting him on
-the track that I was following. He told me that Esterhazy delivered
-many lectures, and that he had to copy for him passages from books.
-I remember only one thing. He spoke to me of a manual. I believe
-that I showed him the manual of artillery practice, and asked him if
-that was it. He said: ‘No.’ Then I allowed him to go, and I did not
-follow up the matter, because it was not possible to do so without
-compromising Esterhazy and giving rise to rumors. But I am astonished
-that under these circumstances, it being known that I had questioned
-Mulot unsuccessfully, Mulot should have been the only one cited before
-the council of war. I am astonished that they did not summon the other
-secretaries whom Esterhazy had employed, and especially the secretary
-that he employed in the spring of 1896 to copy sundry documents for
-him. One fact is patent,--that at that time the colonel of the 74th
-gave to Major Esterhazy a confidential document. Its delivery is proved
-either by a receipt or by a note in that report. Well, at that time
-Major Esterhazy was employing someone to copy documents or plans for
-him at home. It would have been interesting to know whether he employed
-some one to copy the document that his colonel gave him.
-
-“There is another thing, which has deeply saddened me. I hardly think
-it was General de Pellieux’s intention, but it seems to me that he
-insinuated yesterday that it was my desire to engage in a corrupt
-conspiracy against this man. Possibly I spoke to the general of his
-military situation. Possibly, on the other hand, he first spoke to me
-of it. But I cannot suffer such a charge to be made against me. There
-had never been any mention of Mulot’s deposition. I had seen him in the
-witnesses’ room, but I simply said ‘Good day’ to him, adding: ‘You did
-not think that you would come here, did you?’ And it was only yesterday
-that I learned through General de Pellieux’s testimony what was thought
-of me in the matter.”
-
-General de Pellieux, recalled, declared that he could answer
-concerning two points only.
-
-“I said yesterday,” he testified, “that the writer of the _bordereau_
-was an officer, an officer in the war department, and a licentiate. I
-said that he was a licentiate, because in the war offices the officers
-are somewhat confined by their services, and an officer in one bureau
-would find difficulty in furnishing information from another bureau,
-whereas a licentiate goes from one bureau to another, and consequently
-is in a position to furnish information from many. It is true that
-Major Esterhazy was at the manœuvres and at the firing schools, but
-the note on Madagascar, since it was not until August that the matter
-was elaborated in the war department, could not have been furnished
-by Esterhazy, because at that time he had been to the firing schools
-and the manœuvres, and did not go again after August 16, while all
-the licentiates were at the manœuvres until the end of August. I care
-nothing for the importance of the documents enumerated; what I wish
-to prove is that they were not furnished by Esterhazy. One word more.
-Colonel Picquart says that Mulot’s deposition was made behind closed
-doors. True, but the investigation was not behind closed doors, and in
-the investigation he made the declaration that I spoke of yesterday. He
-made it in presence of Major Ravary, and Major Ravary’s report was not
-read behind closed doors. Send for Mulot; he will corroborate me.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We shall be glad to send for any witnesses that are
-desired. We wish to do nothing to increase the darkness. I ask that
-each of the documents be examined individually. Let Colonel Picquart
-give his explanations, and let such of them as may be contested be
-discussed, one by one.”
-
-General Gonse then came to the stand.
-
-“The documents enumerated in the _bordereau_ are, first, the note on
-cannon 120, and the way in which its hydraulic check works. Well, the
-piece 120 is a piece which at the time of which we speak was still
-new. Its check was new. Knowledge of it was confidential and extremely
-technical. I am not acquainted with the check, and I never saw the
-piece fired. It is fired only under special conditions. It may be that
-infantry officers have seen it fired, but only from a distance, and
-certainly they are not in a position to furnish any serious information
-regarding it, which indicates that this note is a technical note that
-could have come only from an artillery officer.”
-
-The Judge.--“What is the second point in the _bordereau_?”
-
-General Gonse.--“The _troupes de couverture_. There is nothing
-confidential here. These are troops that go to the frontier when war
-is declared, to cover the mobilization of a certain region and to
-prevent incursions of the enemy. They come from points not far from the
-frontier, either on foot or by rail. Well, in the month of April, or
-early in 1894, the staff reconstituted the plans for the transportation
-of the _troupes de couverture_. These new plans could not have been
-known outside of the staff. At this time was made also a plan for the
-general concentration of the army. But that plan it took a long time to
-finish, and the plan regarding the _troupes de couverture_ went into
-force in the spring, while the plan of concentration was not completed
-and put in force until the end of 1894, or the beginning of 1895.
-Meantime there were some modifications, some changes of garrison among
-the _troupes de couverture_, some modifications in the organization of
-artillery; consequently the _bordereau_ states the truth when it adds
-to the note concerning the _troupes de couverture_ that there have been
-some modifications in the plan. Only an officer of the general staff
-could have known these modifications and furnished the note regarding
-them. No officer of troops, not even an officer of a division staff,
-could have given this information.
-
-“It is certain that anybody may make notes about Madagascar, but in
-1894 a note on Madagascar was made, destined for the minister of
-war,--a secret note indicating measures to be taken, measures that
-concerned the expedition, a whole series of secret and confidential
-matters. When the _bordereau_ announced this note, we were extremely
-surprised. It did not occur to anyone that the reference might be to a
-note taken from a newspaper or magazine. As to the firing manual, we
-never give the manual of artillery practice to infantry regiments; so
-it seems, too, that only an artillery officer could have furnished that.
-
-“Colonel Picquart said just now that I prescribed the course that he
-should follow in his investigations, telling him to question artillery
-officers, which he did. But he fails to say that the result was
-negative. He went to an artillery regiment in garrison at Versailles,
-and questioned the officers. But the information given him was
-negative. Colonel Picquart told me so himself.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I questioned an artillery officer of a regiment in
-garrison at Versailles, having previously obtained the authorization of
-the colonel; but I did not go farther for the same reasons that kept me
-from further questioning the secretary, as I have already stated. Now
-I come to the question of the _bordereau_. Dates must not be confused.
-There were manœuvres in the autumn of 1894, but the _bordereau_ was
-written in April. What struck me were the words: ‘I am about to start
-for the manœuvres.’ It was not the autumn manœuvres that were then
-approaching.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“One word. The _bordereau_ was not written in
-April. I appeal to General Gonse.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It has always been said at the war department that it was
-written in April.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Not at all.”
-
-M. Labori.--“This is an interesting point. Will you ask whichever of
-these gentlemen it is who knows, at what date the _bordereau_ was
-written, and at what date it was seized; and, when I say seized, I mean
-at what date it fell into the hands of the minister?”
-
-General Gonse.--“It reached the department toward the end of September,
-1894.”
-
-M. Labori.--“And at what date was it written?”
-
-General Gonse.--“There is no date. It must have been written toward
-the month of August, since there is a question in it of a note about
-Madagascar.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Just now General Gonse made use of the phrase: ‘A note on
-Madagascar,’ as a basis for saying it was certainly very serious, since
-in the month of August a very serious note on Madagascar was made;
-and now he makes use of this date, August 10, to fix the date of the
-_bordereau_. This is a begging of the question.”
-
-General Gonse.--“Permit me. I do not give the date with absolute
-certainty. I know only that the _bordereau_ reached the department at
-the end of September. We suppose that it must have been written toward
-August.”
-
-M. Labori.--“At what date was the important note on Madagascar drawn up
-in the department?”
-
-General Gonse.--“In the course of the month of August.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I read from the Dreyfus indictment:
-
- Regarding the note on Madagascar, which offered great interest for a
- foreign power, an expedition had been sent there toward the beginning
- of 1894. Captain Dreyfus could easily have procured it. In fact, in
- the month of May last Corporal Bermelin, then Colonel Sandherr’s
- secretary, copied its twenty-two pages in the ante-room next to the
- office of this superior officer. The making of the copy took about
- five days, and in the meantime original and copy were left in a
- blotting-case.
-
-“I ask General Gonse how he reconciles the date August, which he has
-given, with the report of M. d’Ormescheville, which gives the date
-February, 1894; and how he explains the copying of notes so serious by
-a corporal, during five days, in an ante-room?”
-
-General Gonse.--“There was a note in August. I do not know whether
-there was a note in February.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You see, gentlemen, how important it is to be exact. This
-matter is being continually befogged by equivocation. They say it is
-a note on Madagascar which was written in August, 1894, and, when we
-consult M. d’Ormescheville’s report relating to the Dreyfus case, and
-consequently to the _bordereau_, we find mention of a note written in
-February, 1894. So that matter is settled.”
-
-General Gonse.--“I have nothing to say. I maintain all that I have
-said.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard on these points.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I have another word to say concerning the _troupes
-de couverture_. I said just now that I did not believe that the author
-of the _bordereau_ was connected with the department. Otherwise he
-would not have written: ‘A note on the _troupes de couverture_; there
-will be some modification in the new plan.’ If, as I had always
-believed hitherto, the _bordereau_ was written in April, the writer
-alluded to modifications just made. Now, the modifications that had
-just then been made were then considered definitive, although later
-they were slightly changed. I know something about this, because I drew
-them up.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Why have you always supposed that the _bordereau_ was
-written in April?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I have always heard it so said at the war offices.”
-
-The Judge.--“You do not know of your own knowledge?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Now I am going to ask Colonel Picquart--for I imagine that
-at the point at which things have now arrived he will not refuse to
-answer--whether he was not delegated by the minister of war to attend
-the Dreyfus trial.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I maintain my first declaration.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You refuse to answer?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does General de Pellieux think that Colonel Picquart
-may answer?”
-
-General de Pellieux--“I cannot speak of the Dreyfus trial. I had
-nothing to do with it.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“That is not my question. I ask: Does General de
-Pellieux think that Colonel Picquart may answer the question put to
-him?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Colonel Picquart is judge of his own answers. I
-have no advice or command to give him.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“It is not advice or command that I ask, but an
-opinion.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have no opinion to offer to Colonel Picquart.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then, _Monsieur le President_, will you ask General Gonse
-if Colonel Picquart was not delegated by the minister of war to attend
-the Dreyfus trial?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I have not to answer that question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then I say to the jury that it is the truth, and, if it
-is not true, let one or the other of these gentlemen contradict me.
-Now I ask General Gonse how he knows that the notes enumerated in the
-_bordereau_ furnished any serious revelations regarding the important
-subjects mentioned.”
-
-General Gonse.--“From the titles themselves. I cannot suppose that
-these notes contained trifles.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then I ask General Gonse this question: A traitor is a man
-who delivers documents for money. When he delivers a serious document,
-does he not show its importance, and, when he says ‘a note,’ can it be
-taken to be a document instead of a personal note?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I have no answer to make on that matter.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Come back now to this passage of the _bordereau_:
-
- This last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have
- it at my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a
- definite number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible.
- Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.”
-
-General Gonse.--“After the firing lessons.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me; it says after the manœuvres; and that is very
-interesting, for here is an officer going to the manœuvres, who can use
-this document during the manœuvres, having not to restore it till after
-the manœuvres. Then I ask General Gonse: Why is this document difficult
-to procure, and why could the officer in question have it for a few
-days only?”
-
-General Gonse.--“Regarding that, you should ask an officer of the
-third division,--the artillery division of the war department. I give
-only an opinion. I believe that, when these documents exist only as
-projects, the copies are numbered. They give perhaps ten to a regiment
-of artillery; these ten copies must be restored intact after use of
-them, so that, if they gave only ten, and there were thirty or forty
-officers, no single officer could keep his copy long. But this is only
-a supposition, because the distribution does not concern me. I know it
-only by hearsay.”
-
-M. Labori.--“But just now it was necessarily an artilleryman. I say, at
-any rate, that it is necessarily a corps officer, for he would have a
-manual only during the time of the manœuvres. Is that General Gonse’s
-interpretation?”
-
-General Gonse.--“Yes. But that does not prove that it is a regiment
-officer. It must be an artillery officer, and not an officer of a
-regiment of infantry, for this manual never goes to the infantry.”
-
-The Judge.--“You said just now that it must be an artillery officer and
-a licentiate.”
-
-General Gonse.--“It was not I who said that; it was General de
-Pellieux. But I corroborate him, because the enumeration of the
-documents in the _bordereau_ concerns the artillery division. The
-hydraulic check does not concern us at the staff. It is a technical
-matter in the artillery domain. The matter of the _troupes de
-couverture_ concerns at least three bureaus of the staff,--the first,
-third, and fourth. The writer of the _bordereau_ then must have been an
-officer initiated in the work of these three bureaus.”
-
-The Judge.--“My inquiry concerned the words ‘and at the same time a
-licentiate.’”
-
-General Gonse.--“The licentiates remain two years with the staff,
-passing six months in each of the four bureaus.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“The _bordereau_ says: ‘A certain number of these
-documents were sent to the corps.’ An infantry officer would have said:
-‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the artillery corps.’”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Would an artillery officer at the firing lessons have
-refused to lend his manual to a major of infantry?”
-
-General Gonse.--“It is certain that it might have been done, because
-there is no distrust of the officers of infantry; but, if I remember
-rightly, the information obtained by Colonel Picquart from the
-artillery officers was to the effect that Major Esterhazy paid very
-little attention to what was going on on the firing grounds, and spent
-his time in smoking cigarettes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Then what becomes of that extraordinary zeal which was
-made so much of before the council of war, to explain Major Esterhazy’s
-strong desire to go to the manœuvres at his own expense? Why was he so
-zealous, if he wanted to do nothing but smoke cigarettes? If he had
-asked an officer to lend him the manual, he would not have done so in
-order to follow the firing, for it is our contention that he wanted it
-in order to deliver it to a foreign power.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“General Gonse said that the writer of the
-_bordereau_ must have been a licentiate who had passed through the
-first, third, and fourth bureaus. Well, this _bordereau_ has been
-attributed to a person who had not reached the third bureau at the time
-of the appearance of the _bordereau_, and who was then in the second
-bureau, which relates to foreign armies. If, then, this person had had
-anything to deliver, it would have been other things,--for instance,
-how much we know about the status of foreign armies.”
-
-A recess was then taken, and, when the court came in again, General de
-Pellieux asked to be recalled.
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury,” said he, “I have an observation to make
-concerning what has just taken place. So far, we have kept strictly
-within the bounds of legality. We have said nothing of the Dreyfus
-case, and I do not wish to speak of it. But the defence has just read
-publicly a passage from the report of Major d’Ormescheville, which was
-made behind closed doors. I ask, then, to speak, not of the Dreyfus
-case,--I shall not speak of it,--but I say, as Colonel Henry said:
-‘They want the light; they shall have it.’ At the time of the Castelin
-interpellation in 1896, a thing occurred which I desire to point out.
-There came to the war department--and notice that I do not speak of the
-Dreyfus trial--absolute proof of the guilt of Dreyfus. This proof I
-have seen. There came to the war department a paper the origin of which
-cannot be contested, and which contained these words: ‘There is going
-to be an interpellation regarding the Dreyfus case. Never tell the
-relations that we had with that Jew.’ Gentlemen, the note is signed. It
-is not signed with a known name, but attached to it is a visiting-card,
-and on the back of this card are a few words making an unimportant
-rendezvous signed with the same name that is signed to the document,
-and the visiting-card bears the name of the person. Well, gentlemen, a
-revision of the trial has been sought by indirect methods. I bring you
-this fact. I make the declaration on my honor, and I appeal to General
-de Boisdeffre in support of my testimony.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I ask the floor for a moment, not to answer General de
-Pellieux, but to point out immediately the necessary consequence of his
-words, so far as this case is concerned. I ask the floor, _Monsieur le
-Président_, to say two words.”
-
-The Judge.--“Two words only?”
-
-M. Labori.--“Two words only.”
-
-The Judge.--“Have you a question to put?”
-
-M. Labori.--“How could I have questions to put in answer to an
-absolutely new matter just brought into the trial?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“You have brought into the trial a new matter by
-reading the indictment framed by Major d’Ormescheville, which was read
-behind closed doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“We are advancing, we are advancing.”
-
-General Gonse.--“I ask the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“Presently, general.”
-
-M. Labori.--“A matter of exceptional gravity has just arisen. There
-is one point on which we are all agreed here: General de Pellieux
-has not spoken of the Dreyfus trial. He has spoken of something that
-happened after the Dreyfus trial. This matter, then, must be discussed
-here. After such a statement, there can be no restriction of the
-debate. I point out to General de Pellieux that no document can have
-any scientific value as proof, until it has been discussed openly. We
-have now reached a point in this affair--an affair that is assuming
-the proportions of a State affair--where we are in the presence of
-two documents, or two files of documents, equally serious,--a secret
-file which was the basis of the conviction of Dreyfus in 1894 without
-contradiction, without discussion, without defence, and a second secret
-file which has been used for weeks to prevent anything but assertions
-from being made in this court. What ever respect I may have for the
-word of General de Pellieux as a soldier, I cannot grant that this
-document has the slightest importance. As long as we do not know it,
-until we have discussed it, until it shall be publicly known, it
-will go for nothing. And it is in the name of the eternal right of
-principles venerated from the beginning of civilization that I utter
-these words. Consequently I now arrive at a point so precise that my
-tranquillity, from any point of view, is increased. Only one thing has
-worried me--the constant obscurity, the increase of public anxiety,
-thanks to the daily thickening darkness, thickened I do not say by
-lies, but by equivocations. Whether Dreyfus be guilty or innocent,
-whether Esterhazy be guilty or innocent, these are questions of the
-highest gravity. General de Pellieux, the minister of war, General
-Gonse, and myself are entitled to convictions upon them, and we are
-capable of going on forever unless the absolute light is brought
-out. But it will not do to let the excitement of the country go on
-increasing. Now we have a means, without closed doors, and without
-court decrees, of arriving at the light, at least at partial light,
-for the revision of the Dreyfus trial is now a thing of necessity. The
-protests of the crowd show that it does not understand the seriousness
-of this trial from the eternal standpoint of civilization and humanity.
-If Dreyfus is guilty, and if the statements of these generals are well
-founded, the proof will come out in a fair trial. If they are mistaken,
-the contrary will be proved, and, when the light shall be absolute, and
-all the darkness dissipated, there will be perhaps in France one or
-two men really guilty and responsible, and, whether they be on the one
-side or the other, they will be known and marked. And then we shall go
-quietly back to our works of peace or war,--for nobody fears war with
-generals worthy to speak in the name of the army which they command;
-and not by threats of war, which is not approaching, whatever they may
-say, are the jurors to be intimidated. Let General de Pellieux explain
-himself without reserve, and let the document be produced.”
-
-The Judge.--“General Gonse, what have you to say?”
-
-General Gonse.--“I confirm the testimony of General de Pellieux. He
-has taken the initiative, and he has done well. I would have taken it
-in his place, to avoid all equivocation. The army does not fear the
-light. To save its honor, it does not fear at all to tell the truth.
-But prudence is a necessity, and I do not believe that proofs of this
-character, though they are real and absolute, can be brought here and
-made public.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“M. Labori spoke just now of revision on the
-strength of the communication of this secret document to the council
-of war. There has been no proof of such communication. I do not know
-whether Colonel Henry’s testimony of the other day was listened to
-with sufficient attention. He pointed out that Colonel Sandherr had
-delivered to him a secret file, which had been sealed before the
-sitting of the council of war and had never been opened. Now, for
-a revision of the Dreyfus trial because of this document, what is
-necessary? The proof.”
-
-The Judge.--“We have not to concern ourselves with revision. That
-cannot be done here.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“There is talk of nothing else.”
-
-The Judge.--“I know that, but it cannot be done in an assize court.
-General Gonse, have you anything more to say?”
-
-General Gonse.--“No.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I ask that General de Boisdeffre be sent for to
-confirm my words.”
-
-The Judge.--“Will you ask him to come tomorrow?”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Major Delcassé, take a carriage and go for
-General de Boisdeffre at once. I wish to say that I have brought up
-this letter only because I was forced to. Major d’Ormescheville told
-me himself that the newspapers mutilated his report. I ask that he be
-called to testify.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Since it was I who read from this report, I ask permission
-to answer General de Pellieux in two words.”
-
-The Judge.--“Is it a material fact?”
-
-M. Labori.--“This report has been published. I had nothing to do with
-its publication.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Has it been published in full?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not know.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Ah! that is the question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“No, that is not _the_ question, for there are several
-questions.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“It is one of the questions.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The question is whether the note to which General Gonse
-attributed the date of August was really written in February. Whether
-some pages were omitted or not does not alter this fact. If the report
-has not been published entire, I ask that it be published entire. And
-I shall have only to congratulate myself when it appears, because thus
-we shall arrive at that light for which we are continually asking, and
-which will never be made too complete to suit us. General de Pellieux
-sends for General de Boisdeffre. He is right, but I wish to say--and
-within forty-eight hours my words will be recognized as prophetic--that
-it will not be possible to stop the debate at the words of General de
-Pellieux or at those of General de Boisdeffre. Either these documents
-must not be spoken of, or else they must be shown. That is why I say to
-General de Boisdeffre: ‘Bring the documents, or say no more’.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“General de Pellieux told us that at the time of
-the Castelin interpellation they had absolute proofs. Does that mean
-that, before that, they had only relative proofs? I ask General
-de Pellieux--and it is a question that is beginning to be asked
-everywhere--how it happens that it is in an assize court that so
-serious an assertion is made? How happens it that General Billot, in
-the course of the Castelin interpellation, did not speak of these
-secret documents to the chamber, any more than he threatened the
-chamber with war? It is to an assize court that they come to say these
-serious things, and reveal secret documents.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have not threatened the country with war.
-All this is to play upon words. It is none of my affair whether
-General Billot spoke of this document at the time of the Castelin
-interpellation. General Billot does as he sees fit. Surely he said to
-the chamber several times: ‘Dreyfus was justly and legally convicted.’”
-
-M. Labori.--“I interrupt to say that at least one of those two words is
-false.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“Prove it.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is proved.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“We have tried to prove it, and have been prevented,
-and, if General de Pellieux wishes me to explain further, I am ready to
-do so.”
-
-The Judge.--“It is useless.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is proved by M. Salle; it is proved by M. Demange;
-it is proved by publications in the newspapers that have not been
-contradicted; it is proved by General Mercier, who did not dare to look
-me in the face and say the contrary, though I had sent him, through
-the newspapers of the day before, a challenge which he has answered by
-silence, which he answered by a distinction which in itself alone is a
-decisive proof, for, when I said: ‘General Mercier delivered a document
-to the council of war, and has boasted of it publicly everywhere,’
-General Mercier, throwing another equivocation into the debate,--I
-do not say wilfully, perhaps unconsciously,--answered; ‘That is not
-true,’ and I said to him: ‘What is not true,--that you have not said it
-everywhere, or that you did not deliver the document?’ and he answered
-me: ‘Simply that I have not boasted of it everywhere.’ So I say that to
-every honest mind the proof is made, and the proof that the proof is
-made is that no one has risen to say what General de Pellieux will not
-dare to say. I defy him to say it. Well, I say that the proof is made.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“How do you expect me to say what happened in the
-Dreyfus trial? I was not there.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is well. I thank you, my general.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“We brought here a witness who had it from the lips
-of one of the members of the council of war that a secret document was
-communicated to the judges. We were not allowed to question him.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have two letters that say the same thing, and I have
-another letter from a friend of the president of the republic,
-declaring that he will not come to testify, because he has been warned
-that, if he tells the truth, they will declare him a liar.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“As to the secret document, why did not General Billot
-show it to M. Scheurer-Kestner when that gentleman went to see him? In
-that case the whole matter would have been finished by this time.”
-
-Cutting the matter short, the court called the next witness. It was
-Major Esterhazy. He advanced to the bar, and rested himself upon it,
-facing the jury. A guard followed him, stopping a little distance
-away. But M. Labori insisted that the trial could not go on until the
-declarations of General de Pellieux had been either overthrown or
-confirmed, and, General de Boisdeffre not having arrived, the court
-postponed the hearing of Major Esterhazy to the following day, and an
-adjournment was declared.
-
-
-
-
-ELEVENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 18.
-
-At the opening of the hearing the judge called General de Boisdeffre to
-the bar, and said to him:
-
-“General, yesterday an incident occurred which we did not expect.
-Although it concerns a matter outside of this trial, in view of what
-was said, and in view of the demand for your testimony, we thought it
-our duty to send for you. Let me read to you the stenographic report of
-the declaration made here yesterday by General de Pellieux.”
-
-When the judge had finished reading, General de Boisdeffre spoke as
-follows:
-
-“I shall be brief. I confirm General de Pellieux’s deposition in all
-points as exact and authentic. I have not a word more to say, not
-having the right. And now, gentlemen, permit me, in conclusion, to
-say one thing to you. You are the jury; you are the nation. If the
-nation has no confidence in the commanders of its army, in those who
-are responsible for the national defence, they are ready to leave this
-heavy task to others; you have only to speak. I will not say a word
-more. _Monsieur le Président_, I ask your permission to withdraw.”
-
-The Judge.--“You may withdraw, General. Bring in the next witness.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, I have some questions to put.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have not the floor. The incident is closed.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, _Monsieur le Président_” ...
-
-The Judge.--“You have not the floor. [To the court officer.] Bring in
-Major Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have some questions to put to the witness.”
-
-The Judge.--“This was an incident outside of the trial. You have not
-the floor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I ask you for the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“I do not give it to you.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you permit me to make some observations, in order to
-indicate why I ask the floor.”
-
-The Judge [to the court officer].--“Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am going to offer a motion in order to obtain the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“The court will pass upon it later. Bring in Major
-Esterhazy.”
-
-M. Labori then began to draw up his motion, and in the meantime Major
-Esterhazy was ushered in. As he took the stand, the judge said: “M.
-Labori, what questions have you to put?”
-
-M. Labori [without rising].--“_Monsieur le Président_, I am drawing up
-my motion.”
-
-The Judge.--“Well, I am going to question the witness. It has been
-declared in this trial that you were the author of the famous
-_bordereau_. What have you to say thereupon?”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“I ask permission to make a declaration to the jurors
-before answering you.”
-
-The Judge.--“You can make such a declaration, now that you have taken
-the oath.”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“Gentlemen of the jury, I do not know whether you
-realize the abominable situation in which I am placed. Without the
-shadow of a proof, a wretch, M. Mathieu Dreyfus, has dared to accuse
-me of being the author of the crime for which his brother is being
-punished. He has accused me of the crime of high treason. For seven
-weeks two examinations were in progress. My accusers had a chance to
-produce all their proofs. They were offered the widest latitude; they
-produced nothing. I have been judged by my peers, by my superiors, who
-have acquitted me unanimously. Today, in contempt of all rights, in
-contempt of all the rules of justice. I am summoned before you, not
-as a witness, but as an accused. I protest with all my might against
-this treatment. I am kept in the witnesses’ room, and not allowed to
-put anyone forward in my justification. Meantime my accusers question
-the witnesses whom they have prepared. There is no one to raise his
-voice in my favor. During the last eighteen months, in the shadow,
-there has been woven against me the most frightful conspiracy ever
-woven against any man. During that time I have suffered more than
-anyone of my contemporaries has suffered in the whole of his life. I
-have been made the object of the most infamous manœuvres, the most
-cowardly manœuvres,--for it is especially cowardice that figures in
-this campaign. I am ready to answer all the questions that the court or
-the jurors may ask me. It is your right. As for these people, I do not
-answer them.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, have you any questions to put?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I am drawing up my motion, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-The Judge.--“Witness, you may be seated.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I add that I shall have some questions to put to the
-witness.”
-
-The Judge.--“You will put them now, or not at all.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I call attention to the way in which, twice in succession,
-you have refused me the means of maintaining the defence.”
-
-The Judge.--“I repeat to you that you are not the director of the
-trial.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not direct the trial. The proof of that is that you
-forbid me the floor. I have a right to offer motions. I am drawing up a
-motion. When the court shall have passed upon it, I will put questions.
-You will pass upon it in the fulness of your rights. As for me, I will
-appeal by every way that is open to me.”
-
-The Judge.--“You have the right to appeal, but as for me, I will direct
-the trial as to me seems proper. You ask the floor on a matter foreign
-to the trial. I have refused it to you, and I still refuse it to you.
-If you have no questions to put to Major Esterhazy, we shall ask him to
-be seated.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have questions to ask, but I will not ask them until the
-court shall have passed upon my motion.”
-
-The Judge.--“The court will pass upon it tomorrow.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The court will pass upon it when it likes, but, as for
-me, not another word shall be gotten from me.”
-
-The Judge.--“Witness, take your seat.”
-
-The court then called other witnesses, but none appeared. Thereupon
-General de Pellieux asked for the floor.
-
-The Judge.--“Certainly.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I have just received the declaration of a person
-whose name is on this card. This person was questioned day before
-yesterday by M. Atthalin. I ask that he be heard. He has an especially
-important declaration to make regarding a money proposition that has
-been made to him. He is in the Salle des Pas-Perdus, ready to come up.
-His name is M. Bouton. I do not know him.”
-
-The Judge.--“We will hear this witness presently, if there is occasion.”
-
-The court then declared a recess. An hour and a half later the court
-came in again, whereupon M. Labori read the following motion:
-
- May it please the court,
-
- Whereas, after the deposition of General de Boisdeffre, M. Labori
- asked the floor in order to put several questions to the witness;
-
- Whereas the incident in question was raised spontaneously during
- yesterday’s session by General de Pellieux, who invoked, as a
- so-called proof against Dreyfus, and consequently as a so-called
- decisive defence of Major Esterhazy, two documents without any
- appearance of value or authenticity;
-
- Whereas, without having to touch any point concerning the national
- defence, the accused have a right to put to the witnesses in a general
- way questions relative to their depositions, and of such a nature as
- to aid in bringing out the truth;
-
- Whereas the accused cannot be forbidden, without outrageously
- violating the rights of defence, to ask questions concerning the
- manner in which General de Pellieux was made acquainted with these
- documents, the conditions under which they were shown to him, in order
- to find out whether they have been examined by experts, etc.;
-
- Whereas it cannot be pretended that General de Pellieux made a
- declaration so spontaneous that it was impossible to stop him;
-
- Whereas in fact, General de Boisdeffre, whose deposition had been
- announced in advance, has been called to the bar, after a day’s
- reflection, with the consent of the court and with full knowledge of
- the circumstances, in order to confirm the declaration of General de
- Pellieux;
-
- Whereas there is no occasion here to inquire into the value, from the
- standpoint of equity and right, of judicial processes which consist in
- calling, or allowing to come daily, to the bar generals who testify
- free of all control, and without prevention of any sort, concerning
- matters which it pleases them to approach, invoking or violating
- closed doors or professional secrecy at their convenience;
-
- But whereas in any case, and making, moreover, concerning this matter,
- all legal reserves, the accused believe it their duty to establish the
- following fact: The judge of the assize court, answering M. Labori,
- who asked for the floor in the terms of Article 319 of the code of
- criminal examination, and solely to put questions to witnesses;
- declared that the floor should not be given to him, and that no
- question should be asked either of General de Boisdeffre or of General
- de Pellieux;
-
- Whereas the court made this answer before any question had been
- formulated;
-
- Whereas M. Labori then asked to be allowed to offer a motion, in order
- to establish this refusal, and to make known to the court the reasons
- of fact and law by which he intended to obtain the floor immediately
- in the interest of the defence;
-
- Whereas the judge refused to let M. Labori offer his motion;
-
- Whereas the judge of the assize court undoubtedly has a right to
- direct the trial and to put questions to witnesses, but whereas, that
- this right may be exercised in conformity with the law, with equity,
- and with good sense, it is indispensable that the judge should at
- least inform himself of the questions to be put;
-
- Whereas the refusal of the court, under the general, rigorous, and
- absolute conditions in which it was declared, constitutes, from all
- points of view, and especially after the depositions of General de
- Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre, which are thus left without answer
- and with the protection of justice, a manifest violation of the rights
- of defence;
-
- Whereas by the deposition of General de Boisdeffre the question of
- confidence in the general staff is now laid before the jury, and the
- chief of the general staff has indicated that a verdict of acquittal
- would be followed by the resignation of the general staff;
-
- Whereas the defence thus finds itself confronted with a really abusive
- intervention of military authority in a matter of justice, and whereas
- it would be a veritable denial of justice to prevent the accused from
- disproving the serious charges made against them at this bar with the
- authorization of the court;
-
- Whereas, in consequence of these facts, the judge summoned the next
- witness, Major Esterhazy;
-
- Whereas, after having put a question to him upon the refusal of the
- defence to put questions itself for the reason that it needed time
- to draw up a motion, the judge invited M. Labori to put questions to
- Major Esterhazy if he thought it useful to do so, telling him that he
- must put them then, or that he would not be allowed to put them later;
-
- Whereas, after this declaration, and in spite of the protests of the
- defence, the witness, Major Esterhazy, was sent back to his seat, and
- another witness was called;
-
- Whereas it was only because no witness appeared at the bar that the
- judge found himself under the necessity of declaring a recess, and
- that the defence has had an opportunity of drawing up its motion;
-
- Whereas all these facts have done serious injury to the rights of the
- defence, the free exercise of which it is the business of the court to
- insure;
-
- For these reasons,
-
- To give the movers the benefit of record of the facts announced as the
- reasons for the present motion;
-
- To order that Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre shall be recalled
- to the bar, there to be examined on all questions that may be
- formulated by the defence and thereafter put by the court;
-
- To declare that the trial shall then go on according to the regular
- forms prescribed by law, under all reserves, notably under that of
- recalling to the bar Major Esterhazy when there shall be occasion;
-
- And that will be justice.
-
-  PARIS, FEBRUARY 18, 1898.
-
-The Attorney-General.--“I have but a single observation to
-make,--namely, to recall my declaration of the opening day that the
-law is absolutely opposed to any attempt at revision in the assize
-court. I asked the court to exclude from the trial the Dreyfus file
-and the Esterhazy file. I foresaw all that is taking place here. It is
-because we have allowed ourselves to be drawn upon the ground which the
-defence had chosen and prepared that all this has occurred. Under these
-circumstances I have only to remain on the ground where I first placed
-myself, and on that ground I call for an open debate, but only on that
-ground.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not ask the floor to plead. Nevertheless it
-is fitting that the defence should say a word in answer to the
-attorney-general, and I thank the court for allowing me for once to
-take the floor.” [Murmurs of protest in the court-room.]
-
-The Judge.--“For ten sessions this has been going on.”
-
-M. Labori.--“What has been going on, and what is increasing, is the
-unfitting manifestations which the court makes no effort to suppress.
-The attorney-general seeks shelter behind the words that he uttered on
-the opening day. He has seen nothing of what has been going on during
-the last ten days, if he thinks that we are still at the point where
-we were when he rose for the first time, on February 7, 1898. The
-facts have taken it upon themselves to prove that, in presence of a
-situation so serious as this, procedure and its subtleties are of no
-avail. I said, when I rose the first time: ‘Do you imagine that you
-can stop a torrent by placing yourself in the middle of it?’ You see
-that this torrent flows on. But the attorney-general could not have
-chosen a more inopportune moment for placing himself in opposition to
-the full explanations that we desire. Was it the accused who threw into
-the trial the incredible declarations that were heard here yesterday,
-and that could not resist ten minutes’ examination? We have nothing
-to do with them. Generals have come here every day to plead, not
-only with the oratorical talent that some of them possess, but with
-their authority, with their uniform, with their stripes, with their
-decorations” ...
-
-The Judge.--“I shall take the floor from you, if you go on in that
-tone; it the last degree of impropriety.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not accept the word ‘impropriety.’ There is nothing
-improper in my words. I say that these generals have come here to
-plead. Is that improper? I say that they have pleaded here not only
-with their talent. Is that improper?”
-
-The Judge.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I say that they have pleaded also with all the authority
-given them by the love of this country for its flag, which it wrongly
-confounds with them, for the flag is to be confounded with nobody. The
-flag is a symbol. [Cries of Enough! Enough!] Silence for those who do
-not respect justice in default of respect for defence. Really, who is
-it that is guilty of impropriety here, I ask?”
-
-The Judge.--“The impropriety is in exciting the protests that you
-excite.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, this trial has now risen to such a point
-that such opinions as those which you have just uttered, _Monsieur
-le Président_, have no weight with me, whatever my respect for your
-functions. And you shall not stop me, except by depriving me of the
-floor. It would not be the first time, and, if the trial goes on in
-this way, I am afraid that it will not be the last. That said, I
-resume my explanations at the point where I left off. I say that the
-attorney-general could not have chosen more inopportune circumstances
-to remind us of his words on the opening day. These generals have
-brought into the trial, not facts, but assertions, which we are
-forbidden, I do not say to contradict, but to discuss and examine.
-This is not the moment to protest against the revision that we desire.
-Ah! yes, in spite of all obstacles, by virtue of the forces that truth
-and the sentiment of justice impart, we have been making this revision
-here for the last ten days, and it is because we are making it so
-successfully that by violent, morally violent, and illegal means they
-are trying from day to day, by demolishing each stone of the edifice
-that is rising in spite of everything, to make against us a sort of
-counter-revision. Well, there shall be no counter-revision here, unless
-we have the right to reply. The debate has now risen far above the
-condemned man on Devil’s Island, who is interesting not because of
-his suffering, for there are so many men who suffer, and in so many
-different ways, that one more or less does not make much difference.
-He is interesting only because he suffers in violation of law, by a
-verdict rendered in the name of the people, in the name of the country.
-The trial has risen far above Esterhazy, far above M. Zola and M.
-Perrenx. It has risen above everybody. It is justice, liberty, and
-right that are now in question, and it is in their name that I offer
-_in abstracto_ the motion which I have just offered.
-
-“You also, gentlemen of the court, have responsibilities here. Do
-not answer our motion by equivocations. Do not say that I have asked
-for the floor for an argument. It would not be true. Confront the
-question as it is put. You are to tell us, gentlemen, if new forms of
-justice are to be inaugurated in this country. Neglect the tumult of
-an audience which does not know why it rages. Neglect the passions of
-people who trustingly believe in assertions that cannot be examined,
-and could not stand examination for a second. Do not forget that
-perhaps we are at a turning-point in the history of this country; and
-that you are about to render a decree the consequences of which no one
-can measure.”
-
-The court then rendered the following decree:
-
- After listening to the accused and their counsel, and to the public
- prosecutor, and after deliberating in conformity with the law;
-
- Considering that, on the spontaneous demand of General de Pellieux,
- the latter declared at yesterday’s session a fact relating to the
- Dreyfus case, and that, in support of his declaration, he invoked the
- testimony of General de Boisdeffre;
-
- Considering that the latter, at today’s session, has confirmed the
- declaration of General de Pellieux;
-
- Considering that, in the terms of the decree of February 7, the court
- has ordered that all incidents relating to the Dreyfus case should be
- excluded from the trial, and that consequently every question relating
- to these incidents must be excluded as of no utility and contrary to
- the aforesaid decree;
-
- Considering that consequently the presiding judge was right in
- refusing the floor to the defence for the putting of any question
- under this head, and in ordering that the trial should be proceeded
- with;
-
- Adopting, furthermore, the reasons indicated in the aforesaid decree;
-
- Considering, as concerns Major Esterhazy, that the presiding judge,
- after having summoned the witnesses to the bar, invited the counsel of
- M. Zola to put to him such questions as he might deem useful, and that
- the counsel refused to put any questions at that moment, and that the
- presiding judge had to question him officially;
-
- Considering, further, that the direction of the trial belongs
- exclusively to the president of the assize court in conformity with
- the law;
-
- For these reasons,
-
- The court declares that the presiding judge was right in refusing the
- floor to the counsel of the accused for the putting of any question to
- Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre;
-
- Declares that Major Esterhazy will be recalled to the bar, if there is
- occasion;
-
- Rejects consequently the motion of the defence, and declares that the
- trial shall be proceeded with.
-
-At this point M. Clemenceau inquired if General de Pellieux had
-fulfilled his promise to obtain from the minister of war an
-authorization of the production of the Uhlan letter. General de
-Pellieux answered that the minister of war must have written to the
-court in regard to it; but the court declared that nothing had been
-received from General Billot.
-
-Then M. Clemenceau asked that the court order a guard to protect Mme.
-de Boulancy on her way to the court-room, she being in the building,
-but fearing to traverse, unprotected, the distance of one hundred and
-fifty feet between the point where she was and the court-room. The
-request was denied.
-
-Then Colonel Picquart was recalled to the stand.
-
-M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy has had in his hands a document known as
-‘the liberating document.’ It is directly connected with the Esterhazy
-case, and is the document that was seen in a certain file concerning
-which Colonel Henry testified. It has been declared that this file was
-shut up in a closet on the 15th or 16th of December, 1894, and was not
-taken out again until it was seen on the desk of Colonel Picquart in
-the presence of M. Leblois. Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows
-about that file?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Colonel Henry’s testimony was incorrect. The file
-was taken from the closet in the interval, I have not to say for what
-circumstances, or for what purpose. But Colonel Henry’s statement is
-not correct.
-
-“Another thing. General Gonse said that the document beginning: ‘That
-scoundrel D----’ had been in the hands of several persons,--his own,
-Major Henry’s, Adjutant Gribelin’s, and mine. Well, I say that it has
-been in the hands of other persons. I need not enumerate them, but one
-of the persons who had it in his possession for some time is Colonel du
-Paty de Clam.
-
-“I say further that, when this file was shut up in my closet from the
-end of August to the beginning of November, 1896, I was not the only
-one who could get it. There were at least two others who knew how to
-open my closet,--Adjutant Gribelin and Major Lauth. Colonel Henry also
-spoke of certain secret documents, extra-secret. I should violate my
-professional duty, if I were to enumerate the contents of that file.
-Until the minister of war shall relieve me from the obligation of
-professional secrecy, I shall have nothing to say regarding this. But
-I believe that Colonel Henry somewhat exaggerates the importance of
-certain documents therein. Evidently they are not documents for the
-public, but, considering the fact that the _bordereau_ and the dispatch
-have been spoken of here, there are certainly other documents in the
-file which could be spoken of. In fact, there are certain of them whose
-authenticity it would be well to verify, one especially which arrived
-at the moment when Major Esterhazy needed to be defended against the
-charge that he was the author of the _bordereau_, and when it was
-necessary to prove that the author of the _bordereau_ was someone else.
-Well, it has been produced, it seems, for it was never shown to me;
-but I have heard of it, and its origin has not been stated; probably
-it fell from heaven. But, in view of the moment of its production, and
-the language in which it is framed,--language absolutely improbable,--I
-think that there is reason to consider it a forgery.”
-
-M. Labori.--“The document of which Colonel Picquart speaks is the
-document alluded to here yesterday?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“It is the document of which General de Pellieux
-spoke. If he had not spoken of it yesterday, I would not have spoken of
-it today. It is a forgery.”
-
-General Gonse was then recalled for confrontation with Colonel
-Picquart. But he declared that he could do no more than repeat the
-declaration already made by General de Boisdeffre.
-
-Major Esterhazy was then called to the bar.
-
-
-_Testimony of Major Esterhazy._
-
-M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer
-me. Consequently, in conformity with the law, I ask him no question,
-but I ask the court to ask him what he thinks of the writing of the
-_bordereau_, and to call his attention to the fact that the question is
-put by the court.”
-
-The Judge.--“I repeat the question to Major Esterhazy. You are asked
-what you think of the writing of the _bordereau_.”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“Although you do me the honor to convey to me this
-question, _Monsieur le Président_, it is still the question of M.
-Labori. Consequently I will not answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, will you ask Major Esterhazy if
-he has in his hands the letter that Captain Brault wrote to him in
-1893 to ask him for his handwriting--either Captain Brault or a forger
-signing the captain’s name?”
-
-The Judge.--“Will you answer?”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“I will answer none of the questions put to me. That
-is flat.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I ask permission to continue the experiment. And,
-as the witness may at any time change his mind, I will ask all the
-questions that I have to ask. The witness will answer or not. Will you
-ask the witness how he entered the French army,--by way of St. Cyr, by
-way of the Polytechnic, or otherwise?”
-
-The Judge.--“You hear the question.”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“Always the same reply.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“At what time was the witness connected with the
-French information service? Has he not said that he was connected with
-it twenty years ago? Did he not say that before the council of war?”
-
-No answer.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I will continue. Did the witness ever know a person
-answering to the name of Mme. de Boulancy?”
-
-The Judge.--“Will you answer this question?”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“None, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-A few “Bravos” were heard in the court-room.
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I beg the court to permit all these manifestations
-on the part of the public. If you will permit me, I will even join in
-them, because I consider that the witness has adopted the only plan
-open to him. Placing myself where he stands, I will applaud every time
-that he refuses to answer the questions that I shall ask him. Does the
-witness admit that he wrote a letter to Mme. de Boulancy containing
-the following passage: ‘The Germans will put all these people [meaning
-Frenchmen] in their right-place before long’?”
-
-The Judge.--“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Pointing out that the witness has previously admitted
-the authenticity of this letter, I continue. Does the witness admit
-that he wrote a letter containing the following passage: ‘There is the
-beautiful army of France; it is shameful. And if it were not a question
-of position, I would leave tomorrow. I have written to Constantinople.
-If they offer me a position that suits me, I will go there, but not
-without first administering to all these scoundrels a pleasantry of my
-own’?”
-
-After waiting a moment and receiving no reply, M. Clemenceau continued:
-
-“Are not the passages that I have just read contained in letters whose
-authenticity the witness admitted to General de Pellieux? [Silence.]
-
-“Did not the witness deny to General de Pellieux the authenticity of a
-single letter, called the Uhlan letter, in which the passages that I
-have just read do not occur?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Did not the witness admit that the following passage
-occurred in a letter written by him to Mme. de Boulancy: ‘Our great
-commanders, poltroons and ignoramuses, will go once more to fill the
-German prisons’?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that the passage just read was
-contained in a letter whose authenticity he did not deny to General de
-Pellieux?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that he wrote to Mme. de
-Boulancy a letter containing the following passage: ‘I am absolutely
-at the mercy of this hussy, if I make the slightest mistake with her;
-and it is a situation which is far from pleasant. I hate her, you may
-believe, and I would give everything in the world to be today at Sfax,
-and send for her to come there: one of my horse soldiers, with a gun
-capable of going off by chance, would cure her forever.’” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that this letter was produced
-before General de Pellieux, and that he did not deny its authenticity?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on. The major has told you that he will not answer.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that all these letters
-containing the insults to the army and its commanders which I have just
-read were written after the war of 1870 and 1871?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I am going to read a letter
-the authenticity of which the witness denies, and, after that, I will
-ask him a question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau then read the Uhlan letter, and followed it with this
-question: “This letter having been seized at Mme. de Boulancy’s, does
-the witness pretend that Mme. de Boulancy is a forger?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“In certain interviews it has been stated that Major
-Esterhazy had declared that Mme. de Boulancy was either mad or a
-forger. Does the witness maintain that declaration?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has not the witness once stated that the Uhlan letter
-could not have been written by him, since he writes ‘Uhlan’ in the
-Hungarian fashion, while in the letter it is written as it is usually
-written in France?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does not the witness know that his argument on
-that point has been met by the statement that, in a letter whose
-authenticity cannot be denied, since it was seized at the law office of
-M. Lortat-Jacob, there is mention of the Uhlan, and that the word is
-spelled as in the letter to Mme. de Boulancy?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“What is the explanation of the word ‘crime’ contained
-in a letter that I have read, and in which Major Esterhazy indicated
-that perhaps he would be obliged to commit a crime? What crime had he
-in mind? Did he mean, as certain newspapers have stated, that he would
-be ready to kill himself?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“If that be his explanation, how can he admit the other
-affirmation made to a witness, M. Autant, that Major Esterhazy was at
-that moment a man who was ready to kill himself, when Major Esterhazy
-declared before the council of war that he was not a man to kill
-himself?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“You have no more questions?”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Yes, _Monsieur le Président_. Does the witness admit
-having written other letters to Mme. de Boulancy and recently two
-telegrams?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“At first did not the witness deny all these letters?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“After the motion made before the court, did not
-Major Esterhazy admit that the passages indicated in the motion were
-correct, notably the following: (1) ‘General Saussier is a clown, whom
-the Germans would not have in a circus;’ (2) ‘On reaching Lyons, the
-Germans will throw away their guns, and keep only their bayonets, to
-drive the Frenchmen before them’?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Concerning the first passage, did not Major Esterhazy
-declare that he was simply reporting remarks made by German officers at
-a dinner where French officers were present?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Concerning the second passage, has not the witness
-declared in an interview that the phrase was his, but that it was his
-estimate of the way in which the city of Lyons is defended? Concerning
-the first passage, will Major Esterhazy explain to the court how it
-happened that French officers were able to be present at a dinner where
-foreign officers indulged in such remarks, and how it happens that
-the French officers, and notably Major Esterhazy, did not protest?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“In the passages that I have just read Major Esterhazy
-repeatedly indicates that he was exasperated; yet has not Major
-Esterhazy received excellent testimonials from his superiors?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“On the eve of the appearance of Major Esterhazy before
-the council of war, the chief of staff said in a testimonial that
-he is ‘of the most distinguished superior officers, and of elevated
-sentiments,--one who can aspire to the highest positions in the
-hierarchy’; the brigadier-general, that M. Esterhazy ‘is distinguished,
-remarkably endowed, has all the qualifications of a commander, and has
-a future’; the general of division, that he is ‘a superior officer of
-personal value.’ Now, will the court ask the witness if he was not
-a little surprised when he heard these testimonials read before the
-council of war?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Were not the causes of his surprise (1) that he has
-been short of money, and, to use his own expression, had been to the
-people whose trade it is to lend money; (2) that he speculated on the
-stock exchange, as indicated by M. de Castro. [Silence.] I may go on,
-_Monsieur le Président_?”
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has not Colonel Picquart said that the witness was
-short of money, and did he not give the names of officers who had given
-him bad reports concerning Major Esterhazy? Was not the witness’s
-acquaintance with General Guerrier another reason for his surprise?
-The witness has declared that his premises were robbed; when were they
-robbed?” [Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Before the council of war, the witness was a little
-confused in his replies on this point. He was unable to explain
-himself. Perhaps he would like to explain himself in the assize court?
-[Silence.] Did the witness ever prefer a complaint on account of this
-robbery?”
-
-The Judge.--“Will you answer?”
-
-Major Esterhazy.--“No, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Was this robbery proved otherwise than by the
-affirmations of Major Esterhazy? [Silence.] Did Major Esterhazy reply
-to the council of war: ‘I supposed that it was M. Mathieu Dreyfus? I
-would not have believed that it was an officer. When they told me that,
-I was dumbfounded.’ Does the witness adhere to the reply? [Silence.]
-If he adheres to it, how can he explain his answer that M. Mathieu
-Dreyfus was guilty of this robbery in 1896, when at that time he could
-not have known the name of M. Mathieu Dreyfus? [Silence.] How did the
-witness learn that he was suspected of having written the _bordereau_?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“When did he learn it?”
-
-The Judge.--“You may go on. The witness has told you that he will not
-answer you.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Has not the witness said that he learned of it
-through a letter signed ‘Speranza,’ received in the country, October
-20, 1897, in which Colonel Picquart was denounced, and in which it
-was said that Colonel Picquart had paid soldiers for specimens of his
-handwriting? [Silence.] Did not the witness learn through the note
-published in ‘Le Matin’ on October 10, ten days before the 20th, that
-M. Scheurer-Kestner knew who wrote the _bordereau_? [Silence.] When
-the witness returned to Paris, did he not observe the resemblance in
-the writing, and did he not say that there was a frightful resemblance
-between the writing of the _bordereau_ and his own? [Silence.] Will the
-witness explain concerning the veiled lady, and the circumstances under
-which she conveyed to him the liberating document? [Silence.] Did not
-Major Esterhazy have four meetings with the veiled lady? [Silence.] At
-the second meeting, near the spot where now stands the Bridge Alexander
-III, did not the veiled lady hand to Major Esterhazy an envelope
-containing a liberating document? [Silence.] Did not Major Esterhazy
-declare before the council of war that he had carried this document,
-this liberating document which affirmed his innocence, in an envelope
-to the war department, without knowing what the envelope contained?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“When the witness deposited this liberating document
-at the war department, did they not give him a receipt for it?
-[Silence.] When he appeared at the war department with a secret
-document stolen from its most secret closet, was not Major Esterhazy
-afraid of being arrested as an accomplice in a robbery? [Silence.] Has
-not Major Esterhazy made endeavors to find the veiled lady again?”
-[Silence.]
-
-The Judge.--“Go on.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Will Major Esterhazy tell us what, in his opinion,
-were the motives that led Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart to accuse him?
-[Silence.] Does Major Esterhazy admit that he has written articles
-signed ‘Dixi’ for ‘La Libre Parole’? Is Major Esterhazy aware that ‘La
-Libre Parole’ lately declared that the articles thus signed were from
-his pen? [Silence.] In these articles did Major Esterhazy seriously
-insult Colonel Picquart, and especially accuse him of having been
-bought in 1896? [Silence.] Does Major Esterhazy admit having had
-relations with Colonel de Schwarzkoppen?”
-
-The Judge.--“Oh! nothing about that. Not a word concerning foreign
-politics.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“This does not concern foreign politics.”
-
-The Judge.--“Say nothing of officers belonging to foreign countries.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I have not a right to speak of an act committed by a
-French officer?”
-
-The Judge.--“No, let us not discuss that.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Is it true, as the newspapers have said, that
-Major Esterhazy knew Colonel de Schwarzkoppen, and went once in
-uniform to the German embassy for his colonel, who desired to go to
-Alsace-Lorraine without being disturbed?”
-
-The Judge.--“I have told you that I will not put the question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that he had relations, not
-frequent, but not hidden, with Colonel de Schwarzkoppen, military
-_attaché_ of the German embassy, whom he knew at Carlsbad, as ‘Le
-Paris’ says?”
-
-The Judge.--“No, I will not put the question.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I will offer a motion, if necessary.”
-
-The Judge.--“Oh, come!”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“Certainly. How is it that one cannot speak of justice
-in a court?”
-
-The Judge.--“Because there is something above that,--the honor and
-safety of the country.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I note, _Monsieur le Président_, that the honor of the
-country permits these things to be done, but does not permit them to be
-said.”
-
-Major Esterhazy was then allowed to step down, and his place was taken
-by M. Jules Huret, of “Le Figaro,” who testified that on November
-17, 1897, he went to the garrison at Rouen to question the officers
-regarding Major Esterhazy, and found among them no astonishment at the
-mention of Major Esterhazy’s name in connection with the _bordereau_,
-one of them saying that Major Esterhazy, in spite of his services in
-Tunis, and in spite of the services of his uncle and father in the
-French army, was considered the _rastaquouère_ of the French army.
-
-The defence then offered as a witness General Guerrier, but the court
-declined to hear him, because his name was not in the list of witnesses
-furnished by the defence to the attorney-general. For the same reason
-the court declined to hear M. Bouton, whose card had been passed up by
-General de Pellieux. An adjournment was then taken until the following
-day.
-
-
-
-
-TWELFTH DAY--FEBRUARY 19.
-
-The proceedings opened with an application for the floor from Colonel
-Picquart, who desired to vindicate himself against aspersions cast
-upon him by witnesses and by the newspapers. Referring first to a
-statement of “Le Petit Journal” that he was a divorced husband, and was
-having his children brought up in Germany, he declared that he was not
-married, that he had never been, that he had no children, and that, if
-he had any, he would not have them brought up in Germany. Referring
-next to the statement of General de Pellieux that he, Colonel Picquart,
-had endeavored to stimulate the testimony of Mulot by promising him
-certain favors, he said that General de Pellieux knew him only through
-the three interviews that they had had on three afternoons, and that he
-would like some military commander who knew him better to be called to
-testify regarding his character. “I will cite you,” said he, “one man
-whose past is glorious, who has shed his blood on many battle-fields,
-a man who has been mingled with our victories and our sorrows, a man
-who certainly cannot be suspected of undue indulgence toward his
-subordinates,--I mean General de Galiffet. I am certain that, if
-General de Galiffet were called to this bar, he would say what he said
-before the council of investigation, where he did not fear to shake
-hands with me after saying what he thought of me. I ask that he may
-come here to say what he thinks of me. I do not know the proper means
-to employ; but I desire it.”
-
-M. Labori sustained the demand of Colonel Picquart that General de
-Galiffet be called, but the court ruled that his testimony would be
-useless.
-
-In answer to questions put by M. Labori, Colonel Picquart testified
-that, while he was at the head of the bureau of information, one
-Marchand was connected with that service, who was also an editor of
-“L’Eclair,” a “hold-over” from the time of Colonel Sandherr, and that,
-at the time of certain publications in “L’Eclair,” M. Marchand was
-questioned about them, whereupon he denied being concerned in the
-indiscretions, and endeavored, but unsuccessfully, to find out who had
-given the documents to “L’Eclair.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not General de Pellieux intervene several times, of
-his own accord, in the course of Colonel Picquart’s testimony before
-the council of war?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Please put that question to General de Pellieux.”
-
-Thus summoned, General de Pellieux advanced to the bar, apologizing for
-his appearance in civil costume, declaring that he had supposed his
-part in the affair was ended. Instead of answering the question, he
-spoke as follows:
-
-“The words uttered yesterday by the attorney-general dictate my duty.
-I absolutely refuse to answer any question of the defence not directly
-connected with the Zola case. Now I have a word to add. In presence
-of Colonel Picquart, I said at a previous session that everything in
-this case was strange, but what I find still more strange--and I say it
-to his face--is the attitude of a Monsieur who still wears the French
-uniform, and who comes to this bar to accuse three generals of having
-committed a forgery or made use of a forgery.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“In declaring yesterday that in my eyes the document
-of which General de Pellieux had spoken was a forgery, I insist that
-I had not the least intention of casting suspicion upon the good
-faith of my superiors. There are forgeries so perfect that they have
-the appearance of a genuine document. For instance, there were the
-Norton documents, I believe, which persons high in place thought to be
-genuine. My thought should be interpreted from this point of view, and
-I object to any other interpretation.”
-
-M. Labori desired to say a few words regarding the incident, but the
-court was opposed. “All this,” said the judge, “has nothing to do” ...
-
-M. Labori.--“Pardon me, _Monsieur le Président_” ...
-
-The Judge.--“I am going to deprive you of the floor.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Every time that you deprive me of the floor, you do me a
-little more honor.”
-
-The Judge.--“Well, it is understood; you may take your seat.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I would like to add a word. The part that I have
-played in this matter has not been voluntary; circumstances have forced
-it upon me.”
-
-The Judge.--“Can the witness withdraw? Has the defence any objection?”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have no objection to anything, since I cannot make any
-observations.”
-
-The Judge.--“That is not the question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You ask me a question. Will you permit me to answer it or
-not?”
-
-The Judge.--“I ask you a question.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You ask me if I object to the withdrawal of General de
-Pellieux.”
-
-The Judge.--“Answer yes or no.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I cannot answer yes or no, because I have distinctions to
-make.”
-
-The Judge.--“Monsieur the attorney-general?”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“Incidents may arise. The general had better
-remain in the court-room.”
-
-The Judge.--“Then, General, be good enough to remain in the court-room.”
-
-General de Pellieux.--“I remain at the disposition of the court and the
-jury.”
-
-M. Labori.--“As for me, I ask that it be recorded that the court has
-asked me a question, and then deprived me of the floor before I had
-replied.”
-
-The Judge.--“But I have not deprived you of the floor. I deprived you
-of the floor when you were going to argue.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have not argued.”
-
-The Judge.--“This is too much.”
-
-M. Labori.--“You had deprived me of the floor.”
-
-The Judge.--“I did so because you desired to argue; because it is my
-right; because it is my duty.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It relates to a question.”
-
-The Judge.--“The witness has answered that he will say nothing.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is to you that I speak. I wish to induce you to direct
-the trial in a manner that I am about to point out. Do you give me the
-floor for that purpose?”
-
-The Judge.--“No.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Very well. It is not the court that is judge, but the
-whole country.”
-
-General Gonse was then called, and asked by M. Labori at what date the
-hydraulic check was introduced into the service.
-
-General Gonse.--“I am not in charge of the artillery service, and
-cannot answer.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Will you permit me to comment upon the testimony of the
-witness, to say regarding it that which is indispensable to the truth,
-according to Article 319?”
-
-The Judge.--“Ask questions only.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Really, I ask myself if it would not be better to quit
-this court-room than to suffer myself to be thus gagged and placed in a
-strait-jacket.”
-
-The Judge.--“Come, Monsieur Labori, say serious things.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, you abuse the right that your
-lofty position gives you. You have no right to insult me. Do you
-maintain that I do not say serious things here?”
-
-The Judge.--“Ask questions.”
-
-M. Labori.--“It is well. You do not maintain it; I continue. I ask
-Colonel Picquart to explain what he meant in his testimony when he
-indicated that one of the documents in the secret file applied rather
-to Major Esterhazy than to another.”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Had there not been mention of this document in the
-Ravary report, I would not say a word about it. I say that it applied
-rather to Major Esterhazy than to another, because this document need
-only be seriously discussed in order to make it plain that it can apply
-only to an officer of troops, and not to a staff officer. I could give
-my reasons only behind closed doors.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was not Colonel Picquart appointed chief of the bureau of
-information on July 1, 1895?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
-
-M. Labori.--“When he entered upon his functions, did not General de
-Boisdeffre say to him: ‘Occupy yourself with the Dreyfus case. There is
-not much in the file’?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I have not to answer that question, for it relates
-to conversations with the chief of staff.”
-
-M. Labori.--“At what date did the witness say to General Gonse: ‘I
-shall not carry this secret to the grave’?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I cannot speak of private conversations. I have
-seen that statement in a newspaper, and asked myself who could have
-given it out.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not General de Boisdeffre in September and October,
-1896, after the letters of General Gonse, invite Colonel Picquart to
-put questions regarding Major Esterhazy?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“The obligations of professional secrecy prevent me
-from answering.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Was it not then that Colonel Picquart proposed to have
-Major Esterhazy arrested for certain matters of indelicacy?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I considered that it would be useful to arrest
-Major Esterhazy, and that, if the presumption that he was a spy was
-not strong enough, there was enough against him in other directions to
-warrant sending him to a fortress. My superiors did not agree with me.”
-
-M. Labori.--“This proposition having been rejected by General de
-Boisdeffre, did he not ask Colonel Picquart to formulate another?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“I cannot testify in the assize court concerning the
-details of my service.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Did not Colonel Picquart then frame another proposition,
-which was first accepted, and then rejected because it would lead to
-Major Esterhazy’s arrest? Does not that prove that the authenticity of
-the dispatch was not disputed?”
-
-Colonel Picquart.--“At that time nobody questioned the authenticity of
-the dispatch.”
-
-The stand was then taken by M. Stock, the publisher, who at the time
-of the examination in the Esterhazy case had turned over to General de
-Pellieux certain letters written by Major Esterhazy to M. Autant, the
-architect.
-
-“General de Pellieux undoubtedly took no account of them,” said the
-witness, “for neither M. Autant or myself was called before him. At
-that time Major Esterhazy said to M. Autant: ‘You must deny having
-received these letters; you must deny that I am your tenant; you must
-deny any acquaintance with me; and, if questioned about the letters,
-you must say that they are forgeries.’ M. Autant refused, saying
-that that was contrary to the truth. Moreover, it was childish, for
-there were two registered leases, and everybody in the house knew
-Major Esterhazy. Later the letters found their way into the hands of
-Major Ravary, and M. Autant and I were called before him. He was very
-courteous, but my testimony did not seem to please him. He asked me
-why the letters had been photographed. I did not know. He said that he
-considered it very strange that M. Autant should have given up Major
-Esterhazy’s letters without his consent. I found it very curious that
-this examining magistrate should tell a witness to ask the opinion of
-the accused before deciding what to do.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Does the witness know anything concerning M. Zola’s good
-faith?”
-
-M. Stock.--“To me, as to everybody, it is absolutely evident.
-Furthermore, I know, through the indiscretion of a member of the
-council of war, that not simply one secret document, but several, were
-communicated to that body. I can enumerate them.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, it is useless. We have no right to say anything about
-the Dreyfus case.”
-
-M. Stock.--“I can enumerate four of these documents, if you like.”
-
-The Judge.--“We are not concerned with the Dreyfus case.”
-
-The next witness was M. Lalance, who formerly sat in the German
-reichstag representing Alsace-Lorraine, as protesting deputy.
-
-“I would like,” said the witness, “to tell the jury something about
-the origins of this affair. I was acquainted with the Sandherr and
-Dreyfus families,--that is, with the family of the accuser and the
-family of the accused. I have lived with them and seen them very
-closely. The elder Sandherr was a Protestant who became a Catholic
-and showed the intolerance of all neophytes. In 1870, the time of
-the war, bands of people said to be directed by him ran through the
-streets of Mulhouse, crying: ‘Down with the Prussians of the interior!’
-These Prussians were the Protestants and Jews. These cries found no
-echo. Protestants, Jews, and Catholics all did their duty during the
-war and after it. When in 1874 the provinces were called upon to send
-deputies to Berlin, it was a Jew who nominated the bishop of Metz, and
-the Protestant deputies were nominated by the priests. The younger
-Sandherr, the colonel, whom I knew from childhood, was a good soldier
-and a brave and loyal citizen, but he had inherited his father’s
-intolerance. Furthermore, in 1893 he fell a victim to the brain disease
-of which he was to die three years later. In that year he was sent
-to Bussang to be cured. During his stay there, there was a patriotic
-ceremony,--the return of the flag to the regiment of light infantry.
-All the bathers went to see it. Near them was a Jew, undoubtedly
-an Alsatian, who wept with emotion. Colonel Sandherr turned to his
-neighbors, and said to them: ‘I distrust those tears.’ His neighbors
-asked him to explain, saying to him: ‘We know that there were Jewish
-officers in the army who were patriotic and intelligent and did their
-duty.’ Colonel Sandherr answered: ‘I distrust them all.’ Such was
-the man, gentlemen of the jury, who proffered the accusation. It is
-legitimate to suppose that he was governed by his feelings rather than
-by justice. As for the Dreyfus family” ...
-
-The Judge.--“Say nothing of Dreyfus.”
-
-M. Lalance.--“The family, _Monsieur le Président_.”
-
-The Judge.--“No, it is useless.”
-
-M. Lalance.--“I desist, in obedience to your orders. But I thought it
-might be useful for the jury to know what the elder brother did.”
-
-M. Labori then read the following letter received from M. Gabriel
-Séailles, professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne, who had been
-summoned, but was kept at home by illness.
-
- Why did I sign the protest?
-
- A man of the study. I can bring here only the testimony of my free and
- sincere conscience. After the Dreyfus trial it never occurred to me
- for a moment to call in question the legality of the verdict. I do not
- wish to lessen the initiative of M. Zola, but it is not he who opened
- this debate. It was opened by the unknown person who transmitted to
- ‘Le Matin’ the _fac-simile_ of the famous _bordereau_. On that day the
- question was submitted to public opinion; an appeal was taken to the
- conscience of each of us. There is no escape from the logic of events.
- Other things occurred, other documents have been presented to us. We
- have seen a bit of writing which, by the confession of its author,
- bears a frightful resemblance to the handwriting of the _bordereau_.
- We have witnessed a trial the conduct of which astonished us,--a trial
- where the witnesses were transformed into the accused. We have read an
- indictment which disconcerted us, because we sought in it in vain for
- what we expected to find there. We may be condemned to silence, but we
- cannot prevent ourselves from thinking. So my mind worked on the data
- that had been furnished, and my ideas concentrated themselves in the
- following dilemma: of two things one; either Dreyfus was convicted on
- the strength of the _bordereau_,--that is, without proof,--or he was
- convicted on secret documents not communicated to the defence,--that
- is, illegally. This almost involuntary conclusion fell heavily upon my
- heart. If the law, which is the security of all of us, and which we
- may have to invoke tomorrow, should be always respected, should it not
- be especially respected when in one individual there are thousands of
- individuals whom they pretend to condemn and dishonor?
-
- How was I led to sign a protest?
-
- I had just corrected a lesson in morals, the work of a student. I
- had said to these young people what all of you I am sure would wish
- me to say to them: that the human person is sacred; that justice is
- inviolable: that it cannot be sacrificed to passion or to interest,
- with whatever name they may be decorated. I had told them that justice
- is not a servant whom we ring for when we need its service; that it
- is the grand image which should hover over all conflicts of passions
- and interests, because it alone can be the peacemaker. I returned to
- my study. A student brought me a petition. I signed it. Our teaching
- would have no authority, if we were not ready to confirm it by our
- acts. I have no authority to speak in the name of the university. The
- painful conflict of duties that has disturbed so many consciences has
- divided us, but we too highly esteem one another, we hold sincere
- thought in too great respect, to treat each other as knaves or
- fools. If you have found on the lists of those protesting so many
- names of people connected with the university, it is not because of
- any spirit of revolt. It is because these brave people who, should
- occasion arise, would hasten to defend the integrity of the national
- territory consider it their professional duty to maintain another
- integrity no less precious,--the integrity of the national conscience.
- But, since the name of the university has been uttered, let us have
- an understanding. We respect and we love the army. In that we are
- unanimous. We consider ourselves as workers in the same work, servants
- of the same cause, soldiers in the same fight. The army of France, the
- army of mutilated France, is force in the service of right. Never have
- we separated the cause of right from the cause of the army. Please God
- that we may soon find ourselves reconciled in the superior thought
- of the country, and that at last we may be spared the continuance of
- the painful spectacle of so many French hands withdrawing from one
- another, when all ought to join in a common and fraternal action. As
- for M. Zola’s good faith, the very experiences that he is undergoing
- are sufficient to attest it. He has acted in accordance with his
- temperament, after the fashion of a man who, shut up in a room where
- the air is becoming stifling, rushes to the window, and, at the risk
- of covering himself with blood, breaks the glass to let in a little
- air and light.
-
-  GABRIEL SÉAILLES.
-
-The witness-stand was then taken by M. Duclaux, director of the Pasteur
-Institute, who testified that he signed the protest because it seemed
-to him that it would be a good thing for a group of men to declare to
-the public that the Esterhazy trial had not dissipated the obscurity
-of the Dreyfus trial. His testimony was followed by that of M. Anatole
-France, member of the French Academy, who, after explaining why he had
-signed the protest, was asked his opinion of M. Zola’s good faith.
-
-M. France.--“Having spent some hours with M. Zola last December, and
-having been, so to speak, the witness of his thought, I can testify
-here to his admirable good faith and his absolute sincerity. But the
-sincerity of M. Zola needs no guarantee; so I will simply say that
-he is acting, under these circumstances, with courage, according to
-his temperament, in behalf of justice and truth, inspired by the most
-generous sentiments.”
-
-General Billot, who had been appealed to to authorize the production of
-the Uhlan letter, having written to the judge that he would leave the
-matter to the decision of the court, the court now rendered a decree
-that it should not be produced, since by a previous decree all matters
-“relating to the Dreyfus and Esterhazy trials, judged, in whole or in
-part, behind closed doors, had been excluded from the debate.”
-
-This ended the testimony, and, the attorney-general not being ready to
-begin his argument, an adjournment was taken until Monday, February 21.
-
-
-
-
-THIRTEENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 21.
-
-With the opening of the session, Attorney-General Van Cassel began his
-summing-up.
-
-
-_Speech of Attorney-General Van Cassel._
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, a man well known in letters goes in search of
-a militant newspaper, comes to an understanding with it, and publishes
-an article which shows either irresponsibility or shamelessness. He
-declares that a council of war has rendered a verdict in obedience to
-orders. ‘Let them prosecute me in the assize court, if they dare.’
-Well, here we are. But where are your proofs, those precise and
-irrefutable proofs that the council of war has rendered a verdict in
-obedience to orders? During the twelve sessions which you have just
-passed through not once has this question, the only one before us, been
-posited. But, though you have attempted no proof, you have shrunk from
-no violence. How intolerable the situation in which you have placed
-the generals whom you have brought to this bar! The attitude of the
-insulters has been on a level with the insults. You have drawn upon
-yourselves the eloquent reply of General de Boisdeffre, who said to
-you: ‘My officers are brave people. They began by submitting without
-reply to sustained attacks. If they have been drawn from their silence,
-you have only yourselves to blame,--you and the odious provocations of
-which you made them the object.’
-
-“The experts in the Esterhazy case worked separately, and arrived by
-different methods at identical conclusions. They had the originals
-before them. The experts cited by the defence had examined only
-doubtful copies,--doubtful as to their origin, doubtful as to their
-authenticity. M. Paul Meyer, director of the Ecole des Chartes,
-who advises his pupils to study nothing but originals, should have
-followed his own teaching. I say nothing of the international experts
-that gravitate around M. Bernard Lazare, undertaker of revision. They
-are surrounded by too much money and too much mystery to warrant me
-in dwelling on their testimony. I attach the same authority to the
-declaration of M. Stock, who has declared here that not one, but
-numerous secret documents were communicated to the council of war. As
-M. Bernard Lazare’s publisher, he has too plain an interest in the
-multiplication of documents.
-
-“Alfred Dreyfus alone was in a position to procure the documents
-concerning the national defence which are enumerated in the
-_bordereau_. General de Pellieux and General Gonse are in a position to
-know more about that than anybody else. After what they have told you,
-it is impossible to doubt. But I shall say no more about the Dreyfus
-case. It would be a violation of the authority of the thing judged.
-
-“Dreyfus belongs to a rich and powerful family, which continues to
-keenly feel the deep sorrow of having seen one of its members convicted
-of high treason. This campaign has been carefully prepared. It began
-in the press before ending in parliamentary incidents and judicial
-proceedings.
-
-“Never has the government varied in its declarations. General Billot
-has always declared that Dreyfus was legally and justly condemned. The
-government did not obstruct the investigation. General de Pellieux’s
-examination was an open one, and was conducted freely. Major Ravary
-acted with the same independence. The judges who acquitted Major
-Esterhazy came to their decision in full liberty of conscience. In
-short, the behavior of the government demonstrates its respect for law
-and the dignity of justice.
-
-“‘L’Aurore’ accuses it of being influenced by political considerations.
-Only this morning that newspaper had the audacity to say that France is
-given over to the sabre, that the republic is in danger. General Billot
-has already replied to it from the tribune of the chamber. ‘Who dares,’
-he asked, ‘to pretend that there is a single officer in the ranks of
-the army who contemplates an attack on the republic? There has never
-been found but one, and he was forced to take refuge in suicide.’ Such
-is the legal attitude of the government, which I contrast with your
-revolutionary method. You have done nothing here but open an audacious
-discussion on the thing judged. But it is not permissible to relapse
-into judicial anarchy. The legal method of revision was open to you.
-Why did you not apply to the keeper of the seals?
-
-“What do the ‘intellectual revisionists’ know of the trial of 1894,
-that they can pretend that it was irregular? Nothing. The public has
-no element of proof, so far as the Dreyfus case is concerned. All
-cases of spying are decided behind closed doors. Twenty-seven accused
-persons have appeared since 1885 before the police courts, charged with
-this abominable crime; four before the councils of war; one before the
-assize court. In every case closed doors, for reasons of a superior
-order, have been declared. One of the accused was acquitted.
-
-“M. Demange was the first to render homage to the perfect honesty of
-the judges of Alfred Dreyfus. The accused appeared, surrounded by all
-desirable guarantees. He was protected by his uniform itself. Before
-the minister of war will consent to bring one of his officers to trial
-for high treason, his guilt must be perfectly clear. So I ask yourself
-on what grounds honorable men like M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux
-can take their stand, to maintain that an irregularity has been
-committed. They must have the gift of double sight, which permits them
-to look at once into the secret documents belonging to the minister of
-war and into those belonging to the Dreyfus family.
-
-“Colonel Picquart obeyed an unfortunate inspiration when he opened
-the doors of the war department to his friend Leblois, who had no
-business there, and showed him secret documents which he ought never to
-have read. In vain does Colonel Picquart try to dispute this illicit
-communication. You have heard here the respectful, but firm, denial of
-his testimony, given by Adjutant Gribelin, who, General Gonse tells
-you, is a model servant. I add that the mysterious telegrams signed
-‘Speranza’ and ‘Blanche,’ addressed to Colonel Picquart at Tunis,
-could have come only from his own acquaintances. The same signature,
-‘Speranza,’ appears in letters sent to him in 1896 and opened at the
-war department.
-
-“Major Esterhazy has been the object of two judicial examinations.
-They have resulted in nothing. If he appeared before the council of
-war, it was on the formal order of General Saussier, who, although
-Major Esterhazy’s innocence had been recognized, was desirous
-of a public trial because of the notoriety that the matter had
-gained. Contrary to the usual practice, only a part of the trial
-took place behind closed doors. M. Mathieu Dreyfus was invited to
-produce his proofs in public. He did not produce a single one. Nor
-did M. Scheurer-Kestner, who also testified in public. Under these
-circumstances, what could the representative of the government do?
-Public prosecutor and accuser are not always synonymous terms. For
-my part, I have many times abandoned accusations that were not
-established. And do not claim either that the trial was one-sided. The
-council of war listened to persevering and convinced accusers,--Colonel
-Picquart and M. Leblois. The acquittal was regular, deliberate, legal,
-pronounced unanimously by judges belonging to different branches of the
-army, designated according to priority of service, and under no other
-obligation than that of their honesty and their conscience.
-
-“As for Major Esterhazy, the letters published, after they were
-procured by indirect and censurable methods, and perhaps tampered with,
-created a deplorable atmosphere about him. It is not fitting that I
-should dwell upon that matter here, after the examination undergone
-at this bar by a patient mute, who broke his silence only to cry his
-suffering, while they tortured him with questions as if applying
-red-hot irons to living flesh. The victim had been judiciously chosen
-as a substitute for the condemned man of 1894.
-
-“It is not true, as certain newspapers have declared, that after the
-acquittal Major Esterhazy was the object of a manifestation on the part
-of the members of the council of war. This is proved by the following
-letter, which General de Luxer has just addressed to General Billot.
-
- _M. le Ministre_:
-
- Several newspapers have said that the members of the council of war,
- after the session, surrounded Major Esterhazy, shook hands with him,
- and congratulated him. I have the honor to report to you that no such
- manifestation occurred. According to the provisions of the law, the
- verdict was rendered in the absence of the accused, and was read to
- him afterward by the clerk, before the assembled guard, in the absence
- of the members of the council. The judges of the council of war have
- all told me that they did not see Major Esterhazy afterward, either
- in the court-room, or out of it, or in the street. Be good enough to
- accept, etc.
-
-  GENERAL DE LUXER.
-
-“You remember, gentlemen of the jury, that an attempt was made to
-show that Major Esterhazy secured a false entry upon his record of
-service, and that General Guerrier was called by the defence to testify
-on this point. Now this is what happened: In 1881 Captain Esterhazy
-accomplished a brilliant feat, in consequence of which he was proposed
-as an officer of the legion of honor. His act was brought to the
-knowledge of the regiment by the following order: ‘The camp having been
-attacked by the Arabs, Captain Esterhazy, while other officers were
-attacking them on the flanks, attacked them in front, leading his men
-with a dash and a courage beyond all praise.’ Now, according to certain
-regulations of 1889 and 1895, this matter should be set forth in the
-order of the day of the regiment, and not in the order of the day of
-the army.
-
-“Is not the misinterpretation of so simple a matter identical with
-calumny?
-
-“As for Colonel Picquart, who endeavored to maintain here that the
-documents seized after the condemnation of Dreyfus are forgeries, he
-has been contradicted by his inferiors and by his equals, and you
-have heard in what terms his superior, General de Pellieux, expressed
-himself regarding him. And finally he contradicted himself. The scene
-was so saddening that I have not the courage to dwell upon it.
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, the judges of the council of war are invested
-with a double character. They are at once magistrates and jurors. It
-seems to me that I see them, hesitating first, then stiffening their
-will in face of the duty to be done, far from all influence, solely
-concerned with the rendering of an honest and loyal verdict. You have
-the same honorable mission, gentlemen of the jury. You are to do the
-same justice. The prime minister has declared from the tribune of the
-chamber his high confidence in the twelve free citizens to whom the
-government has entrusted the defence of justice and of the honor of
-the army. The revolutionary manifestation of M. Emile Zola has met
-its counter-shock in the street. Persons and property are no longer
-respected. Violence breeds violence. But what cares ‘L’Aurore,’ which
-has its sensational trial? What difference does that make to M. Emile
-Zola? He has lifted himself to the _rôle_ of a great man, which he
-easily assumes. He has realized his dream. He has brought to this
-court-room cabinet ministers, foreign diplomats, generals. He would
-have summoned all Europe. It was the necessary stage-setting for the
-novel that he announces. ‘L’Aurore’ tells us that he has entered
-into glory in his lifetime. His ‘Letter to France’ is literature; it
-savors of the Academy. His ‘Letter to Youth’ has enjoyed a success
-only in Berlin, and here is a translation sent to me from Germany. For
-the sake of his personal vanity he has imposed upon you these twelve
-sessions that have made the heart of the country bleed. And beyond the
-frontier what lamentable echoes! They have not hesitated to attack the
-staff, to compromise the national defence. They have overwhelmed with
-outrages the obedient and silent army, in which every Frenchman sees
-the image of his country. They have put upon it the outrageous insult
-of casting suspicion on its commanders, who are endeavoring, respectful
-of the laws, to make it worthy of its task on the day when it shall be
-necessary to lead it against the enemy. No more violent insult could be
-offered. No more anti-patriotic campaign could be conceived. You have
-listened here to M. Jaurès. For my part, I value talent only in the
-ratio of the good that it does, not in the ratio of the ruins that it
-accumulates. No, it is not true that a council of war has rendered a
-verdict in obedience to orders. It is not true that seven officers have
-been found to obey any other than the order of their free and honest
-conscience. You will condemn those who have outraged them, gentlemen of
-the jury. France awaits your verdict with confidence.”
-
-
-_Speech of M. Emile Zola._
-
-At the conclusion of the attorney-general’s address, M. Zola read the
-following declaration to the jury:
-
-“In the chamber, at its session of January 22, M. Méline, president
-of the cabinet, declared, amid the frantic applause of his obliging
-majority, that he had confidence in the twelve citizens to whose
-hands he entrusted the defence of the army. It was of you, gentlemen,
-that he spoke. And, just as General Billot dictated his decree to the
-council of war which was charged with the acquittal of Major Esterhazy,
-uttering from the tribune for the instruction of his subordinates the
-military countersign of unquestionable respect for the thing judged,
-so M. Méline has endeavored to give you an order to sentence me in the
-name of respect for the army, which he accuses me of having outraged.
-I denounce to the conscience of honest people this pressure of public
-power on the justice of the country. These are abominable political
-practices, dishonoring to a free nation.
-
-“We shall see, gentlemen, if you will obey. But it is not true that
-I am here before you by the will of M. Méline. He yielded to the
-necessity of prosecuting me only in great agitation, in terror of
-the new step that truth in its march might take. That is known to
-everybody. If I am before you, it is by my own will. I alone have
-decided that the obscure, the monstrous matter should be brought before
-your jurisdiction, and I alone, in the full exercise of my will, have
-chosen you, the highest and most direct emanation of French justice,
-that France at last may know all, and decide. My act had no other
-object, and my person is nothing; I have sacrificed it, satisfied
-simply to have placed in your hands, not only the honor of the army,
-but the endangered honor of the entire nation.
-
-“You will pardon me, then, if your consciences have not been
-thoroughly enlightened. It is not my fault. It seems that I was
-dreaming in expecting to bring you all the proofs,--in considering you
-alone worthy, alone competent. They began by taking from you with the
-left hand what they seemed to give you with the right. They made a
-pretence of accepting your jurisdiction, but, though they trusted you
-to avenge the members of one council of war, certain other officers
-remained unassailable, superior even to your justice. Understand it
-who can. It is absurdity in hypocrisy, and furnishes striking proof
-that they feared your good sense, and did not dare to run the risk of
-allowing us to say everything, and of allowing you to judge everything.
-They pretend that they desired to limit the scandal. And what do you
-think of this scandal, of my act, which consisted in laying the case
-before you, in desiring that the people, incarnate in you, should pass
-judgment upon it? They pretend, further, that they could not accept a
-disguised revision, thus confessing that they have only one fear at
-bottom,--that of your sovereign control. The law has in you its total
-representation, and it is this chosen law of the people that I have
-longed for, that I profoundly respect, as a good citizen, and not the
-equivocal procedure by which they have hoped to baffle you.
-
-“Thus am I excused, gentlemen, for having turned you aside from your
-occupations without succeeding in flooding you with the total light
-of which I dreamed. Light, complete light, that has been my sole,
-my passionate desire. And this trial has just proved it to you; we
-have had to struggle step by step against a desire for darkness
-extraordinary in its obstinacy. For each shred of truth torn from
-the unwilling a fight has been necessary; they have disputed about
-everything, they have refused us everything, they have terrorized our
-witnesses in the hope of preventing us from proving our case. And it is
-for you alone that we have fought; that this proof might be submitted
-to you in its entirety, so that you could pass judgment without remorse
-and in your conscience. Therefore I am certain that you will take
-our efforts into consideration, and that, moreover, enough of light
-has been shed. You have heard the witnesses, you are going to hear
-my counsel, who will tell you the true story, the story that maddens
-everybody and that everybody knows. So I am at ease; the truth is now
-with you; it will do its work.
-
-“M. Méline thought, then, to dictate your verdict in entrusting to
-you the honor of the army, and it is in the name of this honor of the
-army that I myself appeal to your justice. I deny M. Méline’s statement
-in the most formal manner; I have never insulted the army. On the
-contrary, I have expressed my tenderness, my respect, for the nation
-in arms, for our dear soldiers of France who would rise at the first
-threat, in defence of the French soil. And it is equally false that
-I have attacked the commanders, the generals who would lead them to
-victory. If certain individuals in the war offices have compromised
-the army by their conduct, is it an insult to the entire army to say
-so? Is it not, rather, the work of a good citizen to free the army
-from all compromise, to sound the alarm, in order that the misdeeds
-which have forced us to this fight may not be repeated and lead us to
-new defeats. However, I do not defend myself. I leave to history the
-judgment of my act, which was a necessary act. But I declare that they
-dishonor the army when they allow the _gendarmes_ to embrace Major
-Esterhazy after the abominable letters that he has written. I declare
-that this valiant army is insulted daily by the bandits who, pretending
-to defend it, sully it with their base complicity, dragging in the
-mud everything good and great that France still has. I declare it is
-they who dishonor this great national army, when they mingle the cry
-of ‘Long live the Army!’ with the cry of ‘Death to the Jews!’ And they
-have cried ‘Long live Esterhazy!’ Great God! The people of St. Louis,
-of Bayard, of Condé, and of Hoche, the people that have won a hundred
-giant victories, the people of the great wars of the republic and the
-empire, the people whose strength, grace, and generosity have dazzled
-the universe, crying ‘Long live Esterhazy!’ It is a shame that only our
-effort in behalf of truth and justice can wipe out.
-
-“You know the legend that has been created. Dreyfus was condemned
-justly and legally by seven infallible officers, whom it is impossible
-even to suspect of error without insulting the entire army. In an
-avenging torture he is expiating his abominable misdeed. And, as
-he is a Jew, a Jewish syndicate has been created, an international
-syndicate of people without a country, with hundreds of millions at
-their disposal for the purpose of saving the traitor at the cost of the
-most shameless manœuvres. Then this syndicate began to heap up crimes,
-buying consciences, throwing France into a murderous tumult, determined
-to sell her to the enemy, to set Europe on fire with a general war,
-rather than abandon this frightful design. It is very simple, even
-puerile and imbecile, as you see. But it is upon this poisoned bread
-that an unclean press has been feeding our people for months, and we
-should not be astonished at the spectacle of a disastrous crisis, for,
-when stupidity and lies are sown at such a rate, a crop of madness is
-sure to be harvested.
-
-“Certainly, gentlemen, I do not offer you the insult of believing that
-you have been caught by this nursery tale. I know you. I know who you
-are. You are the heart and reason of Paris, of my great Paris, where
-I was born, which I love with an infinite tenderness, which I have
-been studying and singing for forty years. And I know too now what is
-going on in your brains, for, before sitting here as an accused, I sat
-in the seats which you occupy. You represent average opinion; you aim
-to be wisdom and justice _en masse_. Presently I shall be with you in
-thought in your deliberations in the jury-room, and I am convinced that
-you will endeavor to guard your interests as citizens, which naturally
-are, according to you, the interests of the whole nation. You may be
-mistaken, but your purpose will be to insure your own welfare and the
-welfare of all.
-
-“I see you at your homes, at night, under the lamp; I hear you talking
-with your friends; I accompany you to your shops and stores. You
-are all workers, some merchants, others manufacturers, and a few
-professional men. And you are filled with a perfectly legitimate
-anxiety concerning the deplorable state into which business has fallen.
-Everywhere the existing crisis threatens to become a disaster, receipts
-are falling off, transactions are becoming more and more difficult.
-So that the thought that you have brought here, the thought that I
-read on your faces, is that there has been enough of this, and that
-it must come to an end. You do not say, as many do: ‘What difference
-does it make to us whether an innocent man is on Devil’s Island? Is
-the interest of an individual sufficient to warrant the agitation of a
-great country?’ But you do say, nevertheless, that the agitation which
-we are carrying on, in our hunger for truth and justice, is paid for
-too dearly by all the evil that they accuse us of doing. And, if you
-convict me, gentlemen, the sole foundation of your verdict will be the
-desire to quiet your families, the need of a resumption of business,
-the belief that, in striking me, you will put an end to a campaign of
-vindication that is harmful to the interests of France.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, you would be utterly mistaken. Do me the honor to
-believe that I am not defending here my liberty. In striking me, you
-will only add to my stature. Whoever suffers for truth and justice
-becomes august and sacred. Look at me, gentlemen. Have I the appearance
-of one who has sold himself? Do I look like a liar and a traitor?
-Why, then, should I act as I do? I have behind me neither political
-ambition or sectarian passions. I am a free writer, who has given his
-life to toil, who tomorrow will again take his place in the ranks, and
-will resume his interrupted task. And how stupid are they who call me
-an Italian! I who was born of a French mother, brought up by Beauce
-grandparents, peasants in that robust region; I who lost my father at
-the age of seven, and never went to Italy until I was fifty-four, and
-then only to get material for a book. Which does not prevent me from
-being very proud that my father was of Venice, that resplendent city
-whose ancient glory sings in all memories. And, even if I were not
-French, would not the forty volumes in the French language which I have
-scattered by millions throughout the entire world suffice to make me a
-Frenchman, useful to the glory of France?
-
-“So I do not defend myself. But what an error would be yours, if you
-were convinced that, in striking me, you would re-establish order in
-our unhappy country. Do you not understand that that of which the
-nation is dying is the darkness in which they are bent upon leaving
-her, the equivocations in which she is agonizing? The mistakes of our
-governors are piled up on mistakes; one lie necessitates another, so
-that the mass becomes frightful. A judicial error has been committed,
-and then to hide it it has been necessary to commit each day a new
-attack on good sense and equity. The conviction of an innocent man has
-involved the acquittal of a guilty man; and now today you are asked to
-convict me in my turn, because I have cried out in my anguish at the
-sight of the progress of the country in this frightful path. Convict
-me, then. It will be one error more added to the others, an error the
-burden of which you will bear in history. And my conviction, instead of
-bringing about the peace that you desire, and that we all desire, will
-only sow the seed of a new crop of passion and disorder. The measure is
-full, I tell you; do not make it overflow.
-
-“Why do you not exactly estimate the terrible crisis through which the
-country is passing? They say that we are the authors of the scandal,
-that it is the lovers of truth and justice who are leading the nation
-astray and urging it to riot. Really, this is mockery. To speak only of
-General Billot, was he not warned eighteen months ago? Did not Colonel
-Picquart insist that he should take in hand the matter of revision,
-if he did not wish the storm to burst and overturn everything? Did
-not M. Scheurer-Kestner, with tears in his eyes, beg him to think of
-France, and save her such a catastrophe? No, no! our desire has been
-to facilitate everything, to allay everything, and, if the country is
-now in trouble, the responsibility lies with power, which, to cover
-the guilty, and in the furtherance of political interests, has denied
-everything, hoping to be strong enough to prevent the light from being
-shed. It has manœuvred in the shadow in behalf of darkness, and it
-alone is responsible for the present distraction of consciences.
-
-“The Dreyfus case, ah! gentlemen, that has become a very small matter
-now. It is lost and far away, in view of the terrifying questions to
-which it has given rise. There is no longer any Dreyfus case. The
-question now is whether France is still the France of the rights of
-man, the France that gave liberty to the world, and that ought to give
-it justice. Are we still the most noble, the most fraternal, the most
-generous nation? Shall we preserve our reputation in Europe for equity
-and humanity? Are not all the victories that we have won called in
-question? Open your eyes, and understand that, to be in such confusion,
-the French soul must have been stirred to its depths in face of a
-terrible danger. A nation cannot be thus upset without imperiling its
-moral existence. This is an exceptionally serious hour; the safety of
-the nation is at stake.
-
-“And, when you shall have understood that, gentlemen, you will feel
-that but one remedy is possible,--to tell the truth, to do justice.
-Anything that keeps back the light, anything that adds darkness to
-darkness, will only prolong and aggravate the crisis. The _rôle_ of
-good citizens, of those who feel it to be imperatively necessary to
-put an end to this matter, is to demand broad daylight. There are
-already many of them who think so. The men of literature, philosophy,
-and science are rising on every hand, in the name of intelligence
-and reason. And I do not speak of the foreigner, of the shudder that
-has run through all Europe. Yet the foreigner is not necessarily the
-enemy. Let us not speak of the nations that may be our adversaries
-tomorrow. But great Russia, our ally; little and generous Holland; all
-the sympathetic nations of the north; those countries of the French
-language, Switzerland and Belgium,--why are their hearts so heavy,
-so overflowing with fraternal suffering? Do you dream, then, of an
-isolated France? Do you prefer, when you pass the frontier, not to meet
-the approving smile upon your legendary fame for equity and humanity?
-
-“Alas! gentlemen, like so many others, you perhaps expect the
-thunderbolt, the descent from heaven of the proof of the innocence
-of Dreyfus. Truth does not generally come in that way. It requires
-research and intelligence. We know very well where the truth is,
-where it could be found. But we dream of that only in the secrecy of
-our souls, and we feel patriotic anguish lest we expose ourselves
-to the danger of having this proof some day flung in our face after
-having involved the honor of the army in a lie. I wish also to declare
-squarely that, though, in the official notice of our list of witnesses,
-we included certain ambassadors, we had formally decided in advance
-not to summon them. Our audacity has provoked smiles. But I do not
-think that there was any smiling in our foreign office, for there they
-must have understood. We simply intended to say to those who know
-the whole truth that we also know it. This truth is bandied about at
-the embassies; tomorrow it will be known to all, and, if it is now
-impossible for us to seek it where it is protected by formalities
-that cannot be overstepped, the government which is not ignorant, the
-government which is convinced, as we are, of the innocence of Dreyfus,
-will be able, when it likes, and without risk, to find witnesses who
-will make everything clear.
-
-“Dreyfus is innocent; I swear it. I stake my life upon it; I stake
-my honor upon it. At this solemn hour, before this tribunal that
-represents human justice, before you, gentlemen of the jury, who are
-the emanation of the nation, before all France, before the entire
-world, I swear that Dreyfus is innocent. And by my forty years of toil,
-and by the authority that this labor has given me, I swear that Dreyfus
-is innocent. Let it all fall to the ground, let my works perish, if
-Dreyfus is not innocent. He is innocent.
-
-“Everything seems to be against me,--the two chambers, the civil power,
-the military power, the journals of large circulation, the public
-opinion that they have poisoned. And with me there is but an idea, an
-ideal of truth and justice. And I am perfectly at ease; I shall triumph.
-
-“I did not wish my country to remain in falsehood and injustice. Here I
-may be condemned; but some day France will thank me for having helped
-to save her honor.”
-
-
-_Speech of M. Labori._
-
-M. Zola was followed by his counsel, M. Labori, who summed up his case
-with the following elaborate argument:
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, though this trial has already lasted more
-than two weeks, I have still to call upon you for a last, and perhaps,
-alas! a long, effort. I feel that you appreciate, and perhaps better
-than ever after the words that have just been spoken, the grandeur of
-this trial, and that you will forgive me for counting on your devotion
-as citizens and on your kindly and impartial attention as judges. I do
-not think that there was ever an affair that more deeply stirred the
-public conscience. None has caused more clamor, the excuse of which,
-in the case of many, is that they who utter it know not what they do.
-None has given rise to more decided courage and conviction. Between the
-determination of some and the outcry of others the mass of the people,
-insufficiently enlightened, but of good faith (and it is on this good
-faith that I rely), still hesitates in uncertainty before the unchained
-passions, on the one hand, which uselessly invoke, though neither is
-involved, the honor of the army and the safety of the country, and,
-on the other, before all that France possesses of independence and
-elevation of mind. It suffices, gentlemen, to take at hazard from the
-list the names of those whose thought accompanies the great citizen
-here before you,--Anatole France, Duclaux, Gabriel Monod, Michel Bréal,
-Jean Psichari, Réville, Frédéric Passy, de Pressensé, Havet, Séailles,
-and that admirable Grimaux whom the army cannot deny. For years he has
-been the teacher of a great number of its most brilliant officers. But
-M. Grimaux, in spite of all threats, came here to proclaim, with an
-eloquence that moved us all, his conviction that we are in the path of
-truth, justice, and right.
-
-“Ah! gentlemen, between these two parties, not equal yet in numbers,
-I know in which direction this great people would lean, if the public
-powers, misled by their temporary interest, sustained by those who
-were yesterday, who will be tomorrow, who are even today, their worst
-adversaries, did not disconcert the country by their attitude and
-unproved declarations. Everybody says everywhere that there are three
-hundred deputies in the chamber, and one hundred and fifty or two
-hundred senators in the senate, who consider revision a necessary
-thing, but will not say so until after the elections. But it is not
-enough, gentlemen, that our governors, who ought to be the nation’s
-guides, separate themselves from this phalanx of chosen men, some of
-whom I have just named. It is necessary also that these chosen men,
-every day and twice a day, should be insulted and defamed, I do not
-say only by the newspapers that make a trade of calumny, but even by
-those organs of public opinion from which we are accustomed to expect a
-little more moderation and a little more justice.
-
-“The insult that is thrown in their face may be summed up in one
-word: they are members of that syndicate formed to sustain the Jews
-and ruin the country. Syndicate! an ingenious word, an invention of
-talented pamphleteers,--whose excuse is that at bottom they are too
-often children through the very puerility of their credulity. An
-ingenious word, but an infamous word for those who launch it, hoping
-that it will make its way. And, gentlemen, has it not made its way,
-when we see it approved here by the attorney-general? An infamous
-word for those, a childish word for those others who believe that
-such things are possible. Oh! if they simply mean that a family will
-spend all that it possesses, will sacrifice not the immense fortune
-which has been spoken of, but its abundant ease, to save the man whom
-it knows to be innocent, and if they mean that some friends will help
-them, I say quite frankly that I see nothing in that which is not
-respectable. But, if they mean that M. Zola has sold himself, I say as
-frankly: it is a lie, or, rather, it is childishness. Sold? Let them
-say it; it is a matter of indifference to him. If he defends himself,
-if those who assist him defend him and themselves with him, it is in
-the interest of the cause that they represent. No, gentlemen, there
-are no money syndicates that can produce movements like those which
-you have witnessed, or powers of resistance such as those which we
-endeavor to display. It is not money that brings here citizens like
-Scheurer-Kestner, Trarieux, Jaurès; politicians--I take them from all
-parties--like Charles Longuet and--I say it, though I raise a protest
-in the court-room--like Joseph Reinach himself, whom we should not be
-afraid to mention here in praise of his perseverance and the dignity
-of his attitude; artists like Clairin, Eugène Carrière, Claude Monet,
-Bruneau, Desmoulins, who accompany M. Zola to this court every day,
-in spite of the threats with which he is surrounded; and publicists
-like Quillard, Ajalbert, Victor Bérard, Lucien Victor-Meunier, Ranc,
-Sigismond Lacroix, Yves Guyot, and Séverine, who said to us: ‘Do not
-call me as a witness; proclaim loudly what I think; I serve you better
-where I am.’ She is right, for do you know what she assures us with her
-articles in ‘La Fronde’? The support of a cohort of French women, who
-are with us, and will remain with us, and who instil at the fireside
-the ideas that we have scattered through the country.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, all those whom I have enumerated, all those whom I
-forget, we must thank and salute, not in the name of M. Zola,--for his
-personality, however eminent it may be, disappears from the case,--but
-in the name of something higher, for they will be entitled some day
-to the country’s gratitude. And do you know why? Because in a moment
-when it required some courage these men placed truth and right above
-everything. Belonging, most of them, to the educational world,--and
-it is to the honor of the French university,--they understood that,
-teaching the eternal ideal, they had no right, in the hour of danger,
-to pursue a line of conduct not in harmony with their teachings.
-Defending liberty and the eternal rules of justice, they were bound to
-practise both.
-
-“The truth is, whatever may be said, that the verdict against Dreyfus
-in 1894 has never ceased to weigh upon the public conscience. I do
-not mean by that that the majority of citizens suspect the legitimacy
-of the sentence. How could I say it, when I very well know that at
-the present hour the majority is against us, or seems to be, for many
-timid consciences are silenced by the uproar which is mistaken for an
-expression of the general sentiment. But I grant that at present the
-majority is still against us.
-
-“Many, nevertheless, have been disturbed, disturbed from the very
-first by the darkness of the prosecution, by the moving scene of the
-degradation, by the persistence of the condemned man in proclaiming
-his innocence. When the verdict was rendered, the majority, knowing
-nothing, were moved for a moment by the obscurities in which the case
-was wrapped. But their emotion was soon smothered in the floods of
-lies that were poured forth, and all rested in the confidence that the
-verdict necessarily inspired.
-
-“I find no better proof of this than an article furnished me this
-morning by ‘L’Intransigeant.’ The article is from the pen of M.
-Clemenceau. It was hoped to embarrass him by showing that in December,
-1894, or in January, 1895, he was one of those who showed the greatest
-irritation against the man whom they called the traitor. I fancy that
-it gives him no embarrassment; for my part, I note only this,--that,
-like many people then, like many people even today, he believed in
-the justice and the legality of the verdict rendered, and that his
-contrary opinion of today has for me, and should have for you, only the
-greater value. But, if the majority doubted, some who had approached
-this family which they despise when they are not acquainted with it,
-and which they respect when they approach it,--some who had approached
-this family, or its counsel who has never wavered in his conviction of
-his client’s innocence, harbored a doubt, yes, cherished a hope. And,
-in uttering this word hope, do you know under what authority I place
-myself? Under the authority of a man who for many days has spared us
-neither accusations or insults, but whom I regard as an honest man. I
-mean M. Paul de Cassagnac, director of ‘L’Autorité.’
-
-“Hear, gentlemen, what he says, and in admirable language. For my part,
-I cannot believe that a man who writes thus is really an enemy of truth
-and justice. Hear what he said of the sadness which must have invaded
-all French hearts on the day after the conviction of Dreyfus.
-
- This judgment is going to fill the country with profound sadness and
- bitter disappointment. In the first place, profound sadness. For the
- great mass of the French people, in spite of their hostility to the
- Jews, do not carry the blindness of religious hatred so far as to wish
- that a traitor may be found in the ranks of our officers, though this
- traitor should be a Jew. They would have welcomed with joy a complete,
- absolute acquittal, establishing indisputably that it was a cruel
- blunder to have believed, on the strength of false indications, that
- a French officer had betrayed his country. For the love of country,
- in its grand and holy solidarity, knows neither Jew or Christian.
- France is a mother, and necessarily suffers atrociously at the public
- dishonor of any of her sons.
-
-“You see that I was not wrong in saying that those who harbored a
-doubt cherished also a hope; and this doubt continued in the minds of
-all who knew anything of the matter, however little. Others, knowing
-nothing, but accustomed to observe, harbored at least an anxiety. Why?
-Because there was too much darkness and too much light as well. For the
-trouble in this matter has been that, while the proof remained hidden
-in obscurity, public opinion took possession of the affair, determined
-to know all. Never from the first has there been complete silence; the
-discussion continued, assertions were made, falsehoods were spread, or
-suffered to spread, thus creating that anxiety and anguish the fruit of
-which the country now is reaping. Am I wrong in saying that? Again I
-place myself under the authority to which I appealed just now. On the
-eve of the trial of 1894 the entire press, even the press of M. Drumont
-himself, called for a public trial. Listen to what M. Paul de Cassagnac
-said in ‘L’Autorité’ on December 8, 1894.
-
- Must I say it? The farther I go, the more perplexed I feel, and I ask
- myself if perchance Captain Dreyfus is not innocent. Do not cry out,
- friendly readers, but reflect. Is not this solution, if it result
- from the trial itself, the solution to be desired? For my part, from
- the beginning I have been unable to reconcile myself to the idea that
- a French officer could have sold his country to the enemy. And no
- hatred that I feel for the Jews can make me prefer to find a guilty
- man in the uniform of a soldier, rather than an innocent man. What
- fills me with doubt is what they say about the document on which
- this charge rests. The document in question is one said to have been
- written by Dreyfus. It was found, they say, by a secret agent, in
- the waste-basket of a foreign military _attaché_, into which it had
- fallen. Dreyfus denies that the writing is his, and four experts have
- examined it. Three say that he wrote it; the fourth holds the contrary
- opinion.
-
-“This is an error. The document was examined by five experts, three of
-whom declared Dreyfus the writer, the two others dissenting.
-
- If this had been the only proof, the charge against Dreyfus would have
- been an imprudent one. Who does not know, in fact, that, even when
- experts are agreed, it is far from sure that they are right? And the
- public, very incredulous in regard to this pretended science, has not
- forgotten the famous trial of la Boussinière at Angers, in which the
- experts in handwriting made anything but a brilliant spectacle. Now,
- two of the experts who were so unfortunate in that case are of the
- three who declare that this document was written by Dreyfus.
-
- Unhappily for Dreyfus, there seems to be something else. There is
- talk of another document found in the office of the same military
- _attaché_, which is said to be overwhelming. But the government,
- it seems, has not the courage to publicly confess how and where it
- procured this document, and so they hesitate to produce it. Then what
- remains of the charge? Is it because the government does not feel
- sufficiently well armed that it proposes to call for closed doors.
- Is it because it fears the foreign power whose military _attaché_
- has played an ignoble _rôle_? We do not know. But what we do know is
- that public opinion will not tolerate concealment, and will insist
- on an open trial. It would be really strange, were France, after her
- indignation at the closed doors behind which the Italians strangled
- the Romani case, were to use the same wretched means toward Captain
- Dreyfus. A French officer in France must have the right to publicly
- defend his honor, and the government which accuses him is bound to
- grant him the favor of the open day. Let the government have a care.
- The people will not be satisfied with a minimum sentence based on
- presumptions, and formulated behind doors closed to stifle the affair.
- Somebody here is guilty. If it is not Captain Dreyfus, it is the
- government. And what a terrible responsibility would weigh upon the
- government of the republic if it were proved that, without proofs
- convincing to the most sceptical, it had committed the horrible crime
- of sullying the whole French army in accusing an officer of the most
- frightful of misdeeds, of having sold his country to the enemy. If
- Captain Dreyfus is acquitted, the minister of war becomes the traitor.
- Dreyfus acquitted, Mercier must be driven in shame, not only from
- the war department, but from the ranks of the army, for having cast
- suspicion upon an innocent officer.
-
- Though perplexed today, I believe in the guilt of Dreyfus. For I
- cannot imagine that they would have arrested this officer, that they
- would have preferred such a charge against him, that they would have
- submitted him for months to the frightful torture of the nation’s
- censure, to suffer which is a hundred times worse than to be shot,--I
- cannot imagine that they would have so tortured this living man,
- unless they were absolutely certain of his guilt. So a public trial is
- indispensable. Acquittal in the darkness would leave Dreyfus under the
- stain of suspicion. It would look as if he had been acquitted through
- fear of a foreign power. Or it would be said that the Jews bought the
- consciences of the judges. An acquittal behind closed doors is not an
- acquittal; it is a sort of hypocritical and shameful condemnation.
- As for condemnation, who would dare to hope for it in the absence of
- those irrefutable proofs that in our day society is obliged to spread
- before the eyes of everybody, before mortally and materially killing
- one of its children. To take from a man, from a soldier, his honor
- and his life without saying why? Nonsense! It is impossible. Human
- reason forbids such a return to the darkest traditions of the secret
- tribunals of Spain and the Netherlands. The government of the republic
- renewing and aggravating the mysterious and unavowable processes of
- the Inquisition and of St. Vehme when the fate of a French officer is
- in the balance! And from pusillanimity! I repeat, it is impossible,
- for it would be too ignominious.
-
-“It is impossible, and yet, gentlemen of the jury, it happened. The
-doors were closed, and the doubt continued. It continued even in the
-mind of M. Paul de Cassagnac, as I shall show you presently; you will
-not be astonished, then, if it continued in the minds of others.
-
-“At first, gentlemen, this was only a preoccupation, but it became a
-source of anguish for some, of whom I was one, when there appeared
-in ‘L’Eclair,’ of September 15, 1896, an article that seemed almost
-official, a mixture of revelation and falsehood, which did not seem
-to cause even a moment’s indignation among those in whom this country
-places the care of right and justice. The attorney-general has spoken
-to you of this article, and has attempted to attribute it to Colonel
-Picquart. We shall see presently whether it is difficult to answer him
-on that point. But, first, I am going to read to you, not the whole
-article, for it is too long, but a part of it. And you will see at
-once, now that you know what Colonel Picquart’s sentiments have been
-since September, 1896, whether the publication of this article can be
-attributed either to him or to his friends. Remember the name of this
-newspaper, ‘L’Eclair,’ gentlemen. We shall meet it frequently. It is
-among those that carry on today the most violent and unjust campaign
-against the defenders of M. Zola. It began long ago. I read from the
-article in question.
-
- A French officer is expiating in imprisonment the crime of high
- treason. That his expiation may be absolute, not a single conscience
- must grant the traitor the benefit of a doubt. But such doubt is being
- manifested in repeated articles, and, if some one does not intervene
- to say frankly and courageously that which has been hidden, it will
- finally create around Dreyfus a scandalous legend.
-
-“The fact to which the attorney-general alluded in his address, the
-serious fact that disturbed Colonel Picquart and led him to write to
-General Gonse that ‘perhaps it will soon be too late for us to do
-justice,’--was this fact, as has just been insinuated, the article that
-appeared in ‘L’Eclair’ of September 5, 1896? That cannot be maintained.
-The articles that raised the doubt of which I have just spoken to
-you were favorable articles, articles that marked the beginning of a
-very legitimate campaign, which ‘L’Eclair’ answers with a tissue of
-lies. Let it not be said that friends of the Dreyfus family could have
-originated such a story. Presently I will tell you why, but the article
-itself demonstrates it irrefutably.
-
- That his guilt, attested by the verdict of his peers after a trial
- held behind closed doors, may appear clear to those minds which are
- readiest to believe in the possibility of error the entire truth must
- be known. We have asked the government to tell it. The government
- does not think that it can depart from the reserve dictated to it by
- a diplomatic prudence. We are not bound to be equally circumspect.
- Convinced that the reasons which militated in favor of silence no
- longer exist, we are persuaded that the proof may be spread before the
- public.
-
-“Note the process, gentlemen! I do not know exactly from whom the
-article emanated, though I shall show you that it must have had
-its source with the staff. Was it given out by an officer or by a
-subordinate? I do not know, but compare these processes. When doubts
-spring up, when a campaign is beginning, they strike a blow resembling
-that which was struck at one of these sessions. We shall return to it;
-we shall examine its significance. At present I simply ask: Why this
-resemblance? For there certainly is a resemblance between the way in
-which they came here to try to close our mouths by declarations that
-we were not permitted to discuss or to verify, and the insertion in
-‘L’Eclair’ of a pretended proof, of which we shall speak again, but
-which no longer weighs in the balance, because it is ridiculous, as are
-also those which are brought forward today,--brought forward in the
-same manner, at a similar moment, with the same intentions.
-
- Irrefutable proof, proof in black and white of the treason, the proof
- that resulted in the unanimous verdict of the council of war made
- up of officers who have too long suffered under the cruel suspicion
- cast upon them by the skilfully-sustained legend of the innocence of
- Dreyfus. In our opinion, it is patriotic to break with the policy of
- reticence, and to produce all the documents which rigorously show that
- the judges of the military court declared their verdict with full
- knowledge of the facts, and that Dreyfus, in spite of his denials, was
- guilty, accused by numerous moral presumptions and by formal proofs,
- one of which bore his name.
-
-“It is a lie, and yet they make the declaration. I pass over very long
-passages, and come to the essential part of the article. They tell the
-story of the circumstances under which the prosecution of M. Dreyfus in
-1894 was undertaken, the discovery of the _bordereau_, and then they
-come to this matter which it is indispensable that I should make known
-to you.
-
- They were not slow, however, in putting their hands on a document of
- exceptional importance, a document which later compelled the unanimous
- decision of the judges. In September the military _attachés_ of the
- German embassy addressed to their colleagues of the Italian embassy a
- letter in cipher.
-
-“This is another lie. The letter was not in cipher.
-
- This letter left the hands of its authors to pass into the hands of
- those for whom it was destined. But between the point of departure and
- the point of arrival it was prudently photographed. It was a letter in
- the cipher of the German embassy. About September 20 Colonel Sandherr,
- chief of the statistical division, communicated to General Mercier
- this letter, which had been deciphered. It related to the spying
- service of Paris, and contained this phrase: “Decidedly, that animal
- Dreyfus is becoming too exacting.”
-
-“You know this document. We can speak of it. It has been referred to
-in an official document which has been published--the report of Major
-Ravary. It is the famous document that Colonel Henry and M. Gribelin
-claim to have seen between Colonel Picquart and M. Leblois. But it is
-a distorted document, and the author of this article, convinced that
-he would thus fix public opinion forever, did not fear to write: ‘That
-scoundrel Dreyfus,’ spelling the name out, when really the name Dreyfus
-does not appear in the document. I come to the end of the article.
-
- As soon as the file of documents had been delivered to the military
- prosecuting officer, the examination began--an absolutely secret
- examination. Dreyfus, who had again become master of himself....
-
-“Yes, again become master of himself, because somewhere in the
-article--and this is another lie--it is said that he had made
-confessions.
-
- Dreyfus, who had again become master of himself, persisted throughout
- the trial, in spite of the overwhelming charges, in protesting his
- innocence. It is true that Dreyfus did not know, and perhaps does not
- yet know, that the minister of war was in possession of a photograph
- of the letter exchanged between the German and Italian military
- _attachés_, the only document in which his name appeared. The letter
- which he had written, and which he had been careful not to sign, could
- be only a moral element in the case.
-
-“The reference here is to the _bordereau_.
-
- In fact, though two of the experts in handwriting, Charavay and
- Bertillon, declared that it was Dreyfus, the three others were in
- doubt. But there was one proof that did not admit of doubt,--the
- document in which Dreyfus was named. This document could settle the
- opinion of the court, and it was important that the traitor should not
- escape his punishment. But this so serious document was essentially
- confidential. The minister of war could not give it up in the absence
- of a demand from the courts. It was necessary, then, for a search
- to be made in the war department itself. It took place, but, in
- order to save the agent of the government from having to go through
- so many secret files, it was so placed as to be the first to come
- under his hand. It was stipulated, nevertheless, that, though thus
- regularly seized, it should not be put in as evidence. Therefore it
- was communicated to the judges alone in the consultation chamber. An
- irrefutable proof, it settled all doubts in the minds of the members
- of the council. They were unanimous in their decision as to the
- prisoner’s guilt, and as to the punishment to be inflicted upon him.
-
-“Such is the article, in substance. Three days after its appearance, M.
-Demange, counsel of Dreyfus, meeting his old friend Salle, was greeted
-thus:
-
-“‘Ah! my good Demange, I am very glad to see you. I am very glad to
-relieve myself of a secret that is on my conscience.’
-
-“‘What do you mean?’ said Demange.
-
-“‘Well, since it is published, I can tell you.’
-
-“‘Published? What? What are you talking about?’
-
-“‘Why, the article in “L’Eclair”! what it says about the secret
-document is the truth. A few days after the verdict of the council of
-war I was dining with a few friends, among whom was one of the officers
-who had convicted Dreyfus. I said to him: “How is it that you were
-unanimous in your condemnation? How do you explain such a sentence,
-when Demange, whom I consider an honest man, tells me that there is
-nothing in the file, that there has not been a moment when he was not
-perfectly at ease regarding the innocence of his client, and that up to
-the last moment he was confident of an acquittal? How do you explain
-that?” “Oh!” answered the officer, “the reconciliation is easy. Demange
-had not seen what we have seen. If he had, he would think as we do. He
-would be convinced.”’
-
-“There you have, then, what the article in ‘L’Eclair’ represented, so
-far as the practical fact is concerned; such is the truth that is at
-the bottom of it. The details are all lies, but the certain point is
-that, at the council of war, without the knowledge of the accused or
-his counsel, there was a communication of one or more secret documents,
-and that, on the strength of these, a verdict was arrived at which
-could not otherwise have been obtained. Was I right, then, in saying
-to you that what was at first a preoccupation became in the minds of
-some a source of anguish? Was such a communication possible, gentlemen?
-I have just told you it was only too true. At first, it seemed beyond
-belief, but the article was so well sustained! And, the declaration of
-Demange coming on top of it, doubt was no longer possible. A feeling of
-revolt was born in disturbed consciences. It was but a germ, yet this
-germ was going to grow. The anguish was on the point of changing into
-indignation when further confirmation came in ‘Le Matin’s’ publication
-of the _bordereau_, in no way resembling the writing of Dreyfus. And
-the indignation changed into stupefaction upon the appearance of the
-indictment with which you must be familiar--I mean the d’Ormescheville
-report, which astonished by its puerility all people who reason and
-think, all _savants_ like M. Duclaux, like M. Paul Meyer, like M.
-Grimaux, who have come here to tell you of a scientific spirit that
-they expected to find in such a document, and which they did not find
-at all.
-
-“Since then, gentlemen, we have witnessed the daily growth of the
-number of men who do not believe it their duty, I do not say before
-the army, but before certain commanders of the army, to abdicate their
-liberty of judgment. These think that no institution is above the
-law. They are convinced that, a right having been violated, Dreyfus
-having been illegally convicted, he must be tried again, whether
-he be guilty or not,--a question which we shall discuss presently.
-They are convinced that, in presence of such circumstances, no one
-is justified in keeping silence, because it is a concern, not of an
-individual interest, but of civilization itself. And, if I must tell
-you, gentlemen, the _raison d’être_ of what is called the syndicate
-is this. The common purpose of the syndicate, regardless of the
-belief that one may entertain in the innocence of Dreyfus, at which
-one arrives only gradually, at which you will have arrived day after
-tomorrow,--regardless of that, the common object of the syndicate is
-justice, right, the wounded ideal which we, in our turn, take in our
-hands, and which, in spite of all furies, is our strength and our
-protection. Syndicate, yes, but a syndicate of faith, a syndicate of
-disinterestedness, a syndicate of hope. [A voice--“For money”.] If we
-had paid you, perhaps you would shout in our favor.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, do not address the public.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I ask your pardon, but I am
-obliged to be my own policeman. And that astonishes me, gentlemen of
-the jury, for the people who raise these protests fail in respect for
-you, a group of judges, you who have had your anxieties, but who feel
-the grandeur of your mission. But I know that, after a certain time,
-threats will only strengthen you in your resolution to judge with
-impartiality. So I resume, leaving those who murmur when I speak of
-hope and disinterestedness to make such manifestations as they choose.
-
-“Try, then, to explain otherwise what this man is doing here. What is
-he? I should lower him, and lower myself, and lower you also, in trying
-to represent him to you. He is not only a creative man of genius; he
-is, for those who are capable of understanding, for those who penetrate
-to the heart and substance of his works,--and his act of today is a
-sure proof of it,--he is a poet, in spite of all violences of form;
-and, as for his glory, it is not among these blind men that we must
-seek his measure, but throughout Europe. What had he to gain here? He
-had to gain a loss of time, a tempest of insults and outrages. Read the
-newspapers, and you will know what one gains by such an act. What moves
-him, then, if not the imperative necessity of acting in accordance with
-his convictions? Admirably conscious of the power of the pen and of the
-power of thought, he was determined, by a tremendous act, a violent
-act, if you will, to harmonize his conduct with the inmost conviction
-of his soul. That is what he wanted to do,--act.
-
-“And action was necessary, gentlemen, on the morrow of the acquittal
-of Major Esterhazy. On the morrow of that singular prosecution, which
-ended in a verdict demanded from the tribune by the minister of war,
-who, proclaiming Dreyfus justly and legally condemned, was unwilling
-that another should be pronounced the author of the _bordereau_,--on
-the morrow of this judicial decision which fell like a second stone
-on the condemned man buried alive on Devil’s Island,--on the morrow
-of that prosecution, all who had doubted, all who had been anxious,
-all who had gradually arrived at certainty, all were struck with
-stupefaction. There had to be some one to feel enough confidence in
-himself, and enough authority over his fellow-citizens, to dare,
-in consciousness of his power, which I admire and which was not
-ill-founded, to proclaim loudly what many felt in secret, and to act.
-For it was an act, gentlemen,--that letter that burst like a terrible
-bomb. A revolutionary act, he called it; it was from him that the
-attorney-general got the word. Revolutionary, yes, in the sphere of
-thought. Nothing less than a revolution in this sphere was needed
-to recall men’s minds to common sense and truth. M. Zola has begun
-the revolution. It has not yet done much harm. You will finish it,
-gentlemen, finish it peacefully, finish it by the verdict of acquittal
-which I am going to ask of you, but not without first having a thorough
-understanding with you as to its value and significance.
-
-“How was it received, this act of M. Emile Zola? Some, a few, saw
-in it a rallying-cry, and marched as at the sound of the cannon. The
-demoniacs, struck down by an attack so crushing, and feeling that they
-had no rivals in the art of insult, falsehood, and calumny, answered
-by deafening clamor. The majority, of good faith, but indifferent,
-suddenly aroused from their apathy by an act so unexpected, drew back
-in astonishment. Their reasoning was twofold, and I must do justice
-to it. They considered M. Zola’s letter too violent. They mistakenly
-saw in it insults to the army. Dreyfus, they say, was condemned by his
-peers. Esterhazy was acquitted by his. Behind all stands the staff.
-We can never admit that an entire staff is guilty; rather admit that
-Dreyfus is guilty than accept the conclusion that the others are
-guilty. That is their argument; they have no other. But it has another
-branch, which is this: There are men in the cabinet whom we can trust.
-They know the truth. They do not ask for a revision. Therefore the
-Dreyfus verdict was well rendered. Therefore Dreyfus is guilty, and was
-justly condemned. That is their whole case.
-
-“They forget, gentlemen, that things do not present themselves so
-simply; that questions generally do not take the form of a dilemma;
-that Dreyfus may be innocent, and yet they who condemn him may not have
-been knowingly responsible and really guilty of any infamy. They do not
-remember that their reasoning would apply to all judicial errors, from
-the conviction of Jesus Christ to that of Pierre Vaux, including that
-of Jeanne d’Arc herself. They forget that the _raison d’Etat_ can be
-pleaded in behalf of the worst acts of government, from the massacre
-of St. Bartholomew to the massacre of the hostages, including the
-revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the reign of terror, and the legal
-murder of the duc d’Enghien, also committed by a military tribunal.
-
-“This reasoning, gentlemen, is terrible; it is cruel, false, absurd.
-But that is not to say that with those who reason thus I am unwilling
-to discuss. On the contrary, I believe them of good faith, I believe
-them sincere; that is enough for me. I am convinced that, when they
-understand the real truth, they will be with us; they will join the
-great number of those who are coming to us daily, because they are
-beginning to understand a matter upon which hitherto they have passed
-in ignorance. And their ignorance we can easily understand, for we see
-how difficult, not to say how impossible, it is for us to get at even a
-part of the truth here in this court. So a word at first in answer to
-their objections. They talk of insults to the army.
-
-“Insults to the army? But, in the first place, what is the army? Does
-it consist of a few personalities, however high they may be? Is it not
-the entire nation, with a considerable number of officers, all of whom,
-whether belonging to the staff or not, are worthy of the stripes that
-they have won by their courage and their loyalty? And then, at their
-head, a small number of permanent, experienced commanders, fallible, as
-all men are,--and I do not insult them in saying so,--but surely worthy
-of the respect of all, by reason of the lofty mission with which they
-are invested. How, gentlemen, could Frenchmen be lacking in respect for
-them, especially such a Frenchman as M. Emile Zola? Is he not one of
-those who owe most to the French country, just as the French country
-owes most to them? Is he not one of those who place the highest value
-on French citizenship? And is he not, therefore, one of those who must
-have the highest respect for the personification of France in the
-French army itself?
-
-“But does respect for the army mean that everything is permissible, I
-do not say to the army, but to a few commanders of the army? Does it
-mean that they form a caste apart, which, above other citizens, as M.
-Méline said in the chamber on January 22, 1898, must not be submitted
-to the jury? I am not inventing, gentlemen of the jury; here are his
-words, uttered in answer to M. Paschal Grousset:
-
-“‘I understand the significance of your interruption. You say: “You
-have prosecuted, but you have not prosecuted everything.’” The matter
-in question, you will understand, was M. Zola’s letter. ‘“You have left
-out of the prosecution a part of the author’s charges.” Well, yes, we
-did not think it our duty to submit the honor of the commanders of the
-army to the decision of the jury.’
-
-“And why? Is there in this country any citizen, whosoever he may be,
-who is indispensable to the public welfare? No. There is not even a
-necessary soldier. And, if, in execution of its threat, the staff were
-to resign on the day after your verdict of acquittal, I am convinced
-that in this admirable army hands would not be lacking to take up the
-baton of command, and assure us the same safety from foreign attack. So
-no vain threats. There are no necessary individuals in this country,
-no men who escape the jurisdiction of the jury; and M. Méline, though
-he is a prudent man,--M. Méline, who has the reputation of being a
-moderate,--launched a bold word, which perhaps betrayed the deplorable
-state of his mind, when he said: ‘We will not submit the honor of the
-commanders of the army to a jury.’ No one here wishes to wound anyone
-whomsoever. There is nothing in my words that can be offensive to
-loyalty. And, as for you, gentlemen, I can only repeat the admirable
-expression of M. Jaurès, much more exact than that of General de
-Boisdeffre when he said: ‘You are France.’ You are not France, but you
-are the legal conscience of France. M. Jaurès was right in saying so.
-It is an admirable phrase, because it expresses an admirable idea, and
-consequently everybody and all institutions in this country must be
-respectfully submissive to you. Was I wrong, then, in saying that one
-may respect the army without being obliged to abdicate his judgment
-before certain army commanders? In our day, under the _régime_ which
-still is, and which may remain, a _régime_ of liberty, no free mind can
-admit that.
-
-“And do you know why it must not be admitted, especially in this
-country, and at this hour when democracy has made its way? Because, if
-a military supremacy were to arise under these conditions, it would
-be the most oppressive of all, more oppressive than the _régime_ of
-the Turks or the Tartars, for in those countries, or rather among
-those peoples, where an absolute military power reigns, there is a
-responsibility,--the responsibility of the chief to his people, to
-history, to his dynasty, to God sometimes (in the countries of divine
-right), while in a country like ours, where there is no sole and
-personal responsibility, military dictatorship, which would be the
-dictatorship, not of a man, but of a bureau or a staff, would very
-quickly degenerate into an anonymous oligarchy, without counterpoise,
-without responsibility, a hundred times more cruel than any oppression
-ever known. And, finishing, I say, gentlemen, that there is in France,
-and that tomorrow there still will be in France, something more
-powerful, something more respectable, than the army itself,--the law.
-
-“Did M. Zola ever intend to say anything else? Has he insulted the
-army? Permit me to remind you of a passage in his letter, which cannot
-be reread too often.
-
- They talk to us of the honor of the army. They want us to love it, to
- respect it. Ah! certainly, yes, the army which would rise at the first
- threat, which would defend French soil; that army is the whole people,
- and we have for it nothing but tenderness and respect. But it is not a
- question of that army, whose dignity is our special desire in our need
- of justice. It is the sword that is in question, the master that they
- may give us tomorrow. And piously kiss the sword-hilt, the god? No.
-
-“Well, the sword is the exact symbol of that political state which I
-have just tried to picture to you, and I have met from the audience
-in this court-room, which is not, you will admit, made up by me, only
-manifestations of sympathy at the expression of these ideas.
-
-“So much for the matter of insults to the army. Now for the second
-point. They have said to M. Zola: ‘Your letter is violent. It exceeds
-its purpose. To justify such language, what proofs do you offer?’
-
-“Before answering, gentlemen, we must understand each other. As I have
-already said, M. Zola’s letter is an act, a resounding act, a brilliant
-act; but it was committed deliberately. From what everybody has known,
-from what everybody has seen and from what they have not seen, and also
-from what he knows and has been able to tell you, as well as from what
-he knows but has been prevented by his patriotism from telling you, he
-has come to a conclusion which forced itself upon his mind. And what
-is this conclusion? Does it fill him with a feeling of anger towards
-certain army commanders? No, gentlemen. That he leaves to the friends,
-to the actual supporters, I do not say of the army, for they insult the
-army, but of the staff. Listen to what ‘L’Intransigeant’ said on March
-3, 1897. I quote from a letter attributed to a superior officer in
-active service, to ‘a person well informed,’ as they say of people to
-whom they wish to attribute certain infamies, to give them credit and
-authority. This article says:
-
- It is monstrous to see the chief command of the army in the hands of a
- septuagenarian....
-
-“The reference here is to General Saussier, and it reminds one of the
-opinions of Major Esterhazy.
-
- A septuagenarian who, in peace as in war, was long ago judged at
- his true value,--nothing. As for Boisdeffre, stupidly tainted with
- a nobility which has not even the merit of being serious, he is, as
- you say so precisely, a loafer, an ignoramus, full of assurance,
- so _rossard_ that he has never had the courage to learn a word
- of German, wherefore the chief of staff of the army, in order to
- read the slightest note in this language, is obliged to summon an
- interpreter. How the Prussians must laugh at us! Moreover, thanks
- to these commanders,--like masters, like subordinates,--this staff
- is so singular that the superior officer at the head of the famous
- S. R. [_Service de Renseignements_, Service of Information]--the
- reference here must be to Colonel Henry--knows not a word of any
- foreign language. As for the generalissimo, Saussier, he was a brave
- captain in the old African army, who afterwards became a general and
- a detestable tactician, today completely foundered. From these chief
- commanders we may not judge of all the others,--for fortunately there
- are some good ones,--but we may judge of the new and terrible wasps’
- nest in which we should find ourselves, in case of a _coup de torchon_.
-
-“If you continue, you will find the same language and the
-same expressions. Here is an unsigned article that appeared in
-‘L’Intransigeant’ October 3, 1897.
-
- Military justice, as lame as the other justice, but blinder and more
- crying. These crying injustices are revolting, and create revolt in
- the minds of the soldiers,--moreover, a legitimate revolt.
-
-“And, on July 14, 1896, we find this, over the signature of M.
-Rochefort:
-
- One embraces the military profession only in the hope of killing
- men, and, when one is not strong enough to kill those of the others,
- one exterminates his own. The grand belief of the idiots who have
- succeeded one another in the war department is that, if we were beaten
- in 1870, it is because our troops were insufficiently disciplined.
-
-“And in the same newspaper, on September 7, 1897, I find this:
-
- Passive obedience, ferocious egoism and brutality, those are the
- great principles that they try to beat into the hearts and brains
- of the soldiers. If the army were really a great family; if it were
- the school of honor, dignity, and duty; if it were the democratic
- institution which befits the French people,--it would be invincible,
- and there would be no deserters from it. But the truth is that they
- try to make mercenaries of our soldiers, and that the proudest, the
- most enlightened, the most ardent, the best among them, are those who
- feel the most imperative need of avoiding so odious a _rôle_.
-
-“And there is one more passage that I wish to read, also by M.
-Rochefort, which appeared on Friday, April 12, 1894.
-
- The people regret to see that this famous military spirit succeeds in
- a very short time in reducing the finest minds to a state of atrophy.
- Recent verdicts rendered by councils of war show that there is a
- real national danger in leaving longer to judges so ill prepared for
- judicial functions the right of life and death over accused persons
- whose guilt they are not capable of passing upon.
-
-“And, if, gentlemen, we open ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 5, 1894, we
-find this from the pen of M. Drumont:
-
- Look at that ministry of war which ought to be the sanctuary of
- patriotism, and which is a place of perpetual scandal, a cloaca that
- cannot be compared to the Augean stables, for as yet no Hercules has
- tried to clean it. In such an establishment honor and truth ought to
- be embalmed, but, in reality, there is always something there that
- stinks.
-
-“And, finally, gentlemen, I read to you a letter that appears in
-‘L’Autorité’ of this morning under the title ‘Billot.’
-
-  PARIS, FEBRUARY 20, 1898.
-
-  _Monsieur le Directeur_:
-
- You must be distressed by all the basenesses of the present hour. But
- once more let your voice be heard in the name of this poor France,
- who defends her last honor in the hands of those who betray her. A
- certain man is at this moment the target of public contempt. This man
- is the minister of war, a sinister figure, whose personality appears
- at the saddest hours in our history. If the Méline cabinet associates
- its cause with that of the minister of war, it is irrevocably lost in
- the esteem of the country and the army. Not a single one of the 27,000
- officers would dare to defend the minister of war. You cannot imagine
- the contempt that his lies and empty declarations have engendered.
- How guilty, then, is this government that seeks out such men, knowing
- what they were and what they are. Every step of this man is marked
- by an injustice. Regular promotion no longer exists. Of the rights
- consecrated by the committees of classification he takes no heed.
- The promotion lists are modified in the office of the minister, who
- inserts or erases as he sees fit.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, these are the supporters of the army. These are the
-patriots. I point them out to you.
-
-“Did Emile Zola ever use such language? Undoubtedly he has spoken
-strongly, and, if, instead of being here in this echoing trial, we were
-in some parlor or some office, we might ask him perhaps to soften some
-corners of his letter. But he wanted it to go far; he wanted it to be
-heard. It has been heard, as he wished; and he was right. But at bottom
-what was his thought? He had arrived at the conclusion that a judicial
-error had been committed; that this judicial error was not criminal
-in its origin, but grew out of the credulity of a few: that it was
-confirmed by the malice and the blindness of a few others, as well as
-by the solidarity of brothers in arms; and that it was finally sealed
-by a violation of law. Well, gentlemen, this being the case, it was
-necessary, in the first place, to fix the limits of our proofs. Even in
-the strangulation to which we have been subjected, we have been treated
-with some regard, made necessary, I fancy, by the processes of justice,
-for here, it seems, outside of the Zola case, there are two other
-cases,--the Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case. Of the Esterhazy case
-we may say everything. Of the Dreyfus case we may say nothing. Why this
-distinction? Is it based on the thing judged? Ah! I confess, gentlemen,
-that, when I first asked myself the explanation of this singular
-restriction upon a trial which M. Zola wished to be so open, I said to
-myself: ‘It is very simple; we shall be permitted to say nothing. In
-fact, there are decrees which prohibit all attack on the thing judged,
-even by demonstrating that the judges are liars. So, as we have to deal
-here with two things judged, the Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case,
-they will strangle us in silence.’ Well, they have not done it. I know
-not why, because, in truth, in the path upon which they have entered
-they had the means. But they did not dare to use them, and in this
-affair, as in so many others in this country, they took half-measures,
-partial closed doors, partial explanations, partial thing judged.
-
-“True, gentlemen, it would not have been easy to entirely close my
-mouth. I should have risen just the same after the shorter trial, and
-made my argument, simply telling you what others have told you. If I
-had not been contradicted, it would have been necessary to extend the
-scope of the debate.
-
-“Now, gentlemen, I want to sum up for you chronologically the facts in
-this case, to sum them up in spite of all the obstacles that have been
-placed in my path. And it is the object of my argument to try to show,
-by reasoning and by induction, in all cases where the light has not
-been complete, the necessary answers to the questions that I have been
-forbidden to ask,--answers that result inevitably from the study, or,
-to be more exact, from the silence, of our adversaries.”
-
-At this point the court interrupted M. Labori, declaring an adjournment
-until the following day.
-
-
-
-
-FOURTEENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 22.
-
-Resuming his argument at the point at which he had dropped it the day
-before, M. Labori continued as follows:
-
-“Let us go back to the autumn of 1894. Dreyfus, who was then Captain
-Dreyfus, was arrested on October 14, 1894, but neither the public or
-his family, Mme. Dreyfus excepted, knew of his arrest. On October
-29 the news leaked out in a rather indefinite way, through ‘La
-Libre Parole,’ and on November 1 a more exact account was given in
-‘L’Eclair.’ I beg you, gentlemen, to note that the two newspapers
-which alone were well informed at the beginning of this case are the
-two newspapers that have carried on the most violent and most unjust
-campaign in the years that have since elapsed. ‘L’Eclair’ having given
-a more precise account, ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 1 published a
-very short article, of which I shall read to you but an extract.
-
- “Is it true that recently a very important arrest has been made by
- order of the military authority? Is the individual arrested accused
- of spying? If the news is true, why does the military authority
- maintain a silence so absolute? A reply is necessary.” Such was
- the question that we asked on Monday, and the minister of war has
- carefully refrained from replying. We had been notified of the arrest
- on Sunday, ...
-
-“At once we may ask by whom ‘La Libre Parole’ had been notified.
-I questioned General Mercier to find out to whom this indiscretion
-should be attributed, and whether any inquiry was made. He answered
-that he knew nothing about it, hinting that he attributed it to the
-Dreyfus family That theory cannot be accepted. The Dreyfus family knew
-nothing about the matter. Major du Paty de Clam, employing threats
-toward Mme. Dreyfus, had forbidden her to speak; and, supposing that
-she had spoken, you can well imagine that she would not have carried
-her secrets to ‘La Libre Parole.’ Consequently, here at the beginning
-we find the hand of some one who is in relations both with the
-newspapers of which I speak and with the war offices. Who is he? Is he
-a superior officer or a subordinate? I do not know, but the relation is
-indisputable.
-
- We had been notified of the arrest on Sunday, but, in view of the
- gravity of the charge, and the name and position of the guilty party,
- we desired to await the result of the examination. Today these reasons
- do not hold. Here, in fact, is what our _confrère_, “L’Eclair.” says
- concerning our questions: “Several newspapers have published a note
- of a few lines, asking if there had been an important arrest for a
- crime of high treason. The arrest has been kept secret. The facts,
- unhappily, are exact, and much more serious than the question led us
- to believe. An officer, not however, a superior officer, is at this
- moment in prison at Cherche-Midi; he has committed the most abominable
- crime that an officer can commit. He has betrayed his country, and
- for venal motives. The examination, which was conducted in secret, is
- finished, and the proof materially established.”
-
-“This is an inaccuracy, perhaps a falsehood. Certainly it was the
-starting-point of all the stories, each more false than the other,
-which from that moment began to fill the columns of the newspapers,
-finding no contradiction and spreading error through the public opinion
-of the entire country. If I did not wish to save your time, gentlemen,
-I could read you extracts from a thousand newspapers of all parties,
-affirming most energetically that Dreyfus had relations with German
-and Italian spies which had been materially proved; that he had made
-suspicious journeys to Belgium or Alsace, in the course of which he
-was detected in the act of spying; that he broke open a vault in the
-war department, and took therefrom secrets of the most vital interest
-to the national defence; that he delivered important documents to the
-enemy; and that he had numerous civil accomplices.
-
-“It must be said that the mystery which surrounded the arrest of
-Captain Dreyfus opened the way for all these lies, which served as a
-foundation for public opinion. On October 13 Dreyfus was summoned to
-the war department, and there invited to appear, in civil dress, on
-October 15. You understand why. He was to be arrested. The arrest had
-already been decided upon, and it was not desirable that he should be
-taken in uniform to Cherche-Midi between policemen. That would have
-aroused public opinion, and the policy of mystery had already been
-resolved upon.
-
-“On the morning of October 15 Dreyfus appeared at the war department.
-There he was arrested by Major du Paty de Clam, after an examination
-which I shall refer to again hereafter. Then a search was made.
-Absolute silence was imposed upon Mme. Dreyfus by reference to the Iron
-Mask and assertions that her husband’s life depended upon it. This
-silence was maintained for a fortnight. Meanwhile what was happening
-at the prison of Cherche-Midi? I had hoped that a man who could speak
-to you with authority upon this point would testify here under oath; I
-mean Major Forzinetti. He was not allowed to testify, but, thank God!
-he has published in ‘Le Figaro’ over his own signature a story with
-which undoubtedly you are not familiar, but with which you must be made
-familiar, for it is nothing else than his deposition. I am going to
-read it to you. I am sure that he is now in this court-room. If it does
-not represent his thought at every point, if it is not what he would
-have declared under oath, he will contradict me. Here is his story:
-
- On October 14. 1894, I received a secret enclosure from the minister
- of war. It made known to me that on the next day, the 15th, at 7
- o’clock in the morning, a superior officer would make his appearance
- at the prison to convey to me a confidential communication. On the
- morning of the 15th....
-
-“Note this, gentlemen. You will see the value of it in my subsequent
-discussion. We are at the morning of the 15th. Though Captain Dreyfus,
-who was notified on the 13th to appear on the 15th, had not yet been
-examined, and was as yet only an object of suspicion, already they were
-preparing for him a prison-cell.
-
- On the morning of the 15th Lieutenant-Colonel d’Aboville appeared in
- uniform, and handed me a document bearing date of the 14th, which
- informed me that Captain Dreyfus, of the 14th regiment of artillery,
- and licentiate at the staff, would be entered in the jail-book in the
- morning as accused of the crime of high treason, and that I would
- be held personally responsible for his person. Colonel d’Aboville
- asked me to give my word of honor that I would execute literally the
- orders from the department that he was about to communicate to me in
- writing and verbally. One of these communications ordered me to keep
- the prisoner in the most absolute secrecy, and to see that he had
- neither knife, or paper, or pen, or ink, or pencil. He was also to be
- treated like ordinary prisoners: but this order was cancelled, when I
- pointed out that it was irregular. The colonel ordered me to take such
- precautions as I might deem necessary to prevent the incarceration
- from becoming known, either in the prison or out of it. He asked me
- to show him the rooms set apart for officers, and designated that
- which Captain Dreyfus was to occupy. He cautioned me against the
- probable steps that the “high Jewry” would take as soon as it should
- become aware of the incarceration. I informed nobody, and no such step
- was taken in my neighborhood. I add that, throughout the prisoner’s
- detention, I never remained a moment in his room except in the company
- of the principal police agent, who alone had the key.
-
- Toward noon Captain Dreyfus, in civil dress, arrived in a cab,
- accompanied by Major Henry and a police agent. This superior officer
- handed me the order for the entry of his name on the jail-book--an
- order signed by the minister of war himself, and bearing date of the
- 14th, which proves that the arrest was ordered before the captain
- had been questioned. This shows also that the imprisonment was
- effected without the knowledge of the military governor of Paris, who
- was notified of it by a superior officer of the staff sent for the
- purpose, I having been forbidden to notify him myself. The principal
- police agent of the prison (to whom I had given instructions), after
- having caused the name of Dreyfus to be inscribed on the register
- without anything to indicate who he was, escorted the captain to the
- room designated for him. From that time he was buried there alive. No
- one was allowed to see him, and his door was never opened except in my
- presence. A few moments after he had been placed in his room I went
- to see him. He was in a state of tremendous excitement. He seemed a
- veritable madman, with bloodshot eyes. He had upset everything in his
- room. I succeeded in quieting him, but not without difficulty. I had
- an intuition that this officer was innocent. He begged me to give him
- writing materials, or to write myself to the minister of war, asking
- a hearing for him. He told me the phases of his arrest, which were
- neither dignified or military.
-
- Between the 18th and 24th of October Major du Paty de Clam came to
- question him, equipped with a special permit from the minister of
- war. Before seeing Dreyfus, he asked me if he could not enter his
- cell noiselessly, carrying a lamp of sufficient power to enable him
- to throw a flood of light upon the captain’s face, whom he wished to
- surprise in such a way as to throw him off his guard. I answered that
- it was not possible. He submitted him to two examinations, and each
- time dictated to him parts of phrases from the incriminating document,
- with a view of establishing a comparison of handwritings.
-
-“I beg you to remember these facts, which are the less disputable since
-the file contains an official letter written at that time by Major
-Forzinetti, in which he tells his superiors of the terrible agitation
-of the prisoner,--an agitation bordering on mental alienation.
-
- During this time Captain Dreyfus’s excitement continued to be very
- great. From the corridor one could hear him groaning and crying,
- speaking in a loud voice, and protesting his innocence. He threw
- himself against the furniture and against the walls, and seemed
- unconscious of the injuries that he was inflicting upon himself.
- He had not a moment’s rest, and, when, exhausted by suffering and
- fatigue, he threw himself upon the bed in his clothing, his sleep was
- haunted by horrible nightmares. He gave such starts that he sometimes
- fell out of bed. During these nine days of real agony he took nothing
- but _bouillon_ and sweetened wine, refusing all other nourishment.
-
- On the morning of the 24th his mental condition, bordering
- on madness, seemed to me so serious that, anxious to cover my
- responsibility, I informed the minister of it, as well as the governor
- of Paris. In the afternoon, in answer to a summons, I went to General
- de Boisdeffre, whom I followed to the minister of war. The general
- having asked my opinion, I answered without hesitation: “They are on a
- wrong track. This officer is not guilty.” Such was my conviction, and
- it has been only strengthened since. Entering the minister’s office
- alone, the general came out again a few moments later, apparently very
- much annoyed, to say to me; “The minister is just starting for his
- niece’s wedding, and gives me _carte blanche_. Try to manage Dreyfus
- for me until his return. Then he will see to the matter.” I was led to
- think that General de Boisdeffre had not been aware of the arrest, or
- did not approve it. He ordered me to have the captain secretly visited
- by the prison physician, who prescribed quieting potions and continual
- watch.
-
- Starting from the 27th, Major du Paty de Clam came almost daily to
- submit him to new examinations and comparisons of handwriting, the
- sole purpose of which was to obtain a confession, which Dreyfus never
- would make. Up to the day when this unfortunate was handed over
- to the reporter of the council of war, he knew nothing more than
- that he was accused of the crime of high treason. The examination
- was long and detailed, and, while it was in progress, Dreyfus had
- so little expectation that he would be put on trial, and still
- less that he would be convicted, that he said several times: “What
- compensation shall I ask? I will apply for the cross, and give my
- resignation. I told Major du Paty that I would do so, and he has
- embodied the statement in his report to the minister. He could find
- no proof against me,--for there was none,--any more than could
- the reporter-magistrate, who confines himself to inferences and
- suppositions, without making any precise assertions.”
-
- A few moments before appearing before his judges, he said: “I hope
- that my martyrdom is nearing its end, and that I shall soon be in the
- arms of my family.” Unfortunately it was to be otherwise. After the
- verdict, Dreyfus was taken back to his room, where I awaited him. At
- sight of me he cried out, sobbing: “My only crime is that I was born
- a Jew. To this point has my life of labor led me. Why did I enter the
- war school? Why did I not hand in my resignation, as my family so
- desired me to do?” Such was his despair that, fearing a fatal ending,
- I had to redouble my vigilance. The next day his counsel came to see
- him. M. Demange, entering his room, approached him with open arms,
- and, in tears, said to him, as he pressed him to his breast: “My
- child, your condemnation is the greatest infamy of the century.” I was
- completely upset.
-
- From that day Dreyfus, who all this time had been without news from
- his family,--for so far he had not been allowed to write to them,--was
- authorized to correspond with them under the eye of the commissioner
- of the government, to whom all letters sent or received were
- delivered. I witnessed the only two authorized interviews that he had
- with his wife and his mother-in-law. They were very touching.
-
- As soon as the appeal was taken, Major du Paty came again, with a
- special permit from the minister for free communication with Dreyfus.
- After making inquiries concerning the state of mind of the condemned
- man, he went to him, telling the principal agent to remain within call
- in case of need. In this last interview, as appears from a letter
- written immediately by Dreyfus to the minister of war, Major du Paty
- endeavored to obtain a confession of guilt, or, at least, a confession
- of an impudent act of bribery. Dreyfus answered that he had never
- bribed anyone,--that he was innocent.
-
- On January 4, 1895, I was relieved of my heavy responsibility.
- After shaking hands with Captain Dreyfus, I gave him over to the
- _gendarmes_, who took him, handcuffed, to the military school,
- where, proclaiming his innocence, he underwent his degradation,--a
- torture more terrible than death,--and was then sent into exile.
- My mission was an extremely sad and painful one, having lived on
- terms of intimacy with this unfortunate for three months, my formal
- orders being to be present at all his meals and watch him narrowly,
- in order that no written communication from without might reach him,
- hidden in his food. During all the long years that, by a choice which
- has honored me, I have been at the head of various penitentiary
- establishments, I have had much experience with prisoners, and I do
- not fear to declare openly that a terrible error has been committed. I
- have never considered Captain Dreyfus as a traitor to his country, to
- his uniform. My immediate superiors knew my opinion from the first. I
- declared it in presence of high official and political personages, as
- well as before numerous officers of all grades, journalists, and men
- of letters. Moreover, the government knew my opinion, for, on the eve
- of the degradation, the head of a bureau in the interior department
- came to me, sent by his chief, M. Dupuy, to ask me for information
- concerning Dreyfus. I answered to the same effect. This official must
- have repeated it to his superiors. Now, I declare that up to November
- 5 last I had never received from any of my superiors any order or hint
- to keep silent, and that I have steadily proclaimed the innocence of
- Dreyfus, who is the victim either of one of those fatalities which are
- inexplicable and impenetrable, or else of an unfathomable conspiracy,
- deliberately concocted.
-
-“What I desired to make known to you, gentlemen, was not only the
-personal impression of Major Forzinetti,--who, since this campaign
-entered upon its acute stage, has been relieved of his position,
-but who, until then, had held it, though his superiors knew his
-opinion,--but also the singular, bizarre, and mysterious processes to
-which they resorted during this examination.
-
-“A secret examination, a romantic examination, followed by closed
-doors, closed doors declared under circumstances which I am going to
-point out to you by showing you how M. Demange was interrupted during
-the public hearing, doors closed in spite of the protests of the press,
-which was of one voice in demanding publicity. Picture to yourselves
-now the falsehoods that the press circulated, the mystery that hovered
-over the affair, the semi-revelations that, from one direction and
-another, reveal this prison in the Rue de Cherche-Midi as one of
-those fantastic prisons in which go on I know not what frightful and
-mysterious things. People necessarily came to the conclusion that
-Dreyfus had been caught in direct relations with an ambassador, or
-with an ambassador’s secretary, or a military _attaché_. This was the
-starting-point of the convictions against which now all argument is
-powerless, because, from the first, thanks to all these lies, there
-has been effected in many sincere minds one of those crystallizations
-which have the character of permanency. To justify so much mystery
-two things were necessary: first, absolute respect for the law;
-second, a complete knowledge of the case by all who played a part in
-it,--examining magistrates, minister’s counsel, prisoner, and judges.
-I spoke to you yesterday of the arguments of those honest people who
-say: ‘We cannot believe that the judges wilfully erred.’ Upon what
-does this argument rest? Upon the conviction that the judges rendered
-their verdict in perfect conformity to the law, and in full knowledge
-of the cause. Is not this the basis today of the sentiments of those
-who talk to us of the thing judged? Would the simple argument that
-Captain Dreyfus is a Jew be accepted by anyone? I do not believe it.
-Yesterday I spoke severely of anti-Semitism, because I consider it a
-doctrine which one should have the courage to combat. Yet I do not
-offer a single one of the anti-Semites the insult of believing that
-they would accept the argument: ‘Captain Dreyfus is a Jew; therefore
-his conviction was justified, whether he was innocent or guilty.’
-Then I am right in saying that that which constitutes the strength
-of my honest adversaries is the double idea that everything took
-place in accordance with law, and that everybody concerned was in
-full possession of the facts. Well, gentlemen, nothing of all this is
-true. The basis of these honest convictions has no real existence.
-Saying nothing at present of the violation of law, the gravity of the
-facts was not established, their materiality was not proved. Pressing
-visits of Dreyfus to Belgium or Germany,--none. Relations with an
-ambassador, or with an ambassador’s secretary, or even with a military
-_attaché_, directly proven,--none. For the present, I am obliged to
-confine myself to this. We shall come to the rest later. But I must add
-that, if there was in the department a photograph of a document that
-represented a letter exchanged between two military _attachés_ of the
-Triple Alliance,--a letter which they tried later to use as a document
-in the Dreyfus trial,--this photograph was in the war department
-eight months before the arrest of Dreyfus, eight months before they
-thought of him. It does not apply to Dreyfus, as I shall show you
-presently. Relations of Dreyfus with the enemy, civil accomplices?
-Nothing of the sort; and I speak here according to the indictment,
-on the strength of the d’Ormescheville report, to which alone they
-have a right to appeal. There is a single document, the _bordereau_,
-whose origin is not declared, but is said by General Gonse to tell
-against the accused, though they refuse to put him in a position to
-contradict it. This writing and the expert opinions upon it,--opinions
-which I shall discuss, but which for the moment I refer to only as
-contradictory,--these comprise the entire evidence communicated to the
-defence. Outside of these, the government knows nothing. One man alone,
-General Mercier, who may be a brave soldier, but who surely knows more
-of military tactics than of great cases like this, took everything
-upon himself. For the absent documents he substituted his impression,
-his arbitrary impression, the result of a naive confidence, of an
-incredible credulity, in the puerile processes of the examination,
-processes which are nothing but the fruit of the imagination--honest,
-I admit, but really childish--of his subordinates. In using the word
-childish, do I go too far, gentlemen? What, then, is to be thought of
-that dictation from the _bordereau_ which was made to Captain Dreyfus
-at the moment of his arrest?”
-
-Here M. Labori read the passage from the d’Ormescheville indictment,
-describing the dictation from the _bordereau_ to Dreyfus by M. du Paty
-de Clam, who notes the agitation of the accused. Then he continued:
-
-“I have a right to say that these are puerile methods of judicial
-examination.
-
-“There is the accusation! So far, there is no question of the secret
-document. Now for the proof of my statement that General Mercier
-substituted his arbitrary impression for absent documents. Does he
-speak of other documents to the cabinet? Were any other charges made
-known to M. Guérin or to M. Dupuy, who was then a cabinet minister?
-No. They had nothing but the minister’s word to determine them to
-follow him in the path leading to the dishonor and civil death of an
-officer. Listen to an interview with M. Guérin, the authenticity of
-which will not be disputed,--an interview reported by M. Marcel Hutin
-in ‘Le Gaulois.’ In presence of the jury the cabinet ministers shelter
-themselves behind professional secrecy. Not so in the press, and it is
-so much the better. Hear, then, what they said before this trial. M.
-Guérin, says the author of the article, explained that M. Charles Dupuy
-and himself were the only cabinet ministers whom General Mercier made
-familiar with the case. Says the former keeper of the seals:
-
- Let me tell you how the Dreyfus case was brought to my knowledge in
- 1894. There were three of us in the cabinet who were informed of the
- examination at the beginning. After a cabinet meeting held in the
- office of the minister of war, General Mercier, the minister of war,
- asked me to go to the office of the president of the cabinet. The
- three being assembled in M. Dupuy’s office, General Mercier told us
- that very important documents concerning the national defence had
- been communicated by a staff officer to a foreign power, and he gave
- the name of the suspected officer, Captain Dreyfus. The belief of
- the minister of war was based, in the first place, on the nature of
- the documents concerned, of which only Captain Dreyfus could have
- had knowledge. They were locked up in the fourth bureau, said our
- colleague, with which Captain Dreyfus was connected, and he alone
- could have communicated them.
-
-“On this first point, gentlemen, let us try to connect all the complex
-incidents of this trial with each of the points that I argue. You
-remember the reply made by Colonel Picquart, and also by General Gonse
-and General de Pellieux, to the questions that I put to them. Now let
-us continue.
-
- Furthermore, the general told me that he had had experts examine the
- letter which accompanied these documents, and that they had given an
- opinion that it was in the writing of Captain Dreyfus. Finally, our
- colleague told us about the dictation from the famous _bordereau_.
- When General Mercier had told this story, which, you can imagine, made
- a great impression upon us, he turned to me, and said: “I desired, my
- dear colleague, to relate these facts in your presence, in order to
- ask your advice. I do not wish to rest my opinion solely on the proofs
- that have been gathered. I want you to name a counter-expert, so that
- complete light may be shed on the authenticity of this important
- document.” I made haste to send for M. Baudoin, president of the civil
- court of the Seine, who suggested M. Bertillon.
-
-“You see, gentlemen, whether I was right in saying, after M.
-Bertillon’s testimony: ‘The accusation, there you have it!’ For,
-indeed, it is M. Bertillon who determines the prosecution, because it
-is to him that they apply for a final expert opinion.
-
- The minister of war told us that it was through one of his agents that
- this document, found in a waste-basket, had been communicated to him.
- The cabinet was not informed of the phases of the matter, until after
- the arrest of the guilty man.
-
- “Were you aware, _Monsieur le Ministre_, of another document
- incriminating Dreyfus, outside of the _bordereau_?”
-
- No, never were any secret documents mentioned to us. I can say to
- you that none of my colleagues were informed of the communication
- of secret documents to the council of war without the knowledge of
- the accused and his counsel. Some time ago I endeavored to recall
- exactly, in the presence of my friend and former colleague, Poincaré,
- everything that then took place. I asked him if his recollections
- agreed with mine, and I found myself entirely corroborated. A single
- thing strikes me. Why has there been no frank denial of the secret
- communication of documents, which, indeed, would have constituted
- closed doors within closed doors?
-
-“And what does M. Dupuy, the president of the cabinet, say to ‘Le
-Gaulois’? This:
-
- Never did I know of any document incriminating the condemned man,
- except the _bordereau_, and I believe that my colleagues in the
- cabinet are in the same position as myself. If any secret documents
- were communicated to the council of war, I say frankly that I can
- only regret it as absolutely contrary to the law and to the rights of
- defence.
-
-“What I wish you now to notice, gentlemen, is that, at the time when
-the arrest of Dreyfus was about to be determined upon, there was no
-secret document, no charge except the _bordereau_ and the dictation
-scene; and that even of these not the entire cabinet, but only M. Dupuy
-and M. Guérin, had been informed by the minister of war, proving, as I
-have just said, that General Mercier took everything upon himself.
-
-“I know very well that, since, there has been mention of a secret
-document. I know very well that a ridiculous document has been
-produced,--ridiculous by the confession of those who for a long time
-pretended to make use of it, since today they find it so inadequate
-that they thrust uselessly into this trial still later documents, which
-they describe as absolute proofs. We shall see what they are worth.
-But this ridiculous document is that of which they have a photograph,
-and which contains the words: ‘That scoundrel D----.’ It is a letter
-addressed by one military _attaché_ to another, which was photographed
-_en route_, and has this postscript: ‘That scoundrel D---- is becoming
-too exacting.’ Let it not be said that this document has no value. Let
-it not be said that, if it is not a proof, there are others. It is
-the document upon which, from the point of view of pretended guilt,
-they have lived for years. We have seen it everywhere, pointed out as
-of the highest importance,--in the office of Colonel Picquart shown
-to M. Leblois, in the pages of ‘L’Eclair.’ Oh! if it were only an
-article from ‘L’Eclair,’ one might say: ‘It is a newspaper invention.’
-But Major Ravary has referred to this document in his public report.
-It is the document that was in the possession of that ideal veiled
-lady. It is ‘the liberating document.’ It is the document for which
-the minister of war gave Major Esterhazy a receipt. Major Esterhazy
-returned this document to the minister under cover of the staff, and
-therefore it must have the value that I attribute to it. It is the
-important document. Oh! I know very well that they have invented others
-since. When the document was invented, there was mention of others.
-They do not lie, these officers, but they equivocate, consciously or
-not; in telling only a part of the truth, in not telling the whole
-truth, they equivocate. There are other documents in the secret file,
-yes, but they have no importance, because they relate as much to one as
-to another. M. Picquart has told us that in the secret file there is a
-document which applies rather to Esterhazy than to Dreyfus. What does
-that mean? Simply that there are documents concerning spying, which
-have been placed in the file because they belong there, but which are
-no more applicable to Dreyfus than to anybody else. And the proof that
-all these other documents are especially inapplicable is that, when
-this one no longer seemed sufficient after having been submitted to
-discussion, they produced another; and we have heard the declaration of
-General de Pellieux, which was the culminating-point of this trial, and
-which was intended to change its course, but which, when we have shown
-its real significance, will be seen to be only an ephemeral incident.
-
-“Only it was not until after the prosecution, gentlemen, that
-importance was attributed to this document. With General Mercier
-himself it seems to have been only an artifice, as is proved by the
-fact that he, who had no right to distrust his colleagues, said nothing
-about it to them when he was preparing the case.
-
-“And then, in itself, from the judicial standpoint, what can such a
-document amount to? D----, what does that mean? Really, gentlemen,
-since this document was in the war department eight months before
-the prosecution of Dreyfus, and no one had dreamed of applying it to
-him, must not one have been really hypnotized over the name, or else
-weak-minded, to see nothing but Dreyfus in this initial? And then, why
-was no importance attached to it at the beginning? Though the name
-Dreyfus had been in this document, it might have been the work of a
-forger. You know that there have been forgeries in this case. When
-Major Esterhazy talks of forgery, he is not disputed. His statement
-is accepted because _he_ makes it. But there may be other forgeries,
-emanating from other hands and applying to other persons. And, even
-though this document were authentic, and however overwhelming it might
-be in its significance, it could have no value whatever until it had
-been discussed _pro_ and _con_,--until it had been shown to the accused
-and his counsel, who perhaps could overturn it with a word.
-
-“Again, is it permissible to disdain the official declarations of
-certain foreign governments regarding relations with Captain Dreyfus?
-[Murmurs of protest.] I expected these murmurs, and I answer that, if
-we had wished, we could have called foreigners to this bar; if they are
-not here, it is because we did not wish to call them.”
-
-The Judge.--“I hasten to say that we would not have listened to them.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Very likely, _Monsieur le Président_. That would have
-been another question of law, to be discussed after the others. But
-it is certain that we considered that in such an affair the light
-should be produced between Frenchmen, because it is important that
-the foreigner should be on the side of neither party, in order that
-tomorrow, if the threatened war should become a reality, we might
-all join hands to face the foe, of whom we ask nothing. But, so much
-said, is it permissible, as an honest adversary of the foreigner, to
-neglect declarations as official as those made in the committee of the
-reichstag and at the Italian tribune?”
-
-The Judge.--“No, pass on.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I pass on, _Monsieur le Président_. But I do not think
-there is anything in my words that can be attacked by anybody.”
-
-The Judge.--“Pass on, pass on.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Continuing on this point, I say that the foreigner has no
-sort of reason to defend traitors. It is contrary to diplomatic usage.
-Of course a country does not betray its spies; but it has no reason to
-defend them when they are caught. Consequently it must be admitted that
-declarations such as those which I have referred to, if not decisive,
-must at least be attentively considered, and weighed in the balance.
-And for that reason I say to you that nothing at all is left of the
-document referring to ‘That scoundrel D----.’
-
-“Moreover, gentlemen, this document seemed of no value to those who
-made use of it. There was no mention of it in the d’Ormescheville
-report; no question of it in the charges against Dreyfus.
-
-“You know, gentlemen, the source of the document. That matter I have
-already explained, but I must return to it for a little. Not simply one
-article appeared in ‘L’Eclair’ in September, 1896. A whole campaign was
-carried on, and the article of September 15 was itself preceded by an
-article of September 10, violent against ex-Captain Dreyfus to the last
-degree. Listen to it.
-
- For some hours it was believed that Dreyfus, the traitor, had
- escaped. A dispatch has reassured us. He is still in confinement.
- How long will his captivity last? Undoubtedly, it is only temporary.
- Occult intelligences are at work to free him. This time there has
- been no escape, but it is clear that there was a conspiracy. The
- report started by a foreign newspaper was not a simple canard. It
- was published deliberately, and it rests on a certain fact. We need
- no other proof than the emotion which it caused in certain official
- circles. Whether they confess it or not, they are still concerning
- themselves regarding this report, in spite of the formal denial that
- has come from Devil’s Island. An investigation has been opened, and
- is being carried on with the greatest secrecy. The false news was
- either a premature announcement of a fact that was to have been
- accomplished, or it was a part of a plan for defence of the traitor,
- shrewdly organized by his friends. The family is the soul of this
- agitation,--the family and its accomplices. For there have been civil
- accomplices. Perhaps it is time to say so, and to unmask them.
-
-“You see the spirit of this article. Is it attributable to the
-friends or the family of Dreyfus? I have already said that that cannot
-be maintained. And this is the proper time to say a word of the
-communication of the secret file to M. Leblois by Colonel Picquart
-in September or October, 1896. Do you know what I think about that?
-I think it a petty matter, uselessly and ridiculously magnified. I
-think that, when Adjutant Gribelin and Colonel Henry come here in good
-faith to say that they witnessed this thing, we are in presence of a
-veritable optical illusion.”
-
-M. Labori then recalled the contradictions in the testimony of M.
-Gribelin and Colonel Henry, and showed that the pretended visit of M.
-Leblois to the war department could not have occurred, as he was not in
-Paris. Consequently it could not have been through him that the article
-reached “L’Eclair.”
-
-“So ‘L’Eclair’s’ article of September 15, 1896, must have originated
-with the staff. Who gave it out? That it is impossible to ascertain,
-but it is to be remembered that, at various times in this campaign,
-Major Esterhazy has been warned of what was going on at the staff
-office, and we may inquire whether the person who conveyed these
-warnings is not the person who communicated the article to ‘L’Eclair.’
-We have the more reason to be disturbed about this, because there has
-been no investigation, in spite of Colonel Picquart’s demand for one.
-
-“And then, gentlemen, what have we to say of all this stage-setting
-of which you know, this romantic examination and melodramatic arrest
-of Captain Dreyfus in an office arranged with mirrors on the walls,
-as is stated in M. du Paty de Clam’s report,--mirrors arranged for
-the purpose of surprising the play of his features? What shall we say
-of the scene of dictation, of the threats uttered to Mme. Dreyfus, of
-the dark lantern by the aid of which, as in the novels of Ponson du
-Terrail, they expected to surprise the secret of this guilty man’s
-conscience? I do not dare to say that all this had but one object,
-but I do say that it had but one result,--that of misleading public
-opinion. Do you say that these methods were adopted in sincerity? I
-admit it. Has not M. Zola himself admitted it? Listen to what he said.
-
- I accuse Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam of having been the
- diabolical workman of a judicial error,--unconsciously, I am willing
- to believe,--and of having then defended his calamitous work for three
- years by the most preposterous and most guilty machinations.
-
- I accuse General Mercier of having made himself an accomplice, at
- least through weakness of mind, in one of the greatest iniquities of
- the century.
-
-“Good faith, gentlemen, is admitted; but where have these men of good
-faith been led by their credulity? One trembles at the thought of all
-these puerile details, especially that scene of dictation from the
-_bordereau_. At first I did not believe it to be true. It seemed to me
-to pass the bounds of imagination. I was not convinced, until it was
-affirmed in the interview with M. Guérin and in the official report of
-M. d’Ormescheville. What are we to think of these judicial methods? I
-appeal to all the criminologists here. They say that Dreyfus’s hand
-trembled. Perhaps it did not tremble, but, even if it did, what does
-that prove? Fancy, gentlemen, the tone in which Colonel du Paty de
-Clam, who has been before you and whom you undoubtedly remember, said:
-‘You tremble, wretch. Then you are guilty.’ Fancy that! Who would not
-have trembled? What does it prove? If it proves anything, it proves the
-emptiness of the charges. Do not forget, gentlemen, that at that moment
-all had been done. The cell at Cherche-Midi was ready. The order of
-arrest had been signed, M. Cochefert, of the police, was in the office
-of Colonel du Paty de Clam, and they did not hesitate to set in motion
-this romantic and melodramatic machinery. Their evidence was so slight
-that they had to resort to a melodramatic incident to supply the place
-of truth.
-
-“Does it astonish you, then, that the council of war, after
-deliberation, was on the point of acquittal? Oh! gentlemen, I do not
-need the echoes that have reached my ears to convince me of it. We say
-that the countersign went forth; we say that a verdict was rendered
-in obedience to orders; but we do not suspect the honesty of the
-members of the council of war. If they obeyed orders, it was because
-they believed that they were obeying just orders. I admit that, had
-they known the order to be unjust and irregular, they would not have
-obeyed it. But, from the very fact that the order had been given, they
-at first concluded that it was just. Nevertheless, when the evidence
-was before them, and they saw that there was no proof of guilt, they
-were going to acquit, I do not doubt. They were going to acquit,
-because they had nothing but the _bordereau_ before them; because the
-_bordereau_ was the only document involved at the beginning of the
-trial; because nothing was left but the _bordereau_ at the end of the
-trial, just as today there is nothing but the _bordereau_.
-
-“I must demonstrate this to you, gentlemen, step by step. So you
-will pardon me for reading another document which seems to me
-indispensable. I borrow from ‘L’Autorité’--for I prefer to borrow from
-our enemies--the story of the public proceedings of the council of war
-of 1894. The account is indisputable, and, were it to be questioned,
-I have here also the account published by ‘La Libre Parole,’ which
-confirms it at every point.
-
- The presiding judge orders the call of witnesses to begin. Then the
- representative of the government rises.
-
- “By virtue,” he says, “of Article 113 of the code of military justice,
- which says that, if publicity appears dangerous to good order or to
- public morals, the council may order the trial to proceed behind
- closed doors, I move that the doors be closed. You know the documents
- that are included in the file. I do not need to insist; I know that it
- will be enough to appeal to your patriotism.”
-
- M. Demange asks the floor.
-
- The Judge.--“In giving the floor to the counsel, I ask him to confine
- himself to the question of closed doors, with which alone we are now
- concerned.”
-
- The counsel then begins the reading of his motion, in which, after
- examining the legal texts permitting the ordering of closed doors, he
- declares that, since the legislator had in view no special case, it is
- necessary, whenever the question of closing the doors shall be raised,
- to inquire into the circumstances of the case, in order to ascertain
- whether any of them are of such a nature as to make a public trial
- dangerous to good morals or to good order. And he continues thus:
-
- “In fact, from the point of view of the charge here preferred, whereas
- the only document” ...
-
- But the judge abruptly stops him, and says in an imperious tone:
-
- “I remind the counsel of my pressing invitation to make no reference
- to any document here involved.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I have the floor to read my motion formulating my
- opinion regarding closed doors. Under these circumstances, and in my
- remarks in support of my motion, I shall divulge no documents, but it
- seems to me necessary to point out” ...
-
- The Judge.--“I do not think that it is necessary to point out a
- single document. Otherwise, the demand of the representative of the
- government would be entirely illusory.”
-
- But M. Demange insists:
-
- “I offer a motion. I ask the council to examine certain documents. I
- reveal nothing of the contents of these documents. I confine myself to
- my right to specify the facts and circumstances concerning which the
- members of the council must be satisfied before deciding to close the
- doors. You will see that I shall reveal nothing.”
-
- And he resumes: “Whereas the only document” ...
-
- The Judge.--“I cannot allow you to continue thus. You cannot speak of
- the only document.”
-
- M. Brisset, the representative of the government.--“On a question of
- closing the doors the defence can offer observations only. It is not
- allowed to offer motions.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I had asked to be given a record of the refusal to allow
- me to offer a motion.”
-
- The Judge.--“I give you the record. You can offer your observations,
- and say what you like, but you must not touch the substance of the
- question.”
-
- M. Demange.--“How can I demonstrate that publicity is not dangerous,
- if I cannot refer to the material proofs?”
-
- The Judge.--“You have no right to do so.”
-
- M. Demange.--“But the interest of the defence requires me to develop
- my motion.”
-
-“Gentlemen, when I read that for the first time, I did not know that I
-was reading a phrase of which we should hear an echo in this court-room.
-
- M. Brisset.--“There are other interests at stake in this trial than
- those of the defence and of the prosecution. Moreover, the judge has
- the file of documents. He will tell these gentlemen of what they
- consist.”
-
- M. Demange.--“True, the presiding judge knows these documents, and I
- regret that all the members of the council are not familiar with them.
- I desire to show that there is no matter of fact here to furnish a
- sufficient ground for closed doors.”
-
- The Judge.--“There is a decree of the court of appeals in 1883 which
- declares that closed doors may be ordered without consultation of the
- accused, if higher interests require it. Therefore I do not wish you
- to touch upon the substance of the issue.”
-
- M. Demange.--“Yes or no, is my motion accepted?”
-
- M. Brisset.--“File your motion without reading it.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I ask for a record of the filing of my motion, and of
- the refusal to allow me to read it.”
-
- M. Brisset.--“But you have been doing that for the last half-hour.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I have examined only the question of right.”
-
- The Judge.--“That is sufficient.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I have read only a part.”
-
- M. Brisset.--“It is the principal part.”
-
- M. Demange.--“How do you know, since I have not read the whole? My
- motion is filed. Now I have a right to speak in support of it. I offer
- two observations.”
-
- And M. Demange proceeds to maintain that, if it is true that the court
- of appeals has decided that a decree is not nullified by the simple
- fact that the accused was not consulted concerning the question of
- closing the doors, it is no less true that the accused must be heard
- when, either in person or through his counsel, he asks to offer
- observations or motions. M. Demange quotes three decrees in support of
- this view.
-
- “You are,” he adds, “the sole judges of the question of closing the
- doors. You decide according to your conscience, from an examination of
- the facts and documents.”
-
- The Judge.--“You must not speak of the documents.”
-
- M. Demange.--“A decree has declared that the court must consider the
- circumstances of the case.”
-
- The Judge.--“That is what I deny, for then your argument begins.”
-
- M. Demange.--“No, _Monsieur le Président_: I have a right to say that
- in every case there are moral and material elements. Here I must put
- them in evidence. I say that the moral elements, like the previous
- conduct of the accused and his motives, cannot concern order.”
-
- The Judge.--“You are now making an argument.”
-
- M. Demange.--“So far as the material elements are concerned, order is
- not endangered, if I ask the counsel to refer to the documents which
- I simply indicate. The report contains the official record of the
- document” ...
-
- The Judge.--“There I stop you. Otherwise the demand for the closing of
- the doors becomes illusory.”
-
- M. Brisset.--“These are the tactics of the defence.”
-
- The Judge.--“In view of the demand of the defence, the council will
- retire for deliberation.”
-
- M. Demange.--“One word more. If we ask publicity, let it be well
- understood that we do not do so from any belief that your decision
- will be governed by publicity. We know that you will decide according
- to your conscience, and that your impartiality will not be affected by
- a closing of the doors. But no one will contradict me, if I declare
- that for the last seven weeks the honor of an officer of the French
- army has been exposed to all sorts of rumors.”
-
- At these words the presiding judge rises abruptly and says:
-
- “By virtue of my discretionary power, I order that the council now
- retire.”
-
- M. Demange.--“I ask a record of the interruption to which my remarks
- are thus subjected.”
-
- “Yes, I give you the record,” said the judge, as he withdrew.
-
- And the council retired amid much excitement.
-
-“You see, gentlemen, that everything was done to make the darkness
-complete. I do not say that the members of the council of war are to
-be suspected of bad faith. I do not say that, knowing Dreyfus to be
-innocent, they were determined to convict him at any rate. But I do say
-that, having entered upon a certain path, a little lightly and almost
-unconsciously, these men of good faith worked upon themselves by a
-phenomenon of auto-suggestion which it is very easy to understand. In
-this respect nothing is more characteristic than the exhibition that M.
-Bertillon made of himself here. So convinced that he had become as deaf
-as a stone to the truth, he said: ‘Though I should be shown a hundred
-officers in the French army who could have written the _bordereau_, I
-would declare nevertheless that Dreyfus wrote it, because I have the
-proof.’
-
-“I add, gentlemen, that it was with the best faith in the world that
-Colonel Maurel, who presided over the council of war, exhibited the
-brutality and rudeness of which I have just given you the proof,
-unaware that he was thus rushing into error perhaps, and at any rate
-into the illegality that was to come.
-
-“Such, gentlemen, was the position of the Dreyfus case at the opening
-of the trial before the council of war. Do not think that the trial
-added anything to the charges. The minister of war, speaking from the
-tribune of the chamber, has referred to the fact that twenty-seven
-officers were called as witnesses. In the first place, it is to be
-noted that these twenty-seven officers included witnesses in favor of
-Dreyfus as well as witnesses against him. But, for or against, it is
-now plain that their evidence amounted to nothing. If there existed any
-serious facts regarding this matter of spying; if there existed between
-Dreyfus and any foreigner designated by name, between Dreyfus and
-specified spying agencies, between Dreyfus and definite international
-agencies, suspicious and intimate relations; if there had been any
-suspicious journeys or any guilty connections,--they would have been
-proclaimed before this. Perhaps they would not have been spoken of to
-M. Trarieux or to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and, when the latter went to
-see his old friend General Billot, perhaps his old friend would not
-have taken him into his confidence. But it would have been printed
-baldly in ‘Le Jour,’ in ‘L’Echo de Paris,’ in ‘L’Eclair,’ which are the
-recipients of the confidential declarations of the staff. And, if they
-had not done that, they certainly would have proclaimed them here; and
-General de Pellieux, if he had been in possession of serious proofs
-of an earlier date than that of the conviction, would not have been
-reduced to the introduction into this trial of pretended proofs of a
-later date, of no more significance than the others.
-
-“Such, then, was the position of the prosecution at the beginning
-of the trial before the council of war. And, before approaching the
-capital fact that led to the condemnation,--I mean the communication
-to the council of one or more secret documents,--I desire to say a
-word of a certain method that has been employed on several occasions
-during the last few months to close the mouths of those who champion
-Dreyfus’s cause. I refer to the confessions said to have been made
-by him to Captain Lebrun-Renault, on the day of his degradation. If
-you had been allowed to hear testimony on this matter, you would
-know what these confessions amount to. You would have seen Captain
-Lebrun-Renault at this bar. If he had been the first witness to be
-heard on this point, perhaps they would have allowed him to say that
-he had received confessions; after which they would have closed the
-mouths of any witnesses that might have come to contradict him, on
-the ground that they were talking of the Dreyfus case, and we should
-have been prohibited from asking any questions. He did not come, but
-be sure that, if he had come, he would have told a story of pretended
-confessions. Only, if I had been allowed to question him, I should have
-asked: ‘At what date did you record these confessions?’ And, if I am
-not greatly mistaken, he would have answered me that he recorded them
-at a very recent date,--November, 1897. Then I would have answered him,
-gentlemen, by a succession of witnesses. We should have seen at this
-bar M. Clisson, who, in ‘Le Figaro,’ on the day after the degradation,
-told a story in which, though he had received the confidences of M.
-Lebrun-Renault, he did not say a word of any confession. His story
-would have been confirmed by M. Dumont and M. Fontbrune; and finally
-we should have called to the stand various other persons, notably the
-baron de Vaux and Mme. Chapelon. I speak of Mme. Chapelon, because
-in her case no sort of doubt is possible. She gave an interview to
-‘L’Aurore,’ which appeared in that journal on January 25, 1898. That
-interview concludes thus:
-
- “Do you assert that Captain Lebrun-Renault has always declared that
- ex-Captain Dreyfus made him no confession?”
-
- “I assert it on my honor.”
-
- And solemnly Mme. Chapelon added, as we took our departure: ‘I swear
- it.’
-
-“Would Mme. Chapelon have come here to maintain her declaration under
-oath? There is reason to doubt it, since she afterward went to the
-office of ‘L’Aurore’ to declare that she was anxious, that threats had
-been made to her, and that, yielding to these threats, she would not
-testify. Here, indeed, is the account given by M. Philippe Dubois,
-which I read from ‘Le Temps’ of February 12, 1898.
-
- M. Dubois was summoned regarding the pretended confessions of Dreyfus.
- The judge having refused to put to Major Forzinetti the question
- relating to the confessions, M. Labori abandoned the hearing of all
- the witnesses who were to testify on this point. M. Dubois says that
- he desired to tell the court that a certain Mme. Chapelon, whose
- husband was intimately connected with M. Lebrun-Renault, had declared
- to one of his collaborators on ‘L’Aurore’ that, not once only, but a
- hundred times, Captain Lebrun-Renault had said to his associates that
- he never had received any important confidence from the ex-captain.
- “L’Aurore” having reproduced these declarations, M. Dubois received
- a visit from Mme. Chapelon, who expressed a fear that she might lose
- her situation, and that her son might not obtain the scholarship
- at Chaptal which he was seeking. Mme. Chapelon was taken into the
- office of M. Clemenceau. In his presence and in the presence of M.
- Gohier, she confirmed the remarks that had been attributed to her by
- “L’Aurore,” and again expressed her fears, adding that, to save her
- situation, she would refuse to speak before the assize court.
-
-“If Mme. Chapelon had not come, we should have heard MM. Dubois and
-Gohier, in whose presence she made her declaration. Since then,
-an incident has occurred between Major Forzinetti and Captain
-Lebrun-Renault, of which you undoubtedly know through the newspapers,
-and which seems to me sufficiently serious to make it indispensable
-that I recall it to you. The story is told in ‘Le Temps’ of February
-12, 1898, in the following language:
-
- M. Dubois, one of the editors of “L’Aurore,” who was summoned as a
- witness in the Zola trial, relates an incident that occurred yesterday
- afternoon in the witnesses’ corridor between Major Forzinetti and
- Captain Lebrun-Renault. “During the last recess,” says M. Dubois,
- “Captain Lebrun-Renault was walking up and down the room, when, in my
- presence, Major Forzinetti approached him and said:
-
- ‘A newspaper pretends that you have declared to a deputy, whose
- name I do not remember, that you have never said anything regarding
- Dreyfus. Now, you know very well that, when, six months ago, I asked
- you a precise question, you told me that Dreyfus had never made any
- confession to you.’
-
- “Visibly embarrassed, Captain Lebrun-Renault sought to evade the
- question, but Major Forzinetti followed him up.
-
- “‘Come, let me refresh your memory. You even added that you had been
- very much annoyed by this matter, and that, in consequence of the
- newspaper stories, you had been summoned before the minister of war,
- and then before the president of the republic.’
-
- “As Captain Lebrun-Renault still did not answer, but tried to escape,
- Major Forzinetti seized his cloak, and shouted:
-
- “‘If you used the language that is attributed to you, you are an
- infamous liar.’
-
- “The witnesses of this scene intervened. General Gonse, who was
- present, said to M. Forzinetti:
-
- “‘In these things we get too much excited. Come, Major, calm yourself.’
-
- “And that was all. Captain Lebrun-Renault went into the room assigned
- to the witnesses for the prosecution, and General Gonse shook hands
- with the former superintendent of Cherche-Midi.”
-
- This morning we asked Major Forzinetti ...
-
-“And it is because of this concluding paragraph that I read the extract.
-
- This morning we asked Major Forzinetti if the story in “L’Aurore”
- was true. “Absolutely,” he answered. “I add that there is no trace
- of any confession on the part of Dreyfus in the report addressed,
- according to custom, by the captain to his corps commander, concerning
- his mission as a chief of escort, entrusted to him on the day of
- degradation. If there is any report from Captain Lebrun-Renault in
- which such confessions are mentioned, it was made afterward.”
-
-“That, gentlemen, is the point that I desired to establish. If any
-confessions exist, or, rather, any record of pretended confessions,
-this record was made long afterward. But we may judge of this matter,
-not by the declarations of any witnesses whatsoever, but by the
-attitude of the government, and by that of the prime minister himself.
-You remember, gentlemen, that a few weeks ago certain members of the
-Left invited the government to publish these confessions. Whereupon the
-government published this singular note, officially communicated to the
-newspapers.
-
- Several journals ask the minister of war to publish the declarations
- made to Captain Lebrun-Renault by Dreyfus on the day of the execution
- of the sentence of the council of war. Were the government to publish
- these, it would call in question, and seem to throw doubt upon,
- the authority of the thing judged. We are in a position to know,
- moreover, that the government thinks it has no right to make such a
- communication, for reasons analogous to those which determined the
- council of 1894 to order closed doors.
-
-“This note, gentlemen, was followed by an interpellation. M. Godefroy
-Cavaignac insisted that the government should communicate the document,
-and the attitude taken by the president is very interesting. Answering
-M. Cavaignac, M. Méline said:
-
- We are asked the reasons why the government thinks that it may not
- publish the declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault, received on the day
- of the execution of the Dreyfus trial. I admit--and everyone knows
- it--that there is such a declaration. It seems to me that the note of
- L’Agence Havas, concerning which M. Cavaignac questions me, said so
- with sufficient clearness. The first reason why the government thinks
- that it should not repeat this declaration from the tribune is that
- the chamber, the parliament, the government, have so far steadily
- refused--and rightly, in my view--to discuss the matter. From the
- first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial nature ...
-
-“And when an affair is of a judicial nature, you know the pretence that
-they make is that it is of a political nature, and that considerations
-of national defence do not allow the bringing out of the light.
-
- From the first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial
- nature, and must preserve this character; that the public powers, in
- handing it over to parliamentary discussion, would completely change
- its nature, and effect a veritable confusion of powers. Yet to such a
- discussion M. Cavaignac invites us today. He has proved it by trying
- to enter into the substance of the matter, and by reading certain
- pamphlets relating to the case. It is not to be doubted that, if the
- declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault were read from the tribune, it
- would be discussed, for, everything is discussed in this case. The
- discussion once opened, you could not stop it, and we should soon
- be involved in a debate concerning the question of revision. The
- tendency would be to encourage the belief that, without this document,
- the verdict could not stand. Now we have always proclaimed,--and we
- repeat it,--that the verdict is sufficient unto itself. It is the
- legal truth. Nobody has a right to discuss it. This said, I give
- the last reasons, which are but supplementary to the others, for
- they are not needed. We consider that the publication would involve
- serious embarrassments, and the same reasons that determined the
- judges to order closed doors forbid us to publish this document, the
- significance of which, however, I do not wish to exaggerate.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, I ask you if we can be content with such reasons.
-What is, then, this excessive respect for form? The thing judged, the
-thing judged, even illegally judged? Would they thus appeal to form,
-if, by a word, by a decisive document, they could close the mouths
-of those whom they accuse of agitating the public by a pernicious
-campaign? The government, gentlemen, is not bound to respect the thing
-judged. It is its duty, when it can, to quiet the public conscience.
-Then, if M. Lebrun-Renault’s declaration has any value, what is the
-meaning of the government’s reserve? The truth is that it has no value,
-and I shall tell you why.
-
-“I do not look at the matter solely from the standpoint of the
-evidence that M. Lebrun-Renault would have given, and of the
-contradictions with which we should have met him. I take the ground
-that the attitude of Dreyfus throughout is a protest against these
-pretended confessions. And here pardon me for reading once more. My
-longest quotations come in this first part of the argument; and, when
-we shall have finished with them, we shall go on faster; but they are
-indispensable to enable you to travel this long road, step by step, as
-it has been travelled by all who have arrived at our opinion.
-
-“There is a scene, gentlemen, which it is necessary for you to
-review,--the degradation. I know none of more grandeur, none that,
-from a moral point of view, could have greater influence in a trial
-like this. Again from ‘L’Autorité’ I borrow the story,--a journal that
-entertains a hostility towards Dreyfus that amounts to hatred. I might
-read you also ‘La Libre Parole’s’ version; it is almost the same thing.
-If you listen as judges, you will see how things can be distorted by
-prejudice and passion. You will see how this man’s proclamations of
-his innocence, which tell me that he is innocent, are received as
-indications of cynicism, and are met by a clamor of wrath and hatred.
-I want you to see that, gentlemen; and do not forget that I read the
-story as told by an enemy.
-
- The School clock strikes the first stroke of the hour of nine. General
- Darras lifts his sword and utters the command, repeated from company
- to company: “Carry arms!”
-
- The troops execute the movement. Absolute silence follows. Hearts
- cease to beat, and all eyes are directed toward the right-hand corner
- of the square, where Dreyfus has been confined in a small building.
- Soon a little group appears. It consists of Alfred Dreyfus, surrounded
- by four artillerymen, accompanied by a lieutenant of the republican
- guard. Between the forms of the artillerymen may be seen very clearly
- the gilt stripes and glittering sword of the captain, and one may
- distinguish at a distance the black sword-knot at the hilt of the
- sword. Dreyfus walks with a firm step.
-
- “See how erect the scoundrel is,” they say.
-
- The group starts toward General Darras, in front of whom is the clerk
- of the council of war, M. Vallecalle. A clamor goes up from the crowd.
-
- But the group stops. Again there is silence, this time tragic. The
- cannoneers accompanying Dreyfus step back a little; the condemned man
- appears, detached from the group. The clerk salutes the general in
- military fashion, and, turning to Dreyfus, reads in a very distinct
- voice the sentence condemning him to exile and imprisonment in a
- fortified spot, and to military degradation. Then the clerk turns to
- the general again, and makes the military salute. Dreyfus has listened
- in silence. Then is heard the voice of General Darras, and, although
- there is a touch of emotion in it, this phrase is distinctly heard:
-
- “Dreyfus, you are unworthy to bear arms. In the name of the French
- people, we degrade you.”
-
- Then Dreyfus is seen to raise both his arms, and, holding his head
- high, cry in a loud voice, in which there is not the slightest trace
- of tremor:
-
- “I am innocent. I swear that I am innocent. Long live France!”
-
- “Death to him!” is the immense shout that goes up from the crowd.
- But immediately the noise subsides. The adjutant entrusted with the
- sad mission of taking off his stripes has laid hand upon Dreyfus,
- and already the first stripes, which had been loosened in advance,
- have been torn off by him and thrown upon the ground. Again Dreyfus
- protests against his condemnation, and his cries reach the crowd very
- distinctly.
-
- “On the head of my wife and the heads of my children I swear that I am
- innocent. I swear it. Long live France!”
-
- Meanwhile the adjutant has very swiftly torn the bands from his cap,
- the stripes from his sleeves, the buttons from his dolman, the numbers
- from his collar, and from his pantaloons the red band which the
- condemned man has worn since he entered the Polytechnic school. There
- remains the sword. The adjutant draws it, and breaks it across his
- knee. A snapping sound, and the two pieces lie with the rest upon the
- ground. Then the sword-belt is detached, and the scabbard falls in its
- turn.
-
- It is finished. These seconds have seemed a century. Never was there
- an impression of acuter anguish. And again, clear, without sign
- of emotion, the voice of the condemned man rises: “You degrade an
- innocent man.”
-
- Now he has to pass before his former comrades and subordinates. For
- any other it would have been a frightful torture.
-
-“You are listening to his enemies, gentlemen of the jury.
-
- Dreyfus, however, does not seem embarrassed. He strides over what
- were the insignia of his office, which two _gendarmes_ will presently
- pick up, and places himself before the four cannoneers, who lead him
- before General Darras. The little group, with the two officers of the
- republican guard at the head, starts toward the band placed before
- the prison vehicle, and begins to march along the line of troops, at
- a distance of about a yard. Still Dreyfus walks with head erect. The
- public shout “Death to him!” Soon he nears the railing; the crowd has
- a better view of him; the shouts increase. Thousands of lungs call for
- the death of the wretch, who shouts again: “I am innocent. Long live
- France!” The crowd does not understand, but it has seen Dreyfus turn
- toward it and shout. A storm of hisses answers him; then a clamor that
- traverses the vast court-yard like a tempest. “Death to him! Death to
- him!” And outside there is a terrible swaying of the dark mass, and
- the agents have the greatest difficulty in preventing the people from
- rushing upon the Military School and taking the place by storm, in
- order to do swifter and more rational justice to the infamy of Dreyfus.
-
- Dreyfus continues his march. He reaches the group of journalists.
-
- “You will say to entire France,” he says, “that I am innocent.”
-
- “Silence, wretch!” answer some, while others shout: “Coward! Traitor!
- Judas!”
-
- Under the insult the abject personage straightens up. He casts at us a
- glance of ferocious hatred.
-
- “You have no right to insult me.”
-
- A clear voice comes from the group, answering:
-
- “You know well that you are not innocent.”
-
- “Long live France! Dirty Jew!” they shout again, and Dreyfus goes on
- his way.
-
- His garments have a pitiful look. In place of the stripes hang long
- bits of thread, and the cap has lost its shape. Dreyfus straightens
- up again, but he has now passed only half the line of troops, and it
- is evident that the continual shouts of the crowd and the various
- incidents of the parade are beginning to tell upon him. Though the
- head of the wretch is turned insolently toward the troops, whom he
- seems to defy, his legs are beginning to weaken, and his gait seems
- heavier. The group makes slow progress. Now it passes before the
- “Blues.” The tour of the square is finished. Dreyfus is handed over
- to the two _gendarmes_ who picked up his stripes and the remnants of
- his sword. They put him in the prison vehicle. The coachman whips up
- his horses and the wagon starts off, surrounded by a detachment of
- republican guards, preceded by two with drawn revolvers. The parade
- has lasted just ten minutes.
-
- After the parade Dreyfus was taken to the anthropometric department.
- The operation of measuring lasted another ten minutes. From beginning
- to end the condemned man was perfectly calm, and maintained an
- absolute silence. Then several photographs were taken, after which he
- was returned to his cell, where he again protested his innocence.
-
-“Such, gentlemen, was the attitude of Dreyfus. You are to judge of it
-for yourselves. It is tragic to reread such a recital after an interval
-of three years, and under the present dramatic circumstances, but it
-was necessary for you to hear it. And after the degradation? After
-and before, rather? Let me read you the letters that he wrote to the
-minister of war and to his counsel.
-
- _Monsieur le Ministre_:
-
- I have received by your orders the visit of Major du Paty de Clam, to
- whom I have again declared that I am innocent, and have never been
- guilty of the slightest imprudence. I am condemned. I have no pardon
- to ask. But, in the name of my honor, which, I hope, will one day be
- restored, it is my duty to beg you to continue your investigations.
- After I am gone, let the search go on. That is the only favor that I
- ask.
-
-“And here is the letter that he wrote to M. Demange on the eve of his
-degradation:
-
-  JANUARY 3, 1895.
-
-  _Dear Master_:
-
- I have just been notified that tomorrow I must undergo the most
- terrible affront that can be administered to a soldier. I was
- expecting it; I had prepared myself for it; yet the blow is terrible.
- In spite of everything, I hoped up to the last moment that some
- providential chance would lead to the discovery of the person really
- guilty. I shall march to this frightful torture worse than death,
- with head high, without blushing. To say that my heart will not be
- frightfully tortured when they tear from me the insignia of the honor
- that I have gained by the sweat of my brow would be to lie. I would
- have preferred death a thousand times. But you dear master, have
- pointed out to me my duty, and I cannot fail in it, whatever the
- tortures that await me. You have taught me to hope. You have persuaded
- me that an innocent man cannot remain forever condemned. You have
- given me faith. Thank you again, dear master, for all that you have
- done for an innocent man.
-
- Tomorrow I shall be transferred to La Santé. My happiness would be
- great if you could come there to give me the consolation of your warm
- and eloquent voice, and revive my broken heart. I rely always on you,
- and on all my family, to unravel this frightful mystery. Wherever I
- go, your memory will follow me. It will be the star from which I shall
- expect my happiness,--that is, my full and entire rehabilitation.
- Accept, dear master, the expression of my respectful sympathy.
-
-  A. DREYFUS.
-
- P. S.--I just learn that the degradation will not take place until
- Saturday. I send this letter just the same.
-
-“And then this second letter, written also to M. Demange, a few hours
-after the degradation:
-
-  PRISON DE LA SANTÉ, SATURDAY.
-
-  _Dear Master_:
-
- I have kept the promise that I had made you. An innocent man, I
- have faced the most frightful martyrdom that can be inflicted upon
- a soldier. I have felt the contempt of the crowd around me. I have
- suffered the most terrible torture imaginable. How much happier I
- should have been in the grave! There all would have been over; nothing
- would have reached my ears; there would have been perfect calmness,
- and all my sufferings would have been forgotten.
-
- But, alas! duty forbade, as you so clearly showed me. I am forced to
- live, forced to undergo martyrdom for long weeks yet, in order to
- arrive at a discovery of the truth, at the rehabilitation of my name.
- Alas! when will it all be over? When shall I be happy again? I rely
- on you, dear master. I tremble yet at the thought of all that I have
- endured today, of all the sufferings that still await me. Sustain me,
- dear master, with your warm and eloquent words. Bring this martyrdom
- to an end. Let them send me as soon as possible to my place of exile,
- where I shall wait patiently, in company with my wife.
-
-“You see, gentlemen, that he hoped for the company of his wife.
-
- Let the light be shed on this mournful affair, and let my honor be
- restored. For the present, that is the only favor that I ask. If
- doubts are entertained, if any believe in my innocence, I ask but one
- thing,--the society of my wife; then I will wait till all who love me
- have found a solution of this dreadful mystery. But let it be done as
- quickly as possible, for my strength is nearing its end. It is really
- too tragic, too cruel, to be innocent, and yet to be convicted of a
- crime so terrible.
-
- Pardon this disconnected style. In my physical and moral depression,
- I am not in full possession of my ideas. My heart has bled too much
- today. For God’s sake, then, dear master, let my unmerited torture be
- abridged. Meantime you will seek, and it is my firm conviction that
- you will find. Believe me always your devoted and unfortunate
-
-  A. DREYFUS.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, for all men who have hearts, these letters have
-greater weight than all the declarations of a M. Lebrun-Renault.
-
-“There is in the law an article of which there has been no mention
-here,--Article 377 of the code of criminal examination. It provides
-that in capital cases (and is not this of the nature of a capital case,
-when they condemn a man to an exile so absolute that his wife cannot
-even see his handwriting?)--it provides that those who are condemned to
-death can have until the last moment to make confession. The article
-says. ‘If the condemned man wishes to make a declaration, it shall
-be received by one of the judges at the place of execution, in the
-presence of a clerk.’
-
-“Well, why were not such forms observed, if the confessions were to
-have a value?”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, you know that this article applies only to
-those who are condemned to death.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Agreed, _Monsieur le Président_. I have not finished, and
-I am glad of your interruption, for you will see that I have an answer.
-It is certain, at any rate, that the law has made such a provision in
-capital cases, because people condemned to death are the only ones
-who cannot come back. As for others, their confessions cannot be used
-against them, unless they have been submitted to them and signed. To
-these the question can always be put: ‘Do you admit that you have made
-confessions?’ Put this question to Dreyfus, and you will see what reply
-he will make. He will be asked this question during the revision that
-is sure to come, and we shall hear his answer.
-
-“There has been no case, gentlemen, where greater efforts were made
-to obtain confessions from an accused man,--a new proof that they
-had no evidence against him, for, when evidence is overwhelming,
-confessions are not solicited. But, when the evidence against a man
-is made up of things as ridiculous as the scene of the dictation
-from the _bordereau_, they will go to the point of fraud to extract
-a confession. I say that, if they had had the good fortune to obtain
-serious confessions, they would not have failed to get the prisoner’s
-signature thereto. I have in my hands some fragments of the examination
-to which Dreyfus was submitted at the last hour before the prosecution.
-Well, gentlemen, listen; and listen also any jurists, any magistrates,
-who may be here. On October 29, 1894, Major du Paty de Clam appeared in
-Dreyfus’s cell, and asked him these questions.
-
- “Do you admit that what you have just written strangely resembles the
- writing of the _bordereau_?”
-
- Captain Dreyfus.--“Yes, there are similarities in the details; but,
- as a whole, there is no resemblance. I declare that I never wrote it.
- I now understand very well how this document could have given rise to
- the suspicions of which I am the object. But on this subject I should
- like to be heard by the minister of war.”
-
-“On October 30 Major du Paty de Clam appeared again.
-
- “You asked, during your last examination, to be heard by the minister
- of war, in order that you might propose to him that you be sent away
- for a year, no matter where, under the eye of the police, while a
- thorough investigation should be carried on in the war department.”
-
- Captain Dreyfus.--“Yes.”
-
- Major du Paty de Clam.--“I show you the reports of experts who declare
- that the incriminated document is in your hand. What have you to
- answer?”
-
- Captain Dreyfus.--“I again declare that I never wrote it.”
-
-“And now, gentlemen, pay all your attention to this:
-
- Major du Paty de Clam.--“The minister is ready to receive you, if you
- have anything to say in the direction of confession.”
-
- Captain Dreyfus.--“I tell you again that I am innocent, and that I
- have nothing to confess. It is impossible for me within the four walls
- of a prison to arrive at an explanation of this frightful enigma. But,
- if I may be allowed to work with the police, all my fortune and all my
- life shall be devoted to the unravelling of this mystery.”
-
-“Well, that is what they did to get confessions. I say boldly that
-they went to the point of fraud, for they said to this man, after
-reminding him of his last words: ‘You ask to be sent away under police
-supervision; you wish to explain yourself to the minister; he will
-receive you if you confess.’ That meant: ‘Perhaps he will comply
-with your request.’ It was a trap. Dreyfus met it by repeating his
-declaration: ‘I will not confess; I have nothing to confess, though I
-should not see the minister.’ And this is the man against whom they
-would produce today confessions said to have been received by Captain
-Lebrun-Renault,--confessions whose exactness I dispute. The president
-of the cabinet is a prudent man, when he says that these confessions,
-if published, would be debated, because everything is debated in this
-affair,--and, I add, because everything in this affair is debatable. Of
-such material is the edifice constructed that we have to bear on our
-shoulders,--an edifice of hypocrisy on the part of those highest in
-place, who are the most guilty. Let them remember that, in history, the
-most humiliating name on the pillory is that of Pontius Pilate.”
-
-The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the conclusion of M.
-Labori’s argument was postponed until the following day.
-
-
-
-
-FIFTEENTH DAY--FEBRUARY 23.
-
-The Judge.--“M. Labori, you have the floor to continue your argument.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I have shown you the value of all the lies scattered
-through the trial. I have endeavored also to establish the value
-of the famous secret document. Before entering into the heart of
-the discussion, it remains for me to speak to you of the pretended
-proofs--absolute this time, they declare--of which General de
-Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre have spoken at one of the later
-sessions. No more importance attaches to this proof than to the rest,
-as I shall prove to you irrefutably, though I have not the document
-before my eyes. I would not have complained of General de Pellieux’s
-sensational declaration, if I had been permitted, not to answer him,
-but to question the witnesses. But I was not permitted, and that is
-the saddest incident of this trial,--an incident which threatened
-for a moment to turn aside the course of the trial by a species of
-moral violence practised upon the defence. We asked ourselves what we
-should do, and then we said to ourselves that, whatever might happen,
-it was necessary to go to the end,--sadly, but courageously. If we
-could have asked General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre to
-explain themselves more in detail, the proof of the emptiness of their
-statements would have been made on the spot. We should have asked the
-original of the pretended documents. Now I am going to prove to you
-that, while one of the two documents, the visiting-card, is authentic,
-the note that accompanied it is a forgery.
-
-“What are these two documents? There is, first, the visiting-card of
-a military _attaché_;--I will name him, if I am obliged to;--it is
-authentic. It makes a _rendezvous_ with another military _attaché_.
-Only, at the bottom of this visiting-card, there is a borrowed
-name,--no matter what; call it Claude, if you like,--whereas the
-visiting-card is that of M. de X----. We will say that the _rendezvous_
-is signed ‘Claude’; then, beside this card, there is a note, which
-says: ‘We have nothing in common with this Jew.’ Or perhaps this:
-‘There is to be an interpellation concerning the Dreyfus case. It
-is always understood, of course, that, even _vis-à-vis_ of our
-governments, we have never had dealings with this Jewry,’ signed
-‘Claude,’ like the card.
-
-“It is in a counterfeited handwriting, a note not authenticated in any
-way, the card being a puerile device for lending an appearance of truth
-to the note. But, gentlemen, I ask you: Is it likely, is it possible,
-that two military _attachés_ would feel any necessity of recommending
-to each other the policy of silence concerning this matter? Why? Who
-is going to question them? To whom must they render accounts? Have
-not their governments known the whole truth about this matter ever
-since 1894? _A propos_ of what do they thus write in 1896? And why add
-to this anonymous note a card, and an authentic card, upon which an
-insignificant _rendezvous_ is made? It was not difficult to procure
-such a card. You can pick up the card of a military _attaché_--or of an
-ambassador, for that matter--anywhere. Would it not have been an easy
-matter for a police spy to procure it? Among the police spies there
-are sometimes sharpers. Policemen, you know, are not the finest flower
-of humanity. I refer, not to their chiefs, but to the subordinates
-who necessarily make a trade of treason. Do you not suppose that,
-when a public trouble like this comes up, they are too glad to find
-an opportunity of making money out of anybody? There are police
-spies--and, if the department of foreign affairs wants more complete
-information, I will furnish it,--there are police spies who imitate,
-who forge, the handwriting of military _attachés_. What has the forger
-done? He has placed upon the card of the military _attaché_ the false
-signature ‘Claude,’ and then, imitating the writing or not imitating
-it, he has affixed the name ‘Claude’ to the anonymous paper. That,
-gentlemen, is the whole swindle.
-
-“Is it likely that military _attachés_ would write on such a question,
-after the famous history of the _bordereau_, which is said to have been
-found in a waste-basket in 1894? Whether it was so found or not, it was
-a warning to military _attachés_.
-
-“And at what moment is this said to have been written? In November,
-1896, on the return from the grand manœuvres which they attended,--a
-time, when, as the entire diplomatic world knows, the three military
-_attachés_ of the Triple Alliance were seeing one another every day, to
-come to a common agreement upon the reports to be sent by each to his
-government.
-
-“Was not Colonel Picquart,--from whom I do not get these facts--was not
-Colonel Picquart justified, then, in saying at this bar, not that his
-superiors had committed a forgery, not that they had dishonestly made
-use of a forgery, but that the document to which they appealed in good
-faith is a forgery?
-
-“If these documents had had any value, do you believe that Colonel
-Picquart would have been sent on a mission in November, 1896? Do you
-believe that the minister of war and the president of the cabinet would
-have been silent regarding them, when the country was so profoundly
-stirred? If they had done so, gentlemen, and if the document was a
-serious one, they would have been the greatest of wretches. They would
-have allowed the anguish to continue, when they might have put a stop
-to it. They did not do so, because the document was not serious;
-because, shrewd political men as they are, accustomed to deal with
-forgeries and intrigues, they gauged its significance at once. This
-brave General de Pellieux has acted in good faith in the matter, but he
-was mistaken.
-
-“The attorney-general forces us to plead here, in order to secure
-our acquittal, that the verdict of the council of war was rendered
-in obedience to orders. I will come to that. But right here let me
-ask what General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre, with the
-countenance of the court, and with the best faith in the world, have
-asked of you here, if not a verdict in obedience to orders? What was
-their mission in this court, if not to repeat the _coup_ of the secret
-document? I use the familiar word, because there is none that better
-expresses my thought.
-
-“And now, gentlemen, that the ground is cleared, let us come back to
-the basis of the accusation, the _bordereau_, the letter of 1894. In
-the first place, I must point out that the charge was incomplete,
-because the origin of the document was not established. You have heard
-all the experts say that expert examination in handwriting signifies
-nothing in itself; it is to be considered only in connection with the
-full knowledge of the facts in a given case. Well, gentlemen, what is
-more important in a trial of this character than to know the source
-of such a paper as the _bordereau_, to know where it was seized? Is
-not such knowledge indispensable, in order to enable the accused
-to establish, perhaps, that the _bordereau_, seized where it was,
-could not have emanated from him, because he had been in no sort of
-relations with the persons on whose premises it was found, and in no
-way connected with the place where it was found? A man is not to be
-confronted with a document, unless it be said to him: ‘This document
-comes from such a spot; it was addressed to such a person, with whom
-you are in relations.’ Otherwise, a terrible blunder may be committed,
-as all the experts have told you. Now listen to the report of Major
-d’Ormescheville.
-
- The basis of the accusation against Captain Dreyfus is a
- letter-missive written on onion-skin paper, not signed or dated, which
- is in the file, and which establishes the fact that confidential
- military documents have been delivered to an agent of a foreign power.
- General Gonse, sub-chief of general staff, into whose hands this
- letter came, delivered it on October 15 last to Major du Paty de Clam,
- delegated October 14, 1894, by the minister of war, as a judicial
- officer of police to conduct an examination concerning Captain
- Dreyfus. General Gonse declared to the aforesaid judicial officer of
- police that the letter had been addressed to a foreign power, and
- that it had reached his hands, but that, by the formal orders of the
- minister of war, ...
-
-“Remember that this minister of war was General Mercier.
-
- But that, by the formal orders of the minister of war, he was
- prevented from saying by what means the document had come into his
- possession.
-
-“I know what the answer will be. It will be the eternal pretext of
-national security. But how was that concerned in view of the fact that
-the doors were closed? I say to the audacious apostles of the _raison
-d’Etat_, which might have had its justification under Louis XIV or
-under Napoleon, but which has no justification today,--I answer to
-these archaic apostles of an idea henceforth destroyed: If you invoke
-the _raison d’Etat_, invoke it to the end, but do not try people. If,
-General Mercier, you were sure of the guilt of the traitor, and if
-you felt sufficient firmness of heart to assume the responsibility of
-prosecution under conditions so lamentable, it was not even necessary
-to carry out the prosecution. You should have struck this man on
-your own responsibility, ruined him definitively, plunged him into I
-know not what abyss or what dungeon, that he might never more have
-been heard of; but you should not have given us the spectacle of a
-lamentable and audacious judicial comedy.
-
-“But let us go on, gentlemen. The question, here, then, is one of
-writing, pure and simple; that is the charge. Since then, a fact of
-great importance has come to light; writing identical with that of the
-_bordereau_ has been discovered. We will not ask at this moment in
-whose hand this document has been written? The very subtle distinction
-of the experts has not escaped you. The writing of a document may be
-the writing of a certain person, and yet the document may not be of
-this person’s hand, because it may be forged or traced. There may
-be room for discussion as to whether the _bordereau_ was forged, as
-to whether it was traced, but there is no room for discussion as to
-the identity of handwritings, and the proof is that Major Esterhazy
-admitted it from the first day, even before he was denounced. And it
-is an interesting fact in this case that, on the eve of every new
-development, from whatever direction, Major Esterhazy foretold it, and,
-even before the documents were published, he announced a plot woven by
-a certain Colonel X or Y, which was intended to ruin him, and in the
-course of which would be produced a writing frightfully like his own.
-Then, gentlemen, there is no doubt. I do not say that the _bordereau_
-is of the hand of Major Esterhazy. I will come to that later. I say
-the writing of the _bordereau_, is the writing of Major Esterhazy.
-Well, confining myself to that for the moment, there is a contradiction
-between this and the conclusions of the experts in 1894. We know very
-well that, if the _bordereau_ is in a handwriting identical with that
-of Major Esterhazy, it is not the writing of Dreyfus. The hypothesis
-of a tracing by Dreyfus is inadmissible. If Dreyfus has imitated any
-handwriting, it is, M. Bertillon tells us, his own. Never has it been
-supposed that he imitated Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, if he had
-done so, it would have been with some design. And then, being accused,
-he would have denounced Major Esterhazy, or made it known, by some more
-or less ingenious method, that the writing was that of Major Esterhazy.
-Gentlemen, I am going now to make a remark which, so far as I know,
-has not been made before, and which seems to me to be of considerable
-interest. I read first from the report of the examination of 1894.
-
- Every interrogatory to which the accused was submitted before the
- judicial officer of police is full of the persistent denials and
- protests of Captain Dreyfus regarding the crime charged. At first
- Captain Dreyfus said that he seemed to recognize vaguely in the
- incriminated document the writing of an officer employed in the staff
- offices. Later he withdrew this allegation, which, moreover, was bound
- to fall of itself, in view of the complete dissimilarity between the
- writing of the officer mentioned and that of the incriminated document.
-
-“Consequently you see that it occurred to Dreyfus, crushed under the
-weight of this undecipherable enigma, to say: ‘The _bordereau_ is
-not my work, but the writing resembles certain other handwritings.’
-He designated some one. This some one was not the author of the
-_bordereau_. He did not designate Major Esterhazy. Now, if he had
-traced the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, he would have attributed to
-Major Esterhazy the authorship of the document. But he said nothing of
-the kind. Consequently, whatever may be the truth as to the hand that
-traced the _bordereau_, and as to the circumstances under which it was
-traced, one thing is certain,--that, given the handwriting of Major
-Esterhazy, the _bordereau_ cannot be in the handwriting of Dreyfus,
-and that it could not have been traced by Dreyfus, since it has never
-been pretended that Dreyfus traced any handwriting but his own. So,
-concerning the _bordereau_, I am perfectly easy. Whatever its source,
-it did not come from Dreyfus.
-
-“The council of war of 1894, which was not acquainted with Major
-Esterhazy’s handwriting, and to which it had not been submitted, did
-not have before it those elements of information that we have today.
-It had nothing before it but a simple question of handwriting; and you
-understand what I mean by those words, since I have shown you that they
-knew nothing of the _bordereau_,--that its origin had not been revealed
-to the judges. Well, never would any court have condemned a man on this
-handwriting alone.
-
-“I have among my documents some very interesting and curious ones.
-First, a treatise on handwriting by M. Bertillon. It had been my
-intention, before I realized that my argument would assume such
-proportions, to read you the whole of this treatise, but, desiring to
-spare your time, I will read only the beginning.
-
- When our criminologists are questioned regarding the way in which
- expert testimony is generally conducted in France, they either avoid
- the question, or take refuge in generalities. If you only knew, they
- say, how unimportant the matter is, and how little belief we have in
- the pretended science of the handwriting experts. This scepticism,
- however, does not prevent them from obeying the instructions of the
- law to take and follow the advice of appointed experts. Among the
- members of the bar this insufficiency of belief becomes atheism, and
- there is no end to the jokes and legends which you will hear at the
- Palace regarding the handwriting experts, who, if we may believe the
- lawyers, know less about their specialty than the first-comer. Let
- us add, moreover, that with the exception of the recent aid supplied
- by photography and the microscope, the art of the expert does not
- seem to have taken a forward step since Raveneau, the expert of the
- time of Louis XIV. Consequently it is not astonishing if public
- opinion, in spite of its proneness to allow itself to be imposed
- upon by specialists of all sorts, shares the incredulity concerning
- handwriting which has been consecrated by centuries.
-
- And yet the comparison of handwritings, considered as one of the
- elements of proof by writing,--first of proofs according to the
- code,--cannot be systematically set aside. Expert examination of
- handwriting is a decisive weapon in the hands of the defence,
- where the presumption of innocence carries with it the right of
- acquittal, but, in the hands of the prosecution, where nothing less
- than certainty will suffice, it constitutes only an indispensable
- precaution, one of those numerous verifications to which every thesis
- must be submitted.
-
-“I should like, gentlemen, to read the whole article. It appeared in
-‘La Revue Scientifique’ of December 18, 1897, and I assure you that it
-had seemed to me of great value from the standpoint of my discussion,
-before I had witnessed these confrontations of experts, which, as a
-living picture, are more powerful than any reading. I had brought also
-an article by M. des Houx,--I have told you that I would borrow weapons
-only from our enemies,--an article entitled ‘The Graphologists,’ which
-is often read in the assize court, and which sums up in a delightfully
-humorous way some of the characteristics of the experts. This article,
-too, I should have liked to read you in full, but let this amusing bit
-suffice.
-
- Once an expert was discussing before the presiding judge Bérard des
- Glasjeux the similarity in writing between an anonymous document and
- other documents introduced for comparison.
-
- “The writing of the anonymous documents,” said he, “in no way
- resembles that of the other documents, but in one corner of the paper
- there is a marginal note in pencil. This is clearly in the hand of the
- accused. There is no doubt about it.”
-
- “Then,” said the judge, “I am the forger. I am the author of the
- marginal note.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“What expert was it who said that?”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Mon Dieu_, Monsieur Attorney-General, his name is not
-given. But the anecdote is famous. My _confrère_, M. Hild, who had a
-case here some time ago, cited it as a classic, and I add that it was
-welcomed as a classic by the honorable organ of the public ministry.”
-
-The Attorney-General.--“It was one of yours. Then keep him.”
-
-M. Labori.--“One of ours? Let us say, then, that one expert is as good
-as another; that is all I ask. For my part, I have no need for any of
-these experts, and I assure you that, in a trial of this character,
-it is always a joy to provoke any remark whatever from an adversary,
-especially when it is his habit to be as sparing of his words as you
-are.
-
-“To continue, gentlemen. I say, then, that, having nothing but this
-writing to go upon, conviction was impossible, especially as there were
-two of the five experts who did not attribute the writing to Dreyfus;
-and I may add that the first expert consulted, who was no other than
-he who is considered of the highest authority in his science, M.
-Gobert, expert of the Bank of France, declared, when the _bordereau_
-was submitted to him, that it was not in the handwriting of Dreyfus,
-whereupon the accusers, instead of seeking another traitor, sought
-another expert, and found him.
-
-“Then, things presenting themselves as they did, acquittal was about to
-follow, because the members of the council of war, though susceptible
-of being influenced by the words of a superior, could not, as honest
-men, convict upon such evidence. Then, gentlemen, there intervened
-this fact, of which we have already spoken, but which now must be
-recalled and stated more precisely,--this fact which in itself alone
-would justify any wrath in a good citizen and the revolt of any
-conscience,--the fact that, outside of the trial, without the knowledge
-of the accused or his counsel, and by a violation of one of the most
-elementary and sacred rules, a document, or documents, as you please,
-was placed under the eyes of the members of the council. Supposing that
-they were not so placed,--though they were, as I shall show you,--even
-had a man’s word guaranteed the existence of such documents before the
-president of the council of war, who is bound to believe the words of
-his superior,--even such a declaration would have been enough to secure
-a conviction illegally and irregularly.
-
-“But the documents were communicated, gentlemen. The fact is
-established. Let us summarize the proofs.
-
-“In the first place, there is the article that appeared in ‘L’Eclair’
-September 15, 1896, which was reproduced everywhere and never
-contradicted. Then there was a pamphlet spread by thousands of copies,
-written by Bernard Lazare, in answer to the article, and this pamphlet
-also has never been contradicted. Several times, and especially on
-January 9, 1897, ‘L’Echo de Paris’ has spoken, not only of a secret
-document, but of a secret file of documents, concerning which it has
-given details, saying that it was called the B file, in contrast to the
-A file, or judicial file. Then there is the Ravary report, in which
-this passage occurs:
-
- One evening, when Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, on returning to Paris,
- suddenly entered M. Picquart’s office, he found M. Leblois, the
- lawyer, who paid the colonel long and frequent visits, sitting near
- the desk and searching with him the secret file. A photograph bearing
- the words ‘That scoundrel D----’ had been taken from the file and
- spread upon the desk.
-
-“The existence is official, and you understand, gentlemen, that its
-simple existence suffices, for the whole country is opposed to any
-discussion of this matter. Why? For no other reason than this,--that it
-has been told that there is a secret file. It has been told only that,
-and that has sufficed to close all mouths, eyes, and ears, so that
-nobody wishes to see or hear anything. Consequently, from the simple
-fact that the secret file is thus publicly confessed, it weighs on the
-consciences of the judges of 1894, it has weighed on the consciences of
-the judges of 1898, and here again, be it said in passing, is what we
-may call a verdict rendered in obedience to orders.
-
-“But this is not enough, gentlemen. ‘Le Siècle,’ of January 14, 1898,
-published on its first page a very long article, with all possible
-developments, as to the existence of the secret document. The
-article has not been contradicted. Better still, there has been an
-interpellation in the chamber. M. Jaurès, on January 24, 1898, quoted
-the passage that I have just read from the Ravary report, and then
-commented upon it as follows:
-
- Well, gentlemen, when such a doubt is raised, when such a question
- is put before the public conscience, I find it unworthy of all, to
- whatever party we may belong, unworthy of France herself, that this
- question should not be met by an explicit and decisive declaration. I
- ask the government: Yes or no, were the members of the council of war
- that passed upon the Dreyfus case confronted with documents tending
- to establish or confirm the guilt of the accused, which had not been
- communicated to the accused and his counsel?
-
-“Now listen, gentlemen, to the reply of M. Jules Méline, president of
-the cabinet.
-
- I answer you that we are unwilling to discuss this matter from the
- tribune, and that I am unwilling to serve your designs.
-
-“Then, a few moments later, M. Méline added:
-
- Only one word, gentlemen, to say that I have already answered those
- points in the remarks of M. Jaurès upon which it is permissible for
- the government to make answer. I refuse to follow him upon the ground
- where he has just placed himself, because the government, I repeat,
- has no right to discuss from the tribune a regularly-rendered verdict.
-
-“Is that, gentlemen, the answer of a government careful of the public
-interest, having no mysterious infamy to conceal? ‘Refuse to discuss
-the case from the tribune,’ when, to quiet the anxiety of all, and
-perhaps to close my mouth and prevent me from standing at this bar,
-it would have been enough to say: ‘No, no secret documents were
-communicated.’
-
-“I go farther, and declare that the president of the cabinet was bound
-to say this. He said, in the closing lines of his answer, that the
-verdict had been regularly rendered. Well, it is not true. It had not
-been regularly rendered. It had not been, because there had been a
-communication of secret documents. The president of the cabinet, as an
-honest man after his own fashion, was incapable of so violating the
-truth as to say that no such communication had been made.
-
-“Then, gentlemen, we have the testimony of a man respected by all, M.
-Salle, who has appeared at this bar, and whose eloquent silence has
-been completed by the declarations of M. Demange. We have the interview
-of M. Demange in ‘Le Matin,’ which he has confirmed in this court.
-And we have, finally, and above all, the answer, or the silence, as
-you prefer, of General Mercier. The truth is that General Mercier,
-interpret his act as you please, is incapable, as a loyal soldier and
-an honest man, of dodging a responsibility by a lie. In doing what he
-has done,--and I frankly reprove his conduct,--he did what he thought
-he had a right to do, and even today I have no fear that he will
-retract or contradict. But it is well understood that the proof is
-complete, that the secret document was communicated. Then, gentlemen,
-we may ask ourselves what mean all the declarations of the president
-of the cabinet, of the minister of war, of the generals, and of the
-council of war of 1898, that Dreyfus was legally and justly convicted?
-I have tried to prove to you that it is not exact to say that he was
-justly convicted. As for the statement that he was legally convicted,
-it is a lie.
-
-“And all this, gentlemen, is the work of General Mercier, for he takes
-everything upon himself. He has such confidence in his light that,
-fearing an acquittal when the council of war was about to begin its
-deliberations, he intervened with his personal authority, with his
-word and his documents,--at the very least with his word,--and thus he
-tore from the council the verdict which he may believe to be just, but
-which is none the less illegal, and consequently iniquitous. Is this,
-then, justice? And remember that the matter is especially serious, in
-view of the fact that the court was a military one. When declarations
-of the same sort are made here, I am not disturbed, because you are
-independent men. But reflect, then, what the word of a minister of war
-must mean to military judges, whatever their good faith. The superior
-pledges his word, and they take it. But what an abyss of iniquity! If,
-again, such things were to occur amid the storms of war, it would be
-a different thing. What then matters one man’s life, or a little more
-or less of justice? But these things took place in a state of peace,
-when the country was perfectly secure. Or, again, if our army were an
-army of mercenaries, soldiers only, accepting the responsibilities
-of the military trade, which in that case is only a trade, perhaps
-then I would bow. But this is a matter of the national army; a matter
-that concerns all the young men of the nation, who are liable to have
-to appear before a military tribunal; a matter that concerns your
-sons, gentlemen. [Murmurs of protest.] I should much like to know who
-interrupts.”
-
-The Judge.--“Permit me; I am forced to repeat what I have already said
-at previous sessions,--if these manifestations continue, I shall be
-forced to clear the court-room. There must be no manifestation, either
-in favor of the accused or against them.”
-
-M. Labori.--“Yes, gentlemen, your sons, innocent or guilty, are liable
-to be summoned before a military tribunal. You see that we introduce
-no venom into the debate. You see that the rights of the nation, the
-liberty of all, civilization itself, is at stake; and, if the country,
-when it shall know the truth and its full significance, does not revolt
-in indignation, I shall be unable to understand it.
-
-“That, gentlemen, is why it is necessary that those who understand
-and measure the gravity of this affair should take the floor, why
-it is necessary that all men of good will, all true liberals, those
-who believe in the innocence of Dreyfus and those who do not, those
-who know and those who do not know, should unite in a sort of sacred
-phalanx to protest in the name of eternal morality; and that is what M.
-Zola has done.
-
-“In spite of closed doors, gentlemen, and by the great mass of
-Frenchmen who could not know at what price the verdict had been
-secured, Dreyfus might have been forgotten. But there was a little
-fireside in mourning, where memory remained, and with memory hope. This
-fireside was that of the Dreyfus family, in regard to which so many
-calumnies have been spread; and, since this court refused to hear M.
-Lalance, let me read you what he has just said and published in the
-newspapers. I read from ‘Le Journal des Débats.’
-
- The Dreyfus family consists of four brothers,--Jacques, Léon, Mathieu,
- and Alfred. They are closely united,--one soul in four bodies. In 1872
- Alsatians were called upon to choose their nationality. Those who
- desired to remain Frenchmen had to make a declaration and leave the
- country. The three younger so chose, and left. The eldest, Jacques,
- who was past the age of military service, and who, moreover, had
- served during the war in the Legion of Alsace-Lorraine, did not so
- choose, and was declared a German. He sacrificed himself, in order
- to be able, without fear of expulsion, to manage the important
- manufacturing establishment which constituted the family estate. But
- he promised himself that, if he had any sons, they should all be
- Frenchmen. The German law, in fact, permits a father to take out a
- permit of emigration for a son who has reached the age of seventeen.
- This son loses his German nationality, and cannot reenter the country
- until he is forty-five years old. Jacques Dreyfus had six sons. In
- 1894 the two elder were preparing for the Polytechnic school and Saint
- Cyr. After the trial they had to go away; their career was broken.
- Two other brothers were in the Belfort school. They were driven out.
- What was the father to do, knowing that his young brother had been
- unjustly and illegally condemned? Was he to change his name, as other
- Dreyfuses have done? Should he abandon his projects, and resolve to
- have his sons serve in the German army for a year, that they might
- then reenter the paternal house, and live in a city where the family
- was respected, and where everybody pitied and esteemed it? Had he done
- that, no one would have thrown a stone at him. In 1895 and 1896 his
- third and fourth sons reached the age of seventeen. He said to them:
- ‘My children, you are now to leave your father’s house, never more
- to come back to it. Go to that country where your name is cursed and
- despised. It is your duty. Go.’ And finally, in 1897, the father left
- his house, his business, and all his friends, and went to establish
- himself at Belfort, the city of which they wanted to make a fortress.
- He demanded French naturalization for himself and his two younger sons.
-
-“There you have a document to oppose to the floods of calumny and
-falsehood. In this family there were two members whose convictions
-could not be shaken, M. Mathieu Dreyfus and Mme. Dreyfus, whose
-fidelity is perhaps the most striking evidence of the innocence of
-her husband, for she, indeed, must know the truth. Mme. Dreyfus had
-lived beside this man; she knew his daily life; she saw his attitude
-throughout the trial; she knew the absence of proof; she knew what you
-yourselves know now, gentlemen. And she had seen the perseverance and
-firmness of her husband in ascending this Calvary; his courage at the
-moment of degradation; his attitude, always the same, even up to the
-present moment. I should like to read you many of his letters, but,
-to save time, I will read only two,--almost the latest. One is not
-exactly the next to the last, but the other is the last, and I think
-it is indispensable that you should hear this cry, always the same, as
-strong as ever, in spite of the prolongation of the torture. I read you
-a letter from the Iles du Salut, dated September 4, 1897.
-
- _Dear Lucie_:
-
- I have just received the July mail. You tell me again that you are
- certain of complete light. This certainly is in my soul. It is
- inspired by the rights that every man has to ask it, when he wants but
- one thing,--the truth. As long as I shall have the strength to live
- in a situation as inhuman as it is undeserved, I shall write you to
- animate you with my indomitable will. Moreover, the late letters that
- I have written you are my moral testament, so to speak. In these I
- spoke to you first of our affection; I confessed also my physical and
- mental deterioration; but I pointed out to you no less energetically
- your duty. The grandeur of soul that we have all shown should make us
- neither weak or vainglorious. On the contrary, it should ally itself
- to a determination to go on to the end, until all France shall know
- the truth and the whole truth. To be sure, sometimes the wound bleeds
- too freely, and the heart revolts. Sometimes, exhausted as I am, I
- sink under the heavy blows, and then I am but a poor human creature in
- agony and suffering. But my unconquered soul rises again, vibrating
- with grief, energy, and implacable will, in view of that which to us
- is the most precious thing in the world, our honor and that of our
- children. And I straighten up once more to utter to all the thrilling
- appeal of a man who asks only justice in order to kindle in you all
- the ardent fire that animates my soul, and that will be extinguished
- only with my life.
-
- I live only on my fever, proud when I have passed through a long day
- of twenty-four hours. As for you, you have not to consider what they
- say or what they think. It is for you to do your duty inflexibly,
- and to insist no less inflexibly on your right, the right of justice
- and truth. If in this horrible affair there are other interests than
- ours, which we have never failed to recognize, there are also the
- imprescriptible rights of justice and truth. There is the duty of all
- to put an end to a situation so atrocious, so undeserved. Then I can
- wish for us both and for all only that this frightful, horrible, and
- unmerited martyrdom may come to an end.
-
- What can I add to express again my profound affection for you,
- for our children, for your dear parents, for all our dear brothers
- and sisters, for all who suffer through this long and frightful
- martyrdom? It is useless to tell you in detail of myself and all my
- petty matters. I do it sometimes in spite of myself, for the heart
- has irresistible revolts. Bitterness rises to the lips when one
- sees everything that makes life noble and beautiful misunderstood.
- Certainly, if it were a question only of my own person, long ago would
- I have sought in the peace of the grave forgetfulness of what I have
- seen, of what I have heard, of what I continue to see every day. I
- have continued to live in order to sustain you all with my indomitable
- will; for it was no longer a question of my life, it was a question
- of my honor, of the honor of us all, of the lives of our children. I
- have endured everything without bending, without lowering my head; I
- repress every day my feelings of revolt, calling always for the truth,
- without weariness and without pride. I wish, nevertheless, for both
- of us, my poor friend, and for all, that our efforts may soon end,
- and that the day of justice may dawn at last for all who have been so
- long awaiting it. Every time that I write to you, I find it almost
- impossible to drop my pen, not because of what I have to say to you,
- but because thus I part with you again for so long a time, living only
- in your thought, in the thought of the children, in the thought of you
- all. Nevertheless, I conclude by embracing you as well as our dear
- children, your dear parents, and all our dear brothers and sisters,
- pressing you in my arms with all my strength, and repeating to you,
- with an energy that nothing can shake and as long as I shall retain a
- breath of life: Courage! courage and determination!
-
-“In addition, I read to you some short extracts from the last letter,
-received at Paris, and dated December 25, 1897.
-
- _My dear Lucie_:
-
- More than ever I have tragic movements, in which my brain weakens.
- That is why I desire to write to you, not to speak to you of myself,
- but to give you again the counsel that I believe I owe to you. All
- through this month I have continued my numerous and warm appeals for
- you and for our children. I desire that this frightful martyrdom
- may come to an end, that we may at last emerge from the terrible
- nightmare in which we have so long been living. But what I cannot
- doubt, and what I have no right to doubt, is that all possible aid
- will be extended to you that this work of justice and reparation may
- be accomplished. In short, my darling, what I would like to say to
- you, in a supreme effort in which I wholly put aside my own person, is
- that you should maintain your right energetically, for it is frightful
- to see so many human beings suffer thus, and to think of our unhappy
- children growing up. But with this should be mingled no irritating
- question, no question of persons. I wish I could press you in my arms
- with all the strength of my love, and I beg you to embrace long and
- tenderly for me my dear and adored children, my dear parents, all my
- dear brothers and sisters, with a thousand kisses more.
-
-“And beneath are these tragic words, which I must read to you, for they
-add to the horror:
-
- Read in accordance with orders, the Chief of the Penitentiary
- Administration.
-
-“It should have been added, ‘copied in accordance with orders,’ for
-of the authenticity of these letters you can have no doubt, since
-they are copied in the hand of an employee of the administration. The
-handwriting of Dreyfus himself does not reach his wife.
-
-“I wish I could read you also, as I intended, a letter from M. Gabriel
-Monod, for it is an admirable psychological document, a testimonial of
-the respect in which the writer holds the Dreyfus family, an expert
-study of handwritings. But I must not detain you.
-
-“It is absolutely necessary, however, that I should read to you an
-article from ‘Le Jour,’ our most implacable opponent, and an article
-from the pen of M. Paul de Cassagnac, who this morning in his paper
-does not exactly shower compliments upon us. ‘Le Jour’ and ‘L’Autorité’
-were the instigators of the campaign that is now going on. The article
-from ‘Le Jour’ that I shall read to you appeared September 11, 1896,
-over the signature of Adolphe Possien.
-
- Since the Dreyfus question has come up again, and since the discussion
- now begun can end only in a series of inquiries, we desire to
- contribute our share to the search for the causes that brought about
- the arrest and conviction of the prisoner of Devil’s Island. It is
- known that the doors were closed during the trial, and that during
- the preliminary incarceration nothing of what the prisoner did or
- said transpired. Furthermore, little was known of the motives that
- determined General Mercier to order the arrest of Dreyfus. It is known
- that the ex-captain was accused of having been in relations with a
- neighboring power, and of having delivered to it documents concerning
- the national defence. But what was the nature of these documents? No
- official communication has made that known; so that at the present
- hour it seems to be rather generally believed that it was a matter of
- the general mobilization time-table. Now, that is false, just as it is
- false in the last degree that the ex-captain was questioned by General
- de Boisdeffre or by General Gonse.
-
-“I stop here to make an observation that I might have made elsewhere.
-It has been said in many places that Dreyfus denounced to the enemy the
-French officers who went on a mission to Germany. It has been said that
-he denounced Captain Degouy. Now, Captain Degouy’s brother, M. Paul
-Degouy, has come to this bar to say to me: ‘My brother is not with you
-in this matter. He is of those who believe that his superiors could
-not have taken the course that they have in the absence of striking
-proofs. Nevertheless, I authorize you to say, in my name and in the
-name of my brother, that never, and for all sorts of reasons which I
-need not develop, has Dreyfus been suspected of having denounced him.’
-I add, in passing, that there have been many other lies told as false
-as this one, and, when we shall have contradicted them all, you will
-still find, three months or three years hence, people to tell you that
-Dreyfus denounced Captain Degouy, etc.
-
- The only person who was ever in communication with Captain Dreyfus
- after his imprisonment was Major du Paty de Clam, who, after
- this, affair, was promoted to the office of lieutenant-colonel.
- The document on the strength of which Dreyfus was condemned is an
- unsigned _bordereau_, containing no information confidential in its
- significance. Furthermore, of the five experts to whom this document
- was submitted, only two, MM. Charavay and Bertillon, recognized the
- ex-officer’s handwriting, while three others, one of whom was M.
- Gobert, the expert of the Bank of France, did not recognize it.
-
-“This is an error. There were three experts who recognized it, and two
-who did not.
-
- It has been said that this document was found, torn up, in the
- waste-basket of a military _attaché_ of a great neighboring power,
- from which it was taken by an agent in our pay. Later it was pretended
- that this was not the case at all. It has been said since that the
- document was found in the war department itself.
-
- To be brief, thanks to the exaggerated discretion of the government,
- a double current of opinion set in regarding the Dreyfus case. In
- a matter as delicate as this, since his treason reawakened all the
- anti-Semitic passions, and since it was a reminder of the fact that
- another Jew, Cornelius Herz, had shown dishonor wherever he had
- passed, Dreyfus should have been tried as his counsel demanded. If
- this was impossible, at least it was necessary to avoid useless petty
- mysteries, and to declare frankly everything that was not compromising
- to the interests of the national defence. Thus acting, they would have
- avoided the discussions which, though put to sleep for a moment, were
- bound to reawaken. No honest man would then have been found to make
- an appeal of pity in favor of one who perhaps is not guilty. It is
- with the greatest impartiality that I have made an inquiry into the
- events that brought about the arrest of Dreyfus, and the events that
- followed, up to the time of his embarkation for Devil’s Island. I do
- not pretend to prove his innocence; my purpose is to establish that
- his guilt is not demonstrated.
-
-“Let me ask, in passing, how the innocence of any man can be
-demonstrated, except by demonstrating that his guilt is not
-established. Is not innocence a negative thing? If you, gentlemen, were
-to ask me to prove that you are neither thieves or traitors, I should
-be quite incapable of it. All that I could say would be that there is
-no evidence against you, and that consequently it is impossible to
-demonstrate your guilt. Therefore all those who are shouting for proof
-are indulging in mere childish clamor.
-
-“Now I read to you what M. de Cassagnac wrote on September 14, 1896:
-
- Our _confrère_, “Le Jour,” pretends, not to prove the innocence of
- Dreyfus, but to show that his guilt is not demonstrated. This is
- already too much. Not that we reproach our _confrère_ for pursuing
- such a demonstration, but that this demonstration is impossible.
- Like most of our fellow-citizens, we believe Dreyfus guilty, but,
- like our _confrère_, we are not sure of it. And, like our _confrère_
- also, we have the courage to say so, since we cannot be suspected of
- being favorable to the Jews, whom we combat here as persistently as
- we combat the Free Masons. The real question is: Can there be any
- doubt as to the guilt of Dreyfus? Now, thanks to the stupidity and the
- cowardice of the government of the republic, this question, far from
- being closed, remains perpetually open. Why? Because the government
- did not dare to conduct the trial in the open, so that public opinion
- might be settled.
-
- Now, nothing is more contrary to justice than obscurity. It is only
- truth that has no fear of the blinding daylight. We are the implacable
- adversaries of every verdict rendered in the depths of a cave, whether
- it emanates from Sainte Vehme, from the King of the Mountain, or from
- the council of war. And we are so, because a verdict so rendered can
- never be revised.
-
- But, you will tell me, those who declared Captain Dreyfus guilty
- were French officers, the incarnation of honor and of patriotism. It
- is true. Only, whatever my esteem and respect for French officers, I
- must point out that they are not more enlightened or more honorable
- than their brothers, cousins, and friends who, as jurors, distribute
- justice in the assize courts in the name of the French people. The
- very recent Cauvin case, and many others, have sadly demonstrated that
- error is a human thing, and that judicial errors are already much
- too frequent, now that the machinery of justice is illuminated by
- all possible torches. I add that it is only the publicity of a trial
- that makes a revision possible, and that there can be no revision of
- any trial of which we know nothing but the brutal result. That is
- shocking to good sense and equity, and my illustrious friend, the
- lawyer Demange, was absolutely right when he insisted on a public
- trial. Juries are often mistaken, and it is by no means proved that
- councils of war are fallible, especially as it is now said, and
- without contradiction, that Dreyfus was condemned on the strength
- of a document which but two out of five experts found to be in his
- handwriting. Moreover, we know the value and the weight of expert
- testimony regarding handwriting. Nothing is more uncertain, and
- sometimes more grotesque.
-
- So that nobody in the world except the judges and the prosecuting
- attorney can know exactly why and on what Dreyfus was convicted.
- Unhappily, they are bound by professional secrecy, and so I do not see
- how our _confrère_, “Le Jour,” will be able to give any interest to
- its investigation.
-
- Yes, traitors are abominable beings, who should be pitilessly shot
- like wild beasts; but, for the very reason that the punishment
- incurred is the more frightful and the more deserved, and carries with
- it no pity, it should not have been possible for the cowardice of the
- government with reference to Germany to have left us in a horrible
- doubt which authorizes us to ask ourselves sometimes if really there
- is not on Devil’s Island a human being undergoing in innocence a
- superhuman torture. Such doubt is a frightful thing, and it will
- continue, because publicity of trial furnishes the only basis for a
- revision. Now there is no revision. There is no appeal from a sentence
- wrapped in artificial and deliberate darkness.
-
-“That is what M. de Cassagnac said, and, when he wrote it, he did not
-know what you have learned during the last fortnight. You see, then,
-the source of the campaign to which Colonel Picquart alluded in one of
-his letters to General Gonse. It is not the article in ‘L’Eclair,’ for
-those letters appeared before September 15. It is these articles that
-I have just read you; the Dreyfusian campaign, there you have it. The
-article in ‘L’Eclair,’ in which the name of Dreyfus was falsely written
-in full, was simply an infamy resorted to to stop that campaign.
-
-“But, whatever the energy and the devotion of the men who undertook
-this work, it would have come to nothing, if in the staff which has
-played so prominent a part in the case there had not been found an
-admirable man,--a soldier, he too, like the others. He has been treated
-shamefully. Insults have been heaped upon him here which seem to me
-unworthy of the eminent soldiers whence they came. But the purity of
-his soul has enabled him to rise above interests, above mere _esprit
-de corps_, to the more elevated regions of the ideal and of humanity.
-I refer to Colonel Picquart. He has remained calm; he has remained
-silent. He has not violated the iron countersign which he, as a
-soldier, respects. But I know well that, from the broader and more
-general standpoint of humanity, he will come out of this case increased
-in stature. I must say a word to you, gentlemen, of his military
-antecedents and his life. He is now in command of the Fourth Algerian;
-he is forty-three years of age; at thirty-two he was in command of a
-battalion; he left the war school a breveted officer; he is a knight
-of the legion of honor; he was formerly a professor in the war school;
-he was chief of the third bureau of the staff office, then chief of
-the bureau of information, and, finally, in April, 1896, was made a
-lieutenant-colonel. And a fact that makes it vain for his superior
-officers to try to ruin him is that he was especially appointed, and
-is the youngest lieutenant-colonel in the French army. Moreover,
-gentlemen, Colonel Picquart was delegated by his superiors to follow
-the Dreyfus trial before the council of war of 1894. That will tell
-you whether he knows the case or not. He too,--at least, I imagine
-so,--believed in the guilt of Dreyfus. But after the departure of
-Dreyfus what has been picturesquely called the ‘flights’--that is, the
-disappearances, the departures, the thefts of documents--continued.
-Then, gentlemen, his suspicion was aroused.
-
-“In May, 1896, or, at any rate, in the spring of 1896, he discovered
-the famous dispatch that has been mentioned here. Certain agents bring
-to the war department--and here, if I commit errors of detail, it will
-be due solely to the fact that complete explanations have not been
-given at this bar; if my errors should now provoke them, I should
-congratulate myself upon it, and accept the corrections,--certain
-agents bring to the war department cornucopias or packages containing
-fragments of papers, taken wherever documents coming from the enemy
-are liable to be found, papers some of which are without interest, but
-others of which are of value, mixed up by the agents, who take them
-_en masse_ and deliver them to one of their superiors, who sorts them,
-in order to find out if there is anything of value among them. The
-important point is the origin of these packages. What gives them their
-value is their source, the fact that they are taken on territory where
-everything that is found, really or fictitiously, has a special value.
-Before Colonel Picquart became chief of the information service, as we
-have been given to understand, these packages were handed to Colonel
-Henry, then major, who, in turn, after sorting them, transmitted them,
-because he did not know foreign languages, to Captain Lauth, now major.
-When Colonel Picquart became chief of the bureau, he changed his method
-of procedure. He asked that these packages be given to him. It was
-his right. Colonel Sandherr died of general paralysis. He had already
-been a victim of it for sometime, when Colonel Picquart succeeded him.
-Colonel Picquart was chosen for this eminent post because they had the
-fullest confidence in him. And, if he took it upon himself to conduct
-the services a little more strictly than had been the custom, it was
-because he intended to give it the closest personal attention.
-
-“You know, gentlemen, what happened in this special matter of the
-dispatch, addressed to Major Esterhazy. One day a package of documents
-was handed to Colonel Picquart, and, some days after, Colonel Picquart
-gave this dispatch to Major Lauth that he might reassemble the
-fifty-nine or sixty pieces into which it was torn. It was very natural
-that this document should be given to Major Lauth, for operations of
-this character were one of his duties.
-
-“What was this dispatch, and what was its value? In itself--and this is
-a very important point--it had no value at all. Here is the text, with
-which you are as yet unfamiliar. The document was publicly read during
-the Esterhazy trial.
-
- I await, first of all, an explanation more detailed than that
- which you gave me the other day regarding the question at issue.
- Consequently I beg you to give it to me in writing, in order that
- I may judge whether I should continue my relations with the R
- establishment or not.
-
-“This little document, taken from the mails, is of value only on
-condition that its source is the same as that of the documents in
-the package of which I have just spoken, that source being a foreign
-embassy, an enemy’s territory. Coming from that source, the document at
-once takes on a special importance, for it shows that the embassy in
-question is in relations with the person to whom it is addressed.”
-
-The Judge.--“Make no reference to that.”
-
-M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, all this has been told at length
-in the newspapers.”
-
-The Judge.--“It cannot be very useful in your argument.”
-
-M. Labori.--“I do not see why we should not explain ourselves on a
-matter with which everybody is familiar, and which the jurors ought
-to understand, in order to be able to judge with a full knowledge of
-the cause. Therefore I resume my argument. The dispatch is valuable
-only because it awakened the suspicion of the chief of the service of
-information, who said to himself: the place whence this dispatch comes
-is in correspondence with Major Esterhazy. Then Colonel Picquart began
-an investigation, at first a moral investigation, as he has told you,
-the results of which he has made known to you; then an investigation of
-another order, an investigation concerning handwriting. At that moment
-was he thinking of the Dreyfus case? Not at all. That was buried. It
-had nothing to do with this new matter. He began his investigation
-concerning handwriting, because it is customary to do so, whenever
-any trace of spying is observed. Then he went to find M. Bertillon,
-who said to him: ‘This time the forgers have attained identity.’ And
-thus, gentlemen, Colonel Picquart was confronted with the undeniable
-resemblance between the _bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s writing. He
-spoke to his superiors about the matter, and I have a right to say, in
-view of his correspondence with General Gonse, that they encouraged
-him. Since then, they have made him the object of the most odious
-attacks. But these attacks have a single source, which is enough to
-ruin them at their foundation. That source is the major whom the army
-prefers to him, whom the army opposes to him, to whom it extends
-ovations while Colonel Picquart is put in a fortress--Major Esterhazy.
-
-“Do you ask for proof that he was the source of these attacks? ‘La
-Libre Parole’ published on November 15, 1897, an article entitled ‘The
-Conspiracy,’ in which no name was mentioned, but in which everything
-was related in advance, and in which the _rôle_ of Colonel Picquart
-was presented by Major Esterhazy, the author of the article, as it was
-presented afterward without change by Major Ravary himself before the
-council of war of 1898. You certainly did not fail to notice that, when
-the question of the famous searches of Major Esterhazy’s premises, and
-the circumstances under which they were made, came up here, General
-de Pellieux, summoned here by us, was obliged to say: ‘But I accepted
-the story of Major Esterhazy.’ Consequently no investigation on this
-point, no verification, no contradiction of any sort. The accuser of
-Colonel Picquart, he whose word they take, is he whom Colonel Picquart
-denounced, whether wrongly or rightly, as a traitor. And, if we examine
-the matter closely, gentlemen, what remains of the attacks upon Colonel
-Picquart? I have already done justice to that concerning the pretended
-communication of the secret file to M. Leblois. I have shown you that
-here the contradictions were such that it is absolutely impossible to
-accept the fact as having occurred in November, 1896. Indeed, Colonel
-Picquart addressed himself to M. Leblois in 1897, and he did so because
-he was threatened, as you know. For in June, 1897, he received from
-Colonel Henry a letter which I may now qualify as a threatening letter.
-At that time Colonel Picquart, who was on a mission, precisely for
-what reason he did not know, returned to Paris, and sought the advice,
-not of the first lawyer that he met, but of a lawyer who had been
-his friend from childhood. And it was in the course of conversations
-with this lawyer that, too reserved, too prudent,--I say it to you
-very respectfully, Colonel Picquart,--he made known to M. Leblois the
-reasons why he was attacked, and placed in his hands the documents that
-constituted his defence--that is, not only the two letters from General
-Gonse which you know, and his two replies, but another and later
-correspondence, of which we are not yet in possession, Colonel Picquart
-being unwilling to give it up, because of his excessive reserve and
-discretion.
-
-“And then M. Leblois does this thing,--some may blame him for it,
-but, for my part, I salute him,--agitated by what he had learned, and
-without Colonel Picquart’s consent, he went to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who
-was no other than the vice-president of the senate, and in whom he had
-the most absolute confidence, and said to him: ‘Here is what I have
-learned through certain special events and circumstances.’
-
-“Now we come to the complaint of the searching of Major Esterhazy’s
-premises. The only thing done was this. A police agent presented
-himself twice at Major Esterhazy’s under a pretext of looking at an
-apartment to let. He brought back a visiting-card of no importance,
-which Colonel Picquart told him to return; and he noticed that a
-considerable quantity of papers had been burned in the chimney. Here,
-in the first place, it is necessary to notice that Major Esterhazy is
-detected in flagrant inaccuracies of statement. He had declared that
-his apartments had been robbed several times under extremely serious
-circumstances, which he related before the council of war. I wish
-to call your attention to what Major Esterhazy said in his public
-examination in January, 1898.”
-
-M. Labori then read the Esterhazy examination, in which, in answer to
-General de Luxer, he spoke of the robberies, and attributed them to
-Mathieu Dreyfus.
-
-“Well, at what time did these searches take place? It was when Colonel
-Picquart was in Paris,--that is, before November, 1896. Was there any
-question at that time of M. Mathieu Dreyfus, who did not make his
-denunciation until November, 1897, a year later? Was there then any
-question of suspicion attaching to Major Esterhazy? Nothing of the kind
-was spoken of. But we know that, when the _bordereau_ appeared in ‘Le
-Matin’ on November 10, 1896, Major Esterhazy was seen in a condition
-of extraordinary excitement. Why did he consider himself in danger?
-How could he then attribute the searches made in 1896 to Mathieu
-Dreyfus? He adds: ‘I could not believe that a French officer could go
-to such excesses.’ I ask you, gentlemen, if robbers were to visit your
-houses, or had visited them before this trial, would you attribute the
-robberies to Mathieu Dreyfus? Certainly not. Consequently it must have
-escaped the president of the council of war when Major Esterhazy said:
-‘The first time I attributed it to servants, but afterward I attributed
-it to Mathieu Dreyfus.’ I should have liked to press him on this
-point at this bar. You remember that I asked him if he had not been
-robbed, and what he had to say thereupon. He took refuge in a policy of
-silence, the value and the prudence of which you can now understand.
-And at any rate, the fact remains that the charges made against Colonel
-Picquart in the Ravary report are nothing but the exact and faithful
-reproduction of the accusations of Major Esterhazy. General de Pellieux
-himself was obliged to admit it.
-
-“But how did Colonel Picquart act? They have told you that he acted
-without a warrant. Without a warrant? Why, he had a permanent warrant.
-It is like saying that the prefect of police, when he proceeds to
-certain operations made necessary by the public safety, acts without a
-warrant. Do not his very functions confer a warrant upon him?
-
-“You know how Colonel Picquart’s superiors were made familiar with
-his investigations. You remember that I asked General de Pellieux if
-he considered that a chief of the information service could conduct it
-usefully without the right to resort to such measures. He answered:
-‘No, absolutely no; but he must have a warrant.’ Well, gentlemen, the
-proof that Colonel Picquart acted in a regular manner is that in the
-months of October and November, 1896, everybody at the staff offices
-was aware of the situation, as the Ravary report shows. No one in the
-bureau of information, M. Ravary tells us, was unaware that, on Colonel
-Picquart’s orders, Major Esterhazy’s correspondence had been seized in
-the mails, and that for many months; nor was anyone unaware that he
-had employed an agent to search without a legal warrant the premises
-of the accused during his absence. Well, gentlemen, of two things one:
-either this was irregular, and in that case it was necessary there and
-then to criticise Colonel Picquart’s attitude, and not cover him with
-congratulations and kindly words in the correspondence that was then
-going on between him and General Gonse; or else it must be confessed
-that it was not until later, and from the necessities of the situation,
-that they perceived the irregularity of the steps which were then known
-to the superiors and approved by all. Here again, then, as soon as we
-look and discuss, there is nothing left.
-
-“Now for the two points in the testimony of Major Lauth that require
-an answer. You remember that Major Lauth explained to you that Colonel
-Picquart at a certain moment asked him if he recognized the handwriting
-of the dispatch. Well, gentlemen, that is not denied. I have explained
-to you that the dispatch gained importance only from its source.
-Obviously then, this importance was enhanced, if that evidence of its
-origin which consisted in its discovery in the packages brought by the
-agents was confirmed by the further discovery of an identity between
-the writing of the dispatch and that of a certain person. One of the
-witnesses here has explained that generally it is not the chief of the
-information service, who, in spying cases, is summoned as a witness
-before the council of war, but one of his subordinates. Thus, in 1894,
-if I am well informed, Colonel Sandherr did not testify, but one of
-his subordinates. And it is very probable, that, if the prosecution
-had continued in the way in which Colonel Picquart expected, Major
-Lauth would have been called upon to testify. So Colonel Picquart asked
-Major Lauth whether he knows the writing or not. Major Lauth answered:
-‘No.’ And there the matter rested, very naturally. Consequently, there
-is nothing here of which we have to take note. There remains but one
-question, upon which it may be said that two officers are squarely
-in contradiction,--the question of the post-office stamps, which, it
-is said, Colonel Picquart desired to have placed upon the dispatch.
-Exactly, what does Major Lauth say? He says that Colonel Picquart said
-to him: ‘Do you think the post-office would put a stamp on this?’
-Now, were those words uttered, gentlemen? For my part, I consider
-Major Lauth a very honest man, and, consequently I cannot consider his
-statement unworthy of belief. But what I know well is that, if these
-words were really spoken--and they may well not have been, because
-sometimes, when one has a certain idea, this idea, especially in its
-later developments, makes one hear things that he really did not hear,
-and that were never said [Murmurs of protest]. I am not addressing
-people who do not understand that here I am explaining mental
-operations with which everybody is familiar, and that I do not go at
-all outside the bounds of probability. But, admitting that these words
-were uttered, it is sufficient for me to say that, even then, they have
-absolutely no significance.
-
-“We come now to the correspondence with General Gonse, which shows that
-Colonel Picquart, in all his proceedings, was followed, authorized,
-and encouraged by his superiors. You recall the constant interest that
-General Gonse has taken in this trial. The purpose of that interest was
-to make it known that he was familiar with the operations of Colonel
-Picquart in the Esterhazy case, but that he has steadily refused to
-examine and consider the Dreyfus case. I asked General Gonse how he
-explained this passage in his first letter:
-
- To the continuation of the inquiry from the standpoint of the
- handwritings there is the grave objection that it compels us to take
- new people into our confidence under bad conditions, and it seems to
- me better to wait until we are more firmly settled in our opinions,
- before going further in this rather delicate path.
-
-“The investigation, then, had been begun, and was now to be abandoned,
-not because it would yield uncertain results, but because it would
-necessitate the consultation of new experts and the taking of third
-persons into confidence. The meaning of this is that it was the
-_bordereau_ that was in question; that the _bordereau_ had left its
-closet; that consequently the Dreyfus case was open; and that it was
-with full knowledge of this that General Gonse encouraged Colonel
-Picquart, to whom he wrote in the most kindly terms: ‘I shake your
-hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart.’ And then, gentlemen, you
-remember that admirable letter from Colonel Picquart, in which he seems
-to have foreseen all the unfortunate events of which this country is
-now a victim.
-
- I believe that I have done all that was necessary to give ourselves
- the opportunity of initiative. If too much time is lost, that
- initiative will be taken by others, which, to say nothing of higher
- considerations, will not leave us in a pleasant position.... There
- will be a sad and useless crisis, which we could avoid by doing
- justice in season.
-
-“And General Gonse replies:
-
- At the point at which you have arrived in your investigation there is
- no question, of course, of avoiding the light, but we must ascertain
- what course should be taken in order to arrive at a manifestation of
- the truth.
-
-“Consequently, you see, the light is not to be stopped. General Gonse
-says in so many words that there is no question of avoiding it. Now,
-what do these letters prove? In the presence of reasonable men like
-yourselves, it is not necessary to ask things to prove more than they
-do prove, but it is necessary to ask them to prove all that they prove.
-I will not say that General Gonse was then convinced of the guilt of
-Esterhazy and the innocence of Dreyfus, but I say that the Dreyfus
-case was open, that the Esterhazy case seemed to him to be inseparably
-connected with the Dreyfus case because of the handwritings, and that
-he was much disturbed, and felt that it was necessary to get at the
-light, which, moreover, could not be prevented. In short, gentlemen,
-this correspondence proves three things of equally great importance:
-(1) that there was never any confession serious enough to convince
-honorable people; (2) that the secret file is of no value so far as its
-bearing on Dreyfus is concerned, for otherwise General Gonse would not
-have said to Colonel Picquart: ‘Prudence, prudence,’ adding. ‘You are
-not lacking in that virtue, so my mind is easy,’ for, if there had been
-a secret file containing a document overwhelming to Dreyfus, General
-Gonse would have said to Colonel Picquart: ‘My dear friend, you are
-mad; so don’t disturb yourself; you know that we have the proof’; (3)
-that Colonel Picquart acted with the knowledge and encouragement of his
-superiors.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, what was it that changed all this? What dealt the
-terrible blow that dragged this country so far from the truth, and
-into the storms by which it is now shaken? Was it the ridiculous
-documents that reached the war department on the eve of the Castelin
-interpellation? I have done justice to those. And I add that, in such
-a case, they would have shown them to Colonel Picquart first of all,
-saying: ‘My dear Picquart, you see that it is necessary to stop.’ Then
-it was not those documents that produced the change of mind. But I know
-what did produce it. It was the Castelin interpellation, and nothing
-else. I have called your attention to the beginning of the campaign by
-‘Le Jour’ and ‘L’Autorité.’ Well, those for whom the Dreyfus case is a
-matter not to be touched, for whom a revision would involve too heavy
-responsibilities to be accepted without resistance, all these said to
-themselves: ‘Ah! there is going to be an interpellation; the country
-is going to be stirred up; the mouths of the traitor’s friends must be
-closed.’
-
-“For a moment, gentlemen, it was the intention of the war department
-to let the light shine. But, when the interpellation was announced, it
-failed in courage. That is the truth. And so, when M. Castelin asked
-for information concerning the pretended escape of the traitor and the
-campaign that was beginning, General Billot ascended the tribune and
-pronounced for the first time these words, which were the beginning of
-the events which you are now witnessing.
-
- Gentlemen, the question submitted to the chamber by the honorable M.
- Castelin is serious. It concerns the justice of the country and the
- security of the State. This sad affair two years ago was the subject
- of a verdict brought about by one of my predecessors in the war
- department. Justice was then done. The examination, the trial, and the
- verdict took place in conformity with the rules of military procedure.
- The council of war, regularly constituted, deliberated regularly, and,
- in full knowledge of the cause, rendered a unanimous verdict. The
- council of revision unanimously rejected the appeal. The thing, then,
- is judged, and it is allowable for no one to question it. Since the
- conviction, all precautions have been taken to prevent any attempt at
- escape. But the higher reasons which in 1894 necessitated a closing
- of the doors have lost nothing of their gravity. So the government
- appeals to the patriotism of the chamber for the avoidance of a
- discussion which may prevent many embarrassments, and, at any rate,
- for a closing of the discussion as soon as possible.
-
-“Well, gentlemen, note this reply of General Billot. It is the heart of
-the question, and it is here that begins the fault, or, if you prefer,
-the error, of the government. It is easy to accuse law-abiding citizens
-of inciting odious campaigns in their country; but, if we go back to
-the sources, it is easy to see where the responsibility lies, and here
-I have put my finger upon it. We are told confidently of the wrong done
-by the defenders of the traitor in not demanding either a revision or
-a nullification of the verdict of 1894. Nullification? Why, it is the
-business of the minister of justice to demand that. Listen to article
-441 of the code of criminal examination, applicable in military matters.
-
- When, upon the exhibition of a formal order given to him by the
- minister of justice, the prosecuting attorney before the court of
- appeals shall denounce in the criminal branch of that court judicial
- acts, decrees, or verdicts contrary to the law, these acts, decrees,
- or verdicts may be annulled, and the police officials or the judge
- prosecuted, if there is occasion, in the manner provided in Chapter 3
- of Title 4 of the present book.
-
-“Well, the secret document, gentlemen, was known in September,
-1896. The article in ‘L’Eclair’ appeared September 15; the Castellin
-interpellation was heard on November 16; a petition from Mme. Dreyfus
-was laid before the chamber, and is still unanswered, as is also a
-letter from M. Demange to the president of the chamber on the same
-subject. Now, what was the government’s duty when this question first
-arose? Unquestionably to deny the secret document from the tribune,
-if it had not been communicated; and, if it had been, to declare that
-the procedure was in contempt of all law, and should lead to the
-nullification of the verdict. That is what a free government would have
-done.
-
-“Now I wish to say a word of the difficulty of procuring the documents
-mentioned in the _bordereau_, upon which so much stress has been
-laid in order to exculpate Major Esterhazy. I will not dwell on the
-Madagascar note, which was of February, 1894, and not of August, as
-has been said, and which consequently was not the important note of
-which General Gonse spoke. I wish to emphasize only one point, because
-it is the only one which, in the absence of the questions that I
-was not permitted to ask, has not been made perfectly clear by the
-confrontations of the witnesses, and which yet has a considerable
-significance. General de Pellieux spoke to you of the piece 120 and
-its hydraulic check. I believe it is the first item mentioned in the
-_bordereau_. This check, said General Gonse, is important. I asked
-him at what date it figured in the military regulations, and at what
-date the official regulation had been known to the army. General Gonse
-answered that he was unable to give information on that point. Well,
-gentlemen, the truth is this. The official regulations concerning
-siege pieces were put on sale at the house of Berger-Lebrault & Co.,
-military book-sellers, and they bear the date--do not smile, gentlemen,
-remembering that the _bordereau_ was written in 1894,--they bear the
-date 1889. On page 21 you will find mention of the hydraulic check.
-‘The purpose of the hydraulic check,’ it says, ‘is to limit the recoil
-of the piece.’ In 1895 a new check was adopted for the piece 120, and
-this new check, as appears from the official regulations bearing date
-of 1895, is not known as a hydraulic check, but as the hydro-pneumatic
-check. Either the author of the _bordereau_, speculating on the
-innocence of foreigners, sent them in 1894 a note on the hydraulic
-check of the piece 120, which had been a public matter since 1889,
-and then really it is not worth while to say that Major Esterhazy
-could not have procured it; or else he sent them in 1894 a note on the
-hydro-pneumatic check, and then--there is no doubt about it,--he could
-not have been an artilleryman.
-
-“You have been spoken to also concerning the _troupes de couverture_.
-Well, there are cards on sale in the most official manner, which appear
-annually, and which show in the clearest way the distribution of the
-troops of the entire French army for the current year. I do not know at
-all what the author of the _bordereau_ sent, and General Gonse knows
-no better than I do. When he sends a document like the firing manual,
-he is very careful to say that it is a document difficult to procure,
-and he says it in a French that seems a little singular to one who
-remembers the French that Dreyfus writes in his letters. But, when he
-gives notes, he says nothing. So I infer that these notes are without
-interest and without importance.
-
-“Furthermore, the impossibilities were no less great for Dreyfus. For
-instance, it is impossible that a staff officer should speak of the
-firing manual in the way in which it is spoken of in the _bordereau_.
-They say the writer must have been an artilleryman. Well, that is not
-my opinion, for all the officers will tell you that there is not one
-of them who would refuse to lend his manual to an officer of infantry,
-especially if the request were made by a superior officer. General
-Mercier himself, in an interview, has declared that the documents have
-not the importance that is attributed to them; and it is true that they
-have not, for a firing manual that is new in April or in August is no
-longer new in November or December. The foreign military _attachés_ see
-these things at the grand manœuvres, and get all the information that
-they want.”
-
-After reviewing rapidly the testimony of the experts, the charges
-against Esterhazy, his letters to Mme. de Boulancy, and his sorry
-reputation in the army, M. Labori concluded his argument as follows:
-
-“I desire to place myself, gentlemen, exclusively on the ground chosen
-by the minister of war, and on that ground we find that in 1894, the
-charge against Dreyfus being about to fall to the ground for want of
-proof, a man who was not a dictator, but simply an ephemeral cabinet
-minister in a democracy where the law alone is sovereign, dared to take
-it upon himself to judge one of his officers and hand him over to a
-court-martial, not for trial, but for a veritable execution. We find
-that, since then, nothing has been left undone in order to cover up
-this illegality. We find that men interested in deceiving themselves
-have heaped inexact declarations upon incomplete declarations. We find
-that all the power of the government has been employed in enveloping
-the affair in darkness, even compelling the members of the council of
-war, whatever their loyalty, to give to the trial which they conducted
-the appearance of a judicial farce.
-
-“Well, all this, gentlemen, was bound to fill sincere men with
-indignation, and the letter of M. Emile Zola was nothing but the cry of
-the public conscience. He has rallied around him the grandest and most
-illustrious men in France. Do not be embarrassed, gentlemen, by the
-sophism with which they try to blind you, in telling you that the honor
-of the army is at stake. It is not at stake. It does not follow that
-the entire army is involved, because some have shown too much zeal and
-haste, and others too much credulity; because there has been a serious
-forgetfulness of right, on the part of one, or of several; What is
-really of interest to the French army, gentlemen, is that it should not
-be burdened in history by an irreparable iniquity.
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, by your verdict of acquittal set an example of
-firmness. You feel unmistakably that this man is the honor of France.
-Zola struck, France strikes herself. And, in conclusion, I have but
-one word to say. Let your verdict signify several things: first, ‘Long
-live the army!’ I too cry ‘Long live the army!’ but also ‘Long live the
-republic!’ and ‘Long live France!’ That is, gentlemen, ‘Long live the
-right! Long live the eternal ideal!’”
-
-
-_Speech of M. Georges Clemenceau._
-
-M. Labori was followed by M. Georges Clemenceau, representing the
-_gérant_ of “L’Aurore.” He spoke as follows:
-
-“Gentlemen of the jury, we are nearing the end of this exciting trial.
-After the magnificent summing-up of the young orator, whom we all
-have applauded, I have no demonstration to add, and I should reproach
-myself for keeping you here longer, were it not absolutely necessary.
-M. Labori has told you the story of a great tragedy. Far away a man
-is in confinement who perhaps is the worst criminal conceivable, and
-who perhaps is a martyr, a victim of human fallibility. All the powers
-that are established to secure justice M. Labori has pictured to you
-in combination against justice. And he has appealed to you for the
-revision of a great trial. Yes, it is a great drama that has been
-developed in your presence. You, the judges, have seen the actors
-appear at this bar, and, after you shall have judged, you, in turn,
-will be judged by the public opinion of France. It was to obtain the
-verdict of that public opinion that M. Emile Zola voluntarily committed
-the act that brings him before you. After having reviewed with M. Zola
-all the phases of this drama, there remains still one thing to be
-done,--to try to free our minds from all impressions, and to inquire
-what we have thought and felt in order to determine our judgment.
-
-“To that end, gentlemen, would it not be well first to go back to the
-state of mind in which all Frenchmen, without exception, were when
-ex-Captain Dreyfus was convicted unanimously by a council of war. And,
-if you will permit me, I will begin my brief explanations by reading an
-article of mine with which I am confronted today, and which I wrote on
-the morrow of the conviction of Dreyfus. It seems to me that at that
-time all Frenchmen must have thought as I did, and, when I shall have
-shown that, I will inquire how a minority of Frenchmen have arrived at
-a different opinion. Here, gentlemen, is what I wrote on the day after
-the conviction of Dreyfus. The article is entitled ‘The Traitor.’
-
- Unanimously a council of war has declared Captain Alfred Dreyfus
- guilty of treason. The crime is so frightful that there has been an
- effort to entertain doubt to the very last moment. That a man brought
- up in the religion of the flag, a soldier honored with the protection
- of the secrets of the national defence, should betray,--frightful
- word,--should deliver to the foreigner all that can help him in his
- preparations for a new invasion,--that seemed impossible. How could
- a man be found to do such a thing? How can a human being so disgrace
- himself that he can expect only to be spat upon by those whom he
- has served? Such a man must have no relatives, no wife, no child,
- no love of anything, no tie of humanity, or even of animality,--for
- the animal in the herd instinctively defends his own. He must have
- been an unclean soul, an abject heart. Nobody wanted to believe it.
- Every chance for doubt was eagerly seized. Then they caviled; they
- calculated all the chances of error; they constructed romances on the
- bits of information that reached the public ear. They wanted complete
- light. They protested in advance against closed doors.
-
- In such trials, it must be admitted, publicity, with the comments that
- it involves, is liable to aggravate the evil that treason does. The
- liberty to say everything, undeterred by any consideration of public
- order, may even be of advantage to the defence.
-
-“You see, gentlemen, that I then recognized that there are
-circumstances when closed doors may be necessary. I have not changed
-my opinion. I said that closed doors might even be favorable to the
-defence, for then the defence would have the liberty to say everything;
-but on one condition,--that all the documents should be submitted to
-it. You know that that condition was not fulfilled. I continue.
-
- Consequently those who had most earnestly called for a public trial
- accepted without protest the statement of the president of the council
- of war that there are interests higher than all personal interests.
-
- The trial lasted four days. The accused was defended by one of the
- first lawyers at the Paris bar. By the unanimous decision of his
- judges, Alfred Dreyfus has been sentenced to the maximum penalty. Such
- a decree is not rendered without a poignant examination of conscience,
- and, if any doubt could have remained for the benefit of the accused,
- we should surely have found a trace of it in the sentence. But the
- judge has said: Death! But for Article 5 of the constitution of 1848,
- which abolished the death penalty for political offences, Dreyfus
- would be shot tomorrow.
-
- Here a formidable question arises.
-
- Can the crime of Dreyfus be likened to a political crime? I answer
- boldly, No. Men entertaining different conceptions of the interests of
- the common country may struggle with all their might for a monarchy
- or for a republic, for despotism or for liberty; they may struggle
- against each other; they may kill each other; but they are not to be
- confounded with the public enemy who betrays the very thing that each
- of them pretends to defend. How is it that jurists have been able to
- establish an identity between two acts which contradict each other? I
- do not know, and I do not congratulate them on their discovery.
-
- Undoubtedly I am as firmly opposed as ever to the death penalty. But
- the public can never be made to understand why, a few weeks ago, an
- unfortunate boy of twenty was shot for having thrown a button from
- his cloak at the head of the president of the council of war, whereas
- the traitor Dreyfus soon will start for L’Ile Nou, where the garden
- of Candide awaits him. Yesterday, at Bordeaux, the soldier Brevert
- appeared before the council of war of la Gironde for having broken
- certain articles in the barracks. At the trial he threw his cap at
- the representative of the government. Death. And for the man who
- helps the enemy to invade his country, who summons the Bavarians of
- Bazeilles to fresh massacres, who paves the way for incendiaries,
- and land-stealers, and executioners of the country, a peaceful life
- given up to the joys of cocoanut-tree cultivation. There is nothing so
- revolting.
-
- Truly, I wish that the death penalty might disappear from our codes.
- But who does not understand that the military code will of necessity
- be its last asylum? As long as armies shall exist, it probably will be
- difficult to govern them otherwise than by a law of violence. But, if,
- in the scale of punishments, the death penalty is the last degree, it
- seems to me that it must be reserved for the greatest crime, which,
- without any doubt, is treason. To kill a dazed unfortunate who insults
- his judges is madness when we allow a tranquil life to the traitor.
- Since unfortunately there are beings who are capable of treason, this
- crime must be made to appear in the eyes of all as the most execrable
- that can be committed. Unhappily, in our present state of mind, the
- sinister incident which has so deeply stirred opinion is for many but
- a pretext for declamation. It is so convenient to put the trumpet to
- the mouth and assume the attitudes of a disheveled patriot, while
- having treasures of indulgence for generals who indulge openly in
- anti-patriotic language. We were not capable of shooting Bazaine. A
- marshal of France who had the highest duties toward the army of which
- he was the commander-in-chief pardoned the traitor, and relieved him
- of the penalty of degradation, after which they allowed him to escape.
- What excuse had he,--an army commander who had betrayed his army to
- the enemy? Strange patriotism that permitted this scandal. No less
- strange the tolerance that recently protected the abominable language
- used by another army commander in talking to two reporters.
-
- Alfred Dreyfus is a traitor, and I offer no soldier the insult of
- putting him on a level with this wretch. But what weakness in regard
- to the high officer; and what severity toward a mere act of insolence
- before the council of war. Strike the traitor, but let the discipline
- be equal for all. To tolerate disorder in high places would end in
- the same result as treason. The privilege of some causes the revolt
- of others. That the army may be united and strong, there must be one
- law for all. That was formerly one of the promises of the republic. We
- await its realization.
-
-“Gentlemen, I told you just now that I believe that I then expressed
-the sentiments which animated all Frenchmen; and yet, when today they
-confront me with this article, I pretend that it contains my complete
-justification. What! We are to be suspected of desiring to outrage
-the army, when, on the day when it declared its verdict, we showed
-confidence in its justice? Yes, a council of war unanimously decided
-that a man was guilty of treason. How could Frenchmen, on the day of
-the verdict, knowing nothing of the facts, doubt that the council had
-done its duty?
-
-“But, after the long, laborious, and luminous argument of M. Labori,
-have we not occasion to ask whether, since the day when I wrote this
-article, serious events have not occurred? These events M. Labori
-had put before you. He has discussed them, and it now seems to me
-impossible that your minds should not be flooded with a light almost
-complete. For, gentlemen, I confess that my ambition, since French
-opinion was unanimous on the day of the verdict, is that French opinion
-may be unanimous also in admitting that the most honest judges may have
-been mistaken, seeing that they are men.
-
-“Yes, gentlemen, many events have taken place since 1894. Did we then
-know the _bordereau_? Did we know the secret document of ‘L’Eclair’?
-Did I know of them when I wrote the article that I have just read? Did
-I know that a secret document had been communicated to the judges in
-the council-chamber? I do not know, gentlemen, whether M. Labori has
-sufficiently insisted on this idea, but it is of a nature to so strike
-the opinion of all men, without exception, that I ask myself how we can
-help arriving at a unanimous opinion concerning it.
-
-“You are told that a document was communicated in the council-chamber.
-Do you realize what that means? It means that we judge a man, condemn
-him, brand him, dishonor his name forever, that of his wife, that of
-his children, that of his father, the names of all whom he loves, on
-the strength of a document that has not been shown to him. Gentlemen,
-who among you would not revolt at the thought of being condemned under
-such conditions? Who among you would not cry out to us to ask justice,
-if, dragged before the courts of his country after a mere pretence at
-examination, after a purely formal trial, his honor and his life were
-to be passed upon by judges assembled in his absence to condemn him on
-the strength of a document with which he had not been made acquainted?
-Is there one of us that would willingly submit to such a verdict? If
-that is true, gentlemen, I say that it devolves upon all of us to see
-that such a trial should be reviewed. I do not care to consider at this
-moment whether or not there are any reasons for presuming innocence. I
-have listened to M. Labori’s argument, and I do not conceal from you
-the fact that I am now inclined to think that there are strong reasons
-for believing Dreyfus innocent. I cannot affirm it absolutely; I have
-not the authority. And you, gentlemen, have not to pronounce upon the
-innocence of Dreyfus. All that you say is that there has been a verdict
-which was not rendered legally. In this case, in truth, form is of more
-importance than substance. When the right of a single individual is
-injured, the right of all is in peril,--the right of the nation itself.
-We love our country. That love no one monopolizes. But our country is
-not simply the territory on which we live. It is the home of right
-and justice, to which all men are attached, however different their
-opinions, be they friends or enemies. It is the common hearth of all,
-a guarantee of security, of equal justice for all. You cannot conceive
-of country without justice. The governors who represent it, the judges,
-the soldiers, however loyal they may be, are liable to err, and the
-whole question here is whether in this instance they have committed an
-error.
-
-“When I wrote the article which I have read to you, I knew nothing of
-the secret document first spoken of by ‘L’Eclair.’ I was unacquainted
-with the _bordereau_ reproduced by ‘Le Matin’; I had not heard the
-testimony of M. Salle, or its confirmation by M. Demange; I had been
-furnished no key to the reticence of General Mercier; I had not been
-informed of the prejudices of Colonel Sandherr against the Jews.
-[Murmurs of protest.] I am surprised to hear these protests. I have no
-desire to say anything that can wound anybody. A man came to this bar
-who, I regret to say, left the court-room amid the silence of all. I
-wish that he had been hailed with our unanimous applause. I refer to M.
-Lalance, former protesting deputy in the reichstag, who carried into
-the German assembly the protests of French patriotism. He came here to
-tell us that Colonel Sandherr, whom I never had the honor to know, and
-against whom I have absolutely nothing to say, had prejudices against
-the Jews,--prejudices which he shares with a very great number of very
-honest people. Therefore I have no intention of outraging Colonel
-Sandherr. I simply cite the testimony of a witness.”
-
-The Judge.--“M. Clemenceau, will you turn toward the jury?”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“I beg you to excuse me, _Monsieur le Président_; I do
-so willingly. M. Lalance told us that in Alsace patriotic Jews voted
-for the protesting bishops, which honors them. He told us that at a
-military manifestation--at Bussang, I believe--a Jew wept, and that
-Colonel Sandherr, on his attention being called to it, remarked: ‘I
-distrust those tears.’ Now, it was Colonel Sandherr who prepared the
-Dreyfus trial.
-
-“I had no knowledge of the accusation against Major Esterhazy founded
-on this frightful similarity of handwriting; I had no knowledge of
-the indictment of Dreyfus; I did not know of the discovery by Colonel
-Picquart of a dispatch found in the basket where the _bordereau_
-was found, torn as the _bordereau_ was torn, without a stamp as the
-_bordereau_ was without a stamp, and which yet was deemed of no force
-against Major Esterhazy, while against Dreyfus so much was made of the
-_bordereau_. And yet, gentlemen, this dispatch contains the name of
-Major Esterhazy in full.
-
-“I had no knowledge of the first investigation made by General de
-Pellieux, which was concluded without any expert examination of
-handwritings, General de Pellieux alleging that M. Mathieu Dreyfus
-offered no proofs, although the only proof possible was to be looked
-for in the expert examination of handwritings. I had no knowledge of
-the examination conducted by Major Ravary. I did not know that Colonel
-Picquart had insisted in vain that an inquiry should be opened with
-a view to ascertaining who conveyed to ‘L’Eclair’ the information
-concerning the secret document. I did not know that Colonel Picquart
-had asked an investigation concerning the Speranza and Blanche
-forgeries, and that this investigation was refused, so that he was
-finally obliged to carry the matter into the civil courts. I did not
-know, and I could not know, that the proceeding instigated against a
-man accused of treason by the chief of the bureau of information was
-going to be turned into a proceeding against this chief of the bureau
-of information. I could not foresee that a man of the importance of
-General de Pellieux would come to tell us that the closing of the doors
-was useless. I could not suppose that the archives of the minister
-of war were so kept that the retention of a file of documents by M.
-Teyssonnière could pass unnoticed. I did not know that men would be
-struck on the threshold of this palace for shouting ‘Long live the
-republic!’ And there were many other things of which I was unaware.
-How could I have divined that a secret document, the document which
-they did not dare to show to M. Demange, the document that General
-Billot refused to show to his old friend, M. Scheurer-Kestner, could be
-stolen from the most secret drawer of the minister of war, and carried
-about Paris in the hands of a veiled lady, finally falling into the
-hands of a man suspected of treason? How could I have believed that
-a man suspected of treason, or even any man whomsoever, you, or I,
-or anybody, could present himself with impunity at the war offices,
-in possession of a secret document of which the chief of the bureau
-of information was supposed to have sole care? And, finally, how
-could I believe, when they tell us that we insult the army, that I
-should witness here the extension of a welcome to the only man who,
-beyond the possibility of dispute, has insulted France and the army,
-Major Esterhazy? It matters little that he denies a letter whose
-authenticity will be proved later. I take those which he admits. They
-are sufficient, and they prove beyond a doubt that Major Esterhazy, who
-still wears the uniform--I know not why--is an abominable insulter of
-France and of the army. I could not suspect that I should hear, as he
-left this court-room, cries of ‘Long live Esterhazy!’ and ‘Long live
-the army!’ Shall I offend honorable officers here present, if I say to
-them that it is high time to distinguish the army from Major Esterhazy?
-
-“M. Labori just now shouted: ‘Long live the army!’ Why should we not
-shout: ‘Long live the army!’ when three-fourths of us here, lawyers
-or not, are soldiers. Yes, Long live the army! but by what aberration
-of mind, when a man speaks of the French army as Major Esterhazy has
-spoken of it, do the people dare to associate the two cries: ‘Long live
-Esterhazy!’ and ‘Long live the army!’
-
-“But, gentlemen, we have seen a still more unexpected spectacle. Two
-eminent commanders of the French army, General de Pellieux and General
-de Boisdeffre, have come here, and, perhaps without fully realizing
-what it means, have used threatening language. The attorney-general,
-in his summing-up, recalling the fact that M. Zola had said that the
-council of war had condemned in obedience to orders, asked: ‘Where are
-the orders? Show us the orders.’ Well, I show them to you, Monsieur
-Attorney-General. They have come to this bar in uniform, and have said:
-‘I order you to convict M. Emile Zola.’ And I do not suppose that M.
-Emile Zola thought for a moment that some one appeared before the
-council of war and said to the judges: I order you to condemn Dreyfus.
-I order you to acquit Esterhazy. There are different ways of saying a
-thing, and the state of mind of the speaker, and the state of mind of
-those to whom he speaks, create circumstances that must be taken into
-consideration. General de Pellieux, addressing the jurors directly,
-said to them; ‘Gentlemen, the crime--’ he did not say the word,
-but that was certainly what he meant,--‘the crime of M. Emile Zola
-consists in taking away from the soldiers their confidence in their
-commanders.’ Assuming an approaching war, he said to you: ‘Without this
-confidence we lead your children to butchery.’ What directer threat
-could they have used? And the next day General de Boisdeffre stood at
-this bar, and told you that, if you ventured to acquit M. Emile Zola,
-he would not remain at the head of the staff. That manifestation was
-anti-military in the first degree, for you did not appoint General de
-Boisdeffre, and it is not for you to receive his resignation. General
-de Boisdeffre is a commander, but a subordinate commander. We know
-nothing of his military capacities; until we know more, we are bound
-to assume them to be good, and we have not to decide his fate. That
-is a matter between him and the minister of war, or parliament. Thus,
-to prove that no orders were given to the council of war, they have
-publicly dictated orders to this jury.
-
-“Well, since the first suspicions to which the publication of
-the _bordereau_ gave rise, since the secret document spoken of
-by ‘L’Eclair,’ since the indictments, and down to these last
-manifestations of the staff, have you not seen the light continually
-increasing regarding the Dreyfus case? For my part, as I told you, I
-at first thought Dreyfus guilty, _a priori_, without knowing anything
-about it; and I have nothing to eliminate from the expressions of my
-article. I even confess to you that I was much slower to harbor doubt
-than certain men who are not to be suspected of not loving the army.
-Articles from the pen of M. Paul de Cassagnac, written in 1896, have
-been read to you, which more than hint that the verdict needs revision.
-M. de Cassagnac wrote several articles; I read them; they did not
-convince me; I remained silent; and not until the very late events, not
-until the day when I went to see M. Scheurer-Kestner, will you find a
-line from me in reference to the Dreyfus case.
-
-“I went to see M. Scheurer-Kestner under circumstances which I
-have publicly related. Although he is an old friend of mine, I was
-absolutely ignorant of the fact that he was taking an interest in the
-Dreyfus case. He had never said a word to me about it. When I learned
-through the newspapers that he was in possession of special information
-concerning it, and that he believed in the innocence of Dreyfus, I
-went to see him. He did not mention the name of Major Esterhazy; he
-showed me handwritings. I am not an expert, and these writings did not
-convince me at once. I said so the next day in my newspaper, and I
-continued to believe that Dreyfus was a traitor. I did more. I asked
-‘L’Aurore’ to insert extracts from articles that had appeared in
-‘L’Intransigeant’ containing arguments against Dreyfus. I said: ‘The
-truth must be known. Let us not hesitate to give the arguments for and
-against.’ You see, then, that I was slow in making up my mind. I should
-have only to show you the sequence of my articles to convince you that
-I long resisted the idea that Dreyfus could be innocent. But how was it
-possible to resist always, when the light was growing brighter every
-day, and when all the powers established for the doing of justice were
-combining to deny justice?
-
-“Gentlemen, I know that it has been said that this is a Jewish
-movement, and that many who do not say it think it. Well, what are the
-facts appearing from the testimony given at this bar as to the origin
-of the movement in favor of, Dreyfus? I do not refer to his family,
-which believes in his innocence, and which naturally would move heaven
-and earth to prove it. But who were the first, outside of the Dreyfus
-family, to give body to this thought? Gentlemen, you know that it was
-in the army that doubt was given birth. It was Colonel Picquart, whom
-I did not know until I saw him here, and who seems to me worthy of all
-respect, and for whom I am glad to testify my sincere affection,--it
-was Colonel Picquart who designated Major Esterhazy. It was Colonel
-Picquart who first conceived doubt.”
-
-M. Zola.--“And he is an anti-Semite.”
-
-M. Clemenceau.--“M. Zola tells me that he is an anti-Semite. I did
-not know it, and it does not matter. It was Colonel Picquart who
-submitted his doubts to his superior, General Gonse, and it is out of
-the scruples of those two men, expressed in the letters with which you
-are now familiar, that the whole matter which brings us here today has
-grown.
-
-“Now, gentlemen, what is the question before us? For my part, I
-consider it at once most simple and most complex. Most simple, for
-it is a question of legality, a question whether the law which is
-the guarantee of all of us, the law which protects us against the
-temptations of judges, the law which protects us against exterior
-passions, the law which safeguards all of us from the highest to
-the lowest,--it is a question whether the guarantees which this law
-furnishes have been observed in the case of Dreyfus. No, they have
-not. And that is all I want to know. I do not examine the presumptions
-of innocence, which are enormous, especially now that the present
-trial has shed full light upon them. I consider only the question of
-legality. And, the question being so simple, why has it aroused so many
-passions against it? It is because justice, while undoubtedly the most
-beautiful ideal to sing and to celebrate, is also the most difficult to
-realize.
-
-“The social organization is theoretically admirable. The people send
-to parliament men whose mission it is to represent their will. This
-will is formulated under the forms of law. The judges apply it, the
-police execute it. But it comes about that men invested with public
-power suffer themselves, because they are men, because they are weak,
-to be abused by the idea that they are more or less necessary men.
-Having some power, they want more. They confuse their own interests,
-individually and as a body, with the general interest, and, when it is
-pointed out to them that they have made an error, their first impulse
-is to resist _en masse_. Their entire profession is at stake.
-
-“May I be permitted this respectful criticism? They say to us: ‘You
-insult the army.’ No, we do not insult the army. The army exists only
-through the law. We desire it to be great through the law, for we have
-duties toward it. But it has duties toward us, and there must be an
-understanding between military and civil society on the very ground
-of law and justice. Gentlemen, France for twenty-five years has been
-carrying on a double enterprise, which seems contradictory. We are a
-vanquished nation,--gloriously vanquished, it is true, but vanquished
-none the less,--and it has been our thought to re-establish the power
-of France. That is a matter of necessity. It must be, because there
-is no civil law, there is no means of doing right and justice, if we
-are not, in the first place, masters in our own house. And our second
-thought has been that of ridding ourselves of all personal despotisms,
-of every vestige of oligarchy, and founding in our own country a
-democracy of liberty and justice.
-
-“Then the question arose whether these two views are not contradictory.
-The principle of civil society is right, liberty, justice. The
-principle of military society is discipline, countersign, obedience.
-And, as each is led by the consciousness of the utility of his function
-to try to encroach upon his neighbor, military society, which has force
-at its disposal, tends to encroach on civil authority, and to look
-upon civil society sometimes from a somewhat lofty standpoint. It is
-a wrong. Soldiers have no _raison d’être_ except as defenders of the
-principle which civil society represents. A reconciliation between
-these two institutions is necessary. The professional army no longer
-exists. The universal army, the army of all, must be penetrated with
-the ideas of all, with the universal ideas of right, since it is made
-up of the universality of citizens. If, absorbed by the thought of
-defence, which is of the first legitimacy, civil society were to rush
-into military servitude, we should still have a soil to defend, it is
-true; but the moral country would be lost, because, abandoning the
-ideas of justice and liberty, we should have abandoned all that has
-been done hitherto in this world by the glory and renown of France.
-These two societies must come to an understanding. Military society
-must enjoy all its rights, in order to do all its duties. Civil
-society, conscious of its duties toward the country and the army, must
-maintain its rights inflexibly, not only in the higher interest of the
-principle which it represents, but to insure a maximum of efficiency in
-the military institution. Yes, indeed, the army must be strong, but, as
-the abnegation of some and the absolute command of others are destined
-to fuse in one immense effort of life and death for the defence of the
-territory, it is necessary that civil society, by the superiority of
-its principle, should preserve its full power of control.
-
-“Gentlemen, you belong to the army. At what moment will the army be
-most admirable? At the moment when, running to the frontier, it will
-have all our heart and all our hope. Suppose that a hundred thousand
-Frenchmen fall in the first battles. Ninety thousand of these will be
-men who today are not wearing the uniform, and only ten thousand of
-them will be men who call themselves soldiers. Will these men lie in
-two heaps? Will it be said that there is one honor belonging to the ten
-thousand military men, and another belonging to the ninety thousand
-civilians? No. There is but one honor for all, the honor that consists
-in the fulfillment of the supreme duty, total duty toward the country.
-Then let us not abuse a word which no longer has the significance that
-it had in the days of professional armies. The honor of the army today
-is the honor of all. The army has but one honor,--that it is potent for
-the national defence, that in peace it is always respectful of the law.
-
-“General de Pellieux asked us for confidence the other day. And,
-while he spoke, I reflected that, during the twenty-five years of
-the empire, we had full confidence in the commanders of the army. We
-never criticised them, we never controlled them. The men whom I saw
-start were full of confidence. You know to what disasters they ran.
-M. Zola has been reproached for having written ‘La Débâcle.’ Alas!
-gentlemen,--and I say it very low,--if he wrote it, it was because
-before him there had been men of war to organize it and to bring it
-about. It is a return of that that is to be avoided, and patriotism
-does not consist in admiring, whether or no, everything that is done in
-the army, but in submitting the army to the discipline of the law. When
-General de Boisdeffre came to this bar, after General de Pellieux, to
-use toward this jury language that was threatening, he revealed to you
-what must have taken place before the council of war, and from what we
-have seen of the trial in the open day we may judge of the trial behind
-closed doors. The language of General Billot at the tribune was clear
-enough. It was the equivalent of an order; and did not Colonel Picquart
-say, to explain the insufficiency of the Ravary report: ‘General de
-Pellieux had concluded that there was no ground for a prosecution;
-Major Ravary could not do otherwise than come to the conclusion of his
-superior?’ It is not necessary to conclude therefrom that the generals
-have wilfully failed in their duty. Nothing more than their own words
-is necessary to show us how, without intending it, without realizing
-it, they have stepped aside from the clear path of right and justice.
-General de Boisdeffre would have proved it superabundantly, if that
-had been necessary. He was asked for the proof, or, rather, he was not
-asked for it, for we were not allowed to ask it, but at the bottom of
-our hearts we wanted it revealed. If he had brought a decisive proof
-that would have compelled everybody to bow, for my part, I swear to
-you, I would have left this court-room with a sense of relief. But
-what sort of proof did they bring us? A document later by two years
-than the Dreyfus verdict. What sort of justice is it, gentlemen, that
-discovers proofs of a just verdict two years after the verdict was
-rendered, and which produces, as convincing, documents that were never
-submitted to the accused? That is the philosophy of these closed doors.
-Behind them everything was known, even the secret documents, known
-to all except to him whom these documents were to condemn. They hide
-from us documents the revelation of which they say would be harmful
-to the national defence, and these documents, which they refuse to M.
-Scheurer-Kestner and to the chamber, traverse the highways in Major
-Esterhazy’s pocket. M. Méline, to whom Jaurès said: ‘Yes or no, did
-you communicate secret documents?’ replied to him: ‘We will answer you
-elsewhere.’ Elsewhere is here, and here they have not answered us, for
-I cannot consider as an answer the assertion that two years after the
-verdict they discovered a proof against the prisoner. M. Labori has
-told you that this document is a forgery. I tell you that, even if it
-is true, it is the first duty of all of us to see that this document
-is submitted to Dreyfus, whether he is a traitor or not,--to Dreyfus
-and to his lawyer; and, if you say that, because he is a Jew, he is
-not to be tried as others are tried, I tell you that the day will
-come when you will be similarly treated because you are a Protestant
-or a Freethinker. This is a denial of the French idea born of the
-Revolution, the idea of liberty for all, the idea of tolerance for
-all, the idea of equality of guarantees, equality of rights, equality
-of justice. If you once condemn a man without the forms of justice,
-some day the forms of justice will be abrogated by others to your
-harm. How justly the historians have cried out against the abominable
-law of the 22d of Prairial, made by Robespierre to rid himself of his
-enemies! All thinkers have handed over to the execration of mankind
-this abominable law that abolished the right of defence. It is odious,
-it is infamous; but at least it allowed the prisoner to know the charge
-against him. Why do you not do as much, you in times which are not
-of revolutionary violence, in peace, in tranquillity, when all the
-machinery of the public powers is operating freely? Yes, we condemn
-a man, a French officer, for he is a French officer, and not of the
-least distinguished, belonging to a family which has given proofs of
-patriotism. I do not know the Dreyfus family. I only reproduce the
-testimony of M. Lalance, which M. Labori has read to you.
-
-“Even if Dreyfus is a traitor, I do not see what interest we can have
-in refusing to honor people who are not responsible for the crime
-committed, and who have given manifest proofs of love for the French
-country. I cannot suffer the error of one to become a burden on all.
-If Dreyfus is guilty, let him be punished as severely as you will. You
-have my article, in which I say that I ask no pity for him. But, if he
-has brothers, children, parents, who have behaved themselves as good
-Frenchmen, I hold it a point of honor to do them justice. It is the
-misfortune of the times, in which all passions are furiously unchained,
-that we will not listen to the voice of reason; that we insult each
-other, that we accuse each other. You have even seen here officers who
-are old comrades, who tomorrow will vie with each other in deeds of
-valor and self-sacrifice, if the country is threatened,--you have seen
-them accuse each other, defy each other, and exchange retorts as if
-they were sword-thrusts. Tomorrow Colonel Picquart will cross swords
-with a companion in arms whom at the bottom of his heart perhaps he
-loves. And we, who do not wear the uniform, who are Frenchmen all the
-same, and who intend also that France shall be effectively defended,
-what do we do? A few of us assert that perhaps a judicial error has
-been committed. Then goes up a great cry from the crowd: ‘Traitor!
-Scoundrel! Renegade! Agent of the Jews!’ And these are Frenchmen,
-gentlemen, who think to serve France by pointing her out as a den of
-people who sell themselves; these are Frenchmen, to whom it never
-occurs to suppose that their fellow-citizens are capable of French
-generosity. They hurl insults, they betray hatred, and it is thus that
-they pretend to serve the country.
-
-“Gentlemen, if our enemies do not understand us, it is our duty to
-ourselves and to our country to understand them, in order that the
-prevailing obscurity may be dissipated. For my part, I consider that
-the worst treason, perhaps because it is the most common, is treason
-to the French spirit, that spirit of tolerance and justice which has
-made us beloved by the peoples of the earth. Even if France were to
-disappear tomorrow, we should leave behind us one thing eternal, the
-sentiments of liberty and human justice that France unchained upon the
-world in 1789. Gentlemen, when the hour of insults is past, when they
-have finished outraging us, it will be necessary to reply. And then
-what will they offer us? The thing judged. Gentlemen, look above your
-heads. See that Christ upon the cross. There is the thing judged, and
-it has been put above the judge’s head that the sight of it may not
-disturb him. It ought to be placed at the other end of the room, in
-order that, before rendering his verdict, the judge might have before
-his eyes the greatest example of a judicial error, held up for the
-shame of humanity. Oh! I am not one of the worshippers of Christ, in
-the sense in which many among you are, perhaps. But, after all, perhaps
-I love him more, and certainly I respect him more than do many of those
-who preach massacre in the name of the religion of love.
-
-“They also tell us of the honor of the army. On that point I have
-answered, but I wanted to cite to you, so odious are these words of
-treason, and so revolting is it to me to see them flung so freely
-about,--I wanted to cite to you the case of Marshal Bazaine. He was
-really a traitor, was he not? He betrayed French soldiers by hundreds
-of thousands, at the critical moment when it depended upon him to
-change the fortune of our arms and save his country. I wish to indulge
-in no declamation here, but I declare, and I defy any man to rise to
-contradict me, that Bazaine committed the greatest act of treason
-known to the world. Condemned to military degradation and to death,
-they spared him both. Tell me, do you think that the responsibility
-of commanders is greater than the responsibility of soldiers? Yes,
-undoubtedly. Well, if this responsibility is greater, why every day do
-they punish simple soldiers so pitilessly, and why do they pardon the
-traitor _par excellence_, the traitor who had no excuse, the traitor
-whose outstretched hand France awaited on the day of her supreme
-disaster. To what _régime_ did they submit him? Let me read you a few
-words from a pamphlet by M. Marchi, keeper of the prison of the Sainte
-Marguerite Islands. Here are his instructions:
-
- You will treat the prisoner with the greatest regard; in short, at
- Sainte Marguerite one must be a man of the world, and not a jailer.
-
-“M. Marchi arrives at Sainte Marguerite. The temporary superintendent
-makes him familiar with the service, and informs him, among other
-things, that, supposing it to be his duty to watch the condemned man
-whenever he went to walk upon the terrace, Lieutenant-Colonel Valley
-went to Paris to protest against the conduct of the keeper, wherefore
-the keeper had been reprimanded? It would take too long to tell you of
-all the instructions. Suffice it to know that cabinet ministers wrote
-to Bazaine, that they addressed him as Monsieur the Marshal, and that
-there was a question of pensioning him. Boats were allowed to come to
-the edge of the terrace, whence he conversed with visitors. On the eve
-of his escape he had obtained permission to go out with a guardian.
-Well, really, when I compare this tolerance, which is an outrage
-upon France and upon the army, with the hatred unchained against
-the prisoner on Devil’s Island; when I remember that an artillery
-officer named Triponé, who had not only delivered documents, but had
-delivered the Bourges detonator, of which we were the only possessors
-in Europe, by the complicity of the sub-officer Fessler, to the house
-of Armstrong, which then gave the benefit of it to Germany; when I see
-that Triponé was sentenced to five years in prison, and was pardoned
-after two years and a half, though his crime was certainly not less
-than that of Dreyfus,--I say that there is no equality of punishment
-between these Christians and this Jew.
-
-“Again, there is another fact. Adjutant Chatelain, who is now in New
-Caledonia, perhaps is farming there and raising cattle; his crime,
-if I remember rightly, consisted in the sale of certain documents to
-Italy. He was not less guilty than Dreyfus. But what a difference
-in treatment! They talk of equality before the law. It is a phrase.
-We await the reality. They tell us that we have violated the law.
-I maintain, on the contrary, that we appear here in the interest
-of the law, and I say that we were unable to do otherwise. For the
-rectification of a judicial error application was made to the war
-department, to the executive power. You know how General Billot
-received the application; he refused to act. M. Trarieux applied to
-M. Méline; M. Scheurer-Kestner did the same; M. Méline would not even
-talk with them. In the senate, discussion, leading to nothing. In
-the chamber, discussion, leading to nothing. And similarly with the
-council of war, with the investigation by General de Pellieux, with the
-investigation by Major Ravary. Now, when all the powers that are the
-organs of the law fail in their legal duty, what was left for those
-who, like M. Zola, have undertaken the work of justice from which the
-powers of justice shrank? M. Zola’s idea is an appeal to the people,
-an appeal to the people represented by twelve jurors whom he does not
-know, whose opinions none of us know, to pass upon his act, and say
-whether they will allow him to bring out the light. If he must be
-struck, he is very proud to be struck for this confession of justice
-and truth.
-
-“If the jury gives him its aid, the pacification of minds may be
-accomplished, and the agitation of this day finished by the legal
-reparation due to all who have been deprived of the guarantees of the
-law. Without truth, M. Zola can do nothing; he is powerless; he will be
-baffled on every hand. With a bit of the truth, M. Zola is invincible.
-It is for the jurors to answer to the appeal of truth.
-
-“I have said that the government is fallible. The jurors also have no
-higher light. They are men. They do their best. They have the advantage
-of being for a time unbiased by _esprit de corps_, and of being able
-thus, in perfect liberty of mind, to act in accordance with that need
-of superior justice which we all feel. We are before you, gentlemen.
-Shortly you will pass judgment. I hope that you may not be governed
-by the argument which now controls too many minds. How many Frenchmen
-there are who say: ‘Possibly Dreyfus was condemned illegally, but he
-was condemned justly, and that is sufficient; so let us say no more
-about it.’ Sophism of the _raison d’Etat_, which has done us so much
-harm,--which hampered the magnificent movement of the French revolution
-by the guillotine and all sorts of violence. Ah! we have torn down the
-Bastille. Every 14th of July we dance to celebrate the abolition of the
-_raison d’Etat_. But a Bastille still remains within us, and, when we
-question ourselves, an illegality committed to the detriment of others
-seems to us acceptable, and we say, and we think, that this may be a
-little evil for a great good. Profound error. An illegality is a form
-of iniquity, since the law is guarantee of justice.
-
-“Gentlemen, all the generals together have no right to say that the
-illegality which comes from a certain form of justice, since it is
-a denial of it; all the magistrates together,--have no right to say
-that illegality can be justice, because the law is nothing but the
-guarantee of justice. To do justice outside of the law no one has
-either the right or the power. If you wish to render the supreme
-service to the country under the present circumstances, establish the
-supremacy of the law, the supremacy of justice. Cause to disappear
-from our souls that respect for the _raison d’Etat_ so absurd in a
-democracy. With Louis XIV, with Napoleon, with men who hold a people in
-their hands and govern according to their good pleasure, the _raison
-d’Etat_ is intelligible. In a democracy the _raison d’Etat_ is only a
-contradiction, a vestige of the past. ‘France is a high moral person,’
-said Gambetta. I do not deny it, monarchy or republic. But I say that
-the tradition of the _raison d’Etat_ has had its day, and that the hour
-has come for us to attach ourselves to the modern idea of liberty and
-justice. After the original duty of defence of the soil, nothing can
-be more urgent than to establish among us a _régime_ of liberty and
-justice, which shall be in accordance with the ambition of our fathers,
-an example to all civilized nations.
-
-“At the present hour, I admit, the problem presents itself to you in a
-bitter and sorrowful form. Oh! it is very sorrowful to sincere people
-to find themselves in hostility with brave soldiers who intended to do
-well, who wished to do well, and who, thinking to do well, have not
-done well. That happens to civilians not in uniform; that happens to
-civilians in uniform,--for soldiers are nothing else.
-
-“From this point of view you are at a turning-point in our history,
-and you must submit military society to the control of the civil law,
-or abandon to it our most precious conquests. We have not to pass upon
-General de Boisdeffre or upon General de Pellieux. They will explain
-themselves to their superiors. It is not our affair. They have nothing
-to ask of us. But, however painful it may be to find ourselves for
-a day in conflict with them, take your course, since no danger can
-result, unless you yourselves abandon the cause of the law of justice
-which you represent. Thus you will render us the grand service, the
-inestimable service, of extinguishing at the beginning the religious
-war that threatens to dishonor this country. [Murmurs of protest.]
-
-“Since you protest, so much the better. I am willing to believe that
-it is your intention to renew the wars of religion; but, when I see in
-France, in our France of Algeria, a pillaging of warehouses; when I see
-it boasted in the newspapers that safes have been thrown into the sea,
-and that contracts have been torn up; when I see that Jews, while going
-to get bread for their families, have been massacred,--I have a right
-to say that religious warfare offered no other aspect in the middle
-ages; and I say that the jurors of today, in rendering a verdict in
-favor of liberty and justice for all, even for Jews, will signify their
-intention of putting an end to these excesses by saying to those who
-have committed these barbarities: ‘In the name of the French people,
-you shall go no farther.’
-
-“Gentlemen, we are the law; we are toleration; we are the defenders of
-the army, for we do not separate justice from patriotism, and the army
-will not be strong, it will not be respected, unless it derives its
-power from respect for the law. I add that we are the defenders of the
-army, when we ask you to drive Esterhazy from it. You have driven out
-Picquart, and kept Esterhazy. And, gentlemen of the jury, since there
-has been reference to your children, tell me who would like to belong
-to the same battalion that Esterhazy belongs to? Tell me if you will
-trust this officer to lead your children against the enemy? I need only
-ask the question. No one will dare reply.
-
-“Gentlemen, we have known terrible shocks in this century. We have
-experienced all glories and all disasters. We are now confronted with
-the unknown, between all fears and all hopes. Seize the occasion, as we
-have seized it, and determine your destinies. It is an august thing,
-this judgment of the people upon itself. It is a terrible thing also,
-this decision by the people of its future. Your verdict, gentlemen,
-will not decide our fates as much as your own. We appear before you.
-You appear before history.”
-
-It was six o’clock when M. Clemenceau took his seat and
-Attorney-General Van Cassel rose to reply.
-
-“I am obliged to place the question before you anew. M. Zola has
-declared that the council of war condemned in obedience to orders. Has
-he given the slightest proof of this? He has not even attempted it. For
-twelve days we have heard nothing here but insults to the army; and
-now, for the last two days, in order that they might be tolerated here,
-they have done nothing but repeat that the staff is made up of brave
-generals, and that the council of war rendered its verdict in good
-faith. The insulters have been forced to hide themselves behind the
-army, shouting: ‘Long live the army!’”
-
-To this address M. Labori made rejoinder. Facing the audience, which
-was crying “Enough! enough! Down with Labori!” he said:
-
-“This last incident was necessary, in order to show the two parties to
-this debate,--those, on the one hand, who plead for justice and right,
-and those who shout ‘Enough!’ when, in the name of the accused, the
-counsel takes the floor, as is his right.”
-
-Then, turning to the attorney-general, he continued:
-
-“You call me an insulter of the army; for it was at me that your
-words were aimed, since it was I who spoke for two days. I am not of
-those who are accustomed to such attacks, and I am not of those who
-are disposed to submit to them. I do not accept this insult that rises
-to me from your seat, Monsieur Attorney-General, however high your
-position. From the standpoint of talent you and I are equals. You have
-no lesson to give me. I refuse you the right, and I say that you rose
-to utter these brief words because you knew that they would let loose
-a manifestation which you had a right to expect from a hall packed
-against us.”
-
-Then, turning to the jury, he concluded:
-
-“There are two ways of understanding right, gentlemen of the jury. The
-question before you is this: Is Zola guilty? Let these clamors dictate
-to you, gentlemen, the duty of firmness that is incumbent upon you.
-You are the sovereign arbiters. You are higher than the army, higher
-than the judicial power. You are the justice of the people, which only
-the judgment of history will judge. If you have the courage, declare
-Zola guilty of having struggled against all hatreds in behalf of right,
-justice, and liberty.”
-
-The session was then suspended, and the jury retired for deliberation.
-After thirty-five minutes, it returned. The court came in again. Then
-the foreman of the jury rose and said:
-
-“On my honor and my conscience the declaration of the jury is: as
-concerns Perrenx, _yes_, by a majority vote. As concerns Zola, _yes_,
-by a majority vote.”
-
-Then the air was filled with cries of ‘Long live the army! Long live
-France! Down with the insulters! To the door with Jews! Death to Zola!’
-amid which Zola sadly cried: ‘These people are cannibals.’
-
-The court then retired to deliberate upon the sentence. Returning a few
-minutes later, it condemned M. Perrenx, the _gérant_ of “L’Aurore,”
-to an imprisonment of four months and the payment of a fine of three
-thousand francs; upon M. Emile Zola it inflicted the maximum penalty of
-one year’s imprisonment and a fine of three thousand francs.
-
-The trial thus being ended, the court adjourned; but a day or two later
-the council for the accused appealed from the verdict to the higher
-court.
-
-
-
-
-Transcriber’s Note
-
-
-Printer’s errors have been corrected by the transcriber where they
-could be clearly identified. Otherwise, as far as possible, original
-spelling and punctuation have been preserved.
-
-In this file, text in _italics_ is indicated by underscores.
-
-*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF EMILE ZOLA ***
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
-United States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
-the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
-of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
-copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
-easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
-of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
-Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
-do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
-by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
-license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country other than the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
-  you are located before using this eBook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that:
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
-the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
-forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
-Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
-to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
-and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without
-widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.