diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-0.txt | 17173 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-0.zip | bin | 313709 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-h.zip | bin | 728127 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-h/68561-h.htm | 20154 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-h/images/bertillons.jpg | bin | 212056 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68561-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 221626 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 37327 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..05a97b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68561 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68561) 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. diff --git a/old/68561-0.zip b/old/68561-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1d7f5ee..0000000 --- a/old/68561-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68561-h.zip b/old/68561-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1b233e2..0000000 --- a/old/68561-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68561-h/68561-h.htm b/old/68561-h/68561-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index c957f0e..0000000 --- a/old/68561-h/68561-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20154 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta charset="UTF-8" /> - <title> - The Trial of Emile Zola, by Emile Zola—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover" /> - <style> /* <![CDATA[ */ - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -h4 {font-weight: normal;} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: left; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - - -.p200 {font-size: 2em;} -.p180 {font-size: 1.8em;} -.p140 {font-size: 1.4em;} -.p130 {font-size: 1.3em;} -.p120 {font-size: 1.2em;} - -.p90 {font-size:0.9em;} -.p80 {font-size:0.8em;} - -.p50 {font-size:0.5em;} - -.p0 {margin-top: 0em;} -.p1_5 {margin-top: 1.5em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p3 {margin-top: 3em;} - -.mr10 {margin-right: 10%;} -.mr15 {margin-right: 15%;} -.mr20 {margin-right: 20%;} - - -.ml5 {margin-left: 5%;} -.ml60 {margin-left: 60%;} - -.mb0 {margin-bottom: 0em;} -.mb1_5 {margin-bottom: 1.5em;} -.mb3 {margin-bottom: 3em;} - - - -.break {page-break-before: always;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%;} - -hr.r10 {width: 10%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 45%; margin-right: 45%;} - - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - - - - - -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } -table.autotable td, - -table.shrink { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - -.tdr {text-align: right;} - - - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; -} - - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - - - -.u {text-decoration: underline;} - - - -.caption p {text-align: center;} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} -img.w100 {width: 100%;} - - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - - - -/* Footnotes */ - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - -em, .italic {font-style: italic;} - -/* Illustration classes */ -.illowp45 {width: 45%;} -.x-ebookmaker .illowp45 {width: 100%;} -/* ]]> */ </style> -</head> - -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The trial of Emile Zola, by Emile Zola</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. 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. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The trial of Emile Zola</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>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</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Emile Zola</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: July 18, 2022 [eBook #68561]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>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.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF EMILE ZOLA ***</div> - - - - - -<p class="u p130 center"><b>FULL REPORT, FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES.</b></p> - - - -<h1><span class="p80">THE TRIAL</span><br /> -<span class="p50">OF</span><br /> -EMILE ZOLA</h1> - - - -<p class="center p2 p130"><b>A DETAILED REPORT</b></p> - -<p class="center"><b>OF THE</b></p> - -<p class="center p130 mb1_5"><b>Fifteen Days’ Proceedings in the<br /> -Assize Court at Paris</b></p> - - -<hr class="r10" /> - - -<p class="center p1_5">NEW YORK<br /> -<span class="smcap">Benj. R. Tucker, 24 Gold Street</span><br /> -1898</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> - - - -<hr class="full x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - - -<p class="center p180 break"><span class="smcap">The Trial</span></p> - -<p class="center">OF</p> - -<p class="center p200">EMILE ZOLA</p> - -<hr class="r10 p2" /> - - -<p class="center p90"><span class="smcap">Containing</span></p> - -<p class="center">M. ZOLA’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT FAURE RELATING TO<br /> -THE DREYFUS CASE, AND A FULL REPORT OF THE<br /> -FIFTEEN DAYS’ PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSIZE<br /> -COURT OF THE SEINE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY<br /> -OF WITNESSES AND SPEECHES OF COUNSEL</p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">New York</span><br /> -<span class="smcap">Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher</span><br /> -1898</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span></p> - - - - -<hr class="full x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - - - -<p class="center break"><span class="smcap">Copyright<br /> -By Benj. R. Tucker</span><br /> -1898 -</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p3">☞ 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.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="full x-ebookmaker-drop break" /> - - -<h2>Contents.</h2> - -<table class="autotable shrink" style="min-width:20em"> -<tr> - <td>The Offence</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#THE_OFFENCE">3</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>The First Day of the Trial</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#THE_TRIAL">16</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Second Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#second">33</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Third Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#third">60</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Fourth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#fourth">81</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Fifth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#fifth">103</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Sixth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#sixth">134</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Seventh Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#seventh">163</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Eighth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#eighth">181</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Ninth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#ninth">199</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Tenth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#tenth">212</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Eleventh Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#eleventh">229</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Twelfth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#twelfth">245</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Thirteenth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#thirteenth">253</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Fourteenth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#fourteenth">282</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Fifteenth Day</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#fifteenth">308</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="full x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_OFFENCE">THE OFFENCE.</h2> -</div> - - -<div class="p90"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, or itemized memorandum, supposed to have been -written by Captain Dreyfus, and on the strength of which the latter was -convicted.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i>, or legally responsible -editor, J. A. Perrenx, published the following letter from Emile Zola, -man of letters, to Félix Faure, president of France:</p> -</div> - - -<p class="center p140"><b>I ACCUSE...!</b></p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p class="center p120">LETTER TO M. FELIX FAURE, PRESIDENT OF THE -REPUBLIC.</p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p><i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>:</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>You have emerged from base calumnies safe and sound; -you have conquered hearts. You seem radiant in the -apotheosis of that patriotic <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fête</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And to you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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?</p> - -<p>First, the truth as to the trial and conviction of Dreyfus.</p> - -<p>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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> already had been for some time in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was an object of inquiry, when little by -little an <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">a priori</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i>. They have suffered folly to do -its work.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -And even as to this we learn that the experts were -not in agreement; that one of them, M. Gobert, was hustled<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>So there remained only the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>These, then, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I shall not give the history of M. Scheurer-Kestner’s -doubts, which later became convictions. But, while he was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dénouement</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>There you have, then, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">résumé</i> 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.</p> - -<p>How could it have been expected that a council of war -would undo what a council of war had done?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> -back into its throat its cry of truth and justice, under -the lying and sacrilegious pretext of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i>!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Such, then, is the simple truth, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, -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.</p> - -<p>But this letter is long, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, and it is -time to finish.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lèse-humanité</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lèse-justice</i> for a political purpose, and to -save the compromised staff.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i> which makes of the war offices -the Holy Ark, unassailable.</p> - -<p>I accuse General de Pellieux and Major Ravary of having<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I await it.</p> - -<p>Accept, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, the assurance of my -profound respect.</p> - -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Emile Zola.</span><br /> -</p> - -<div class="p90"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> -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:</p> - -<div class="ml5"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>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:</p> -</div> - -<p>Why were you afraid to take notice of all my charges? -I will tell you.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>And now you are quite at your ease, are you not?</p> - -<p>Well, you are mistaken; I warn you in advance; you -have been ill-advised.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You have forgotten that I am to have for judges twelve -French citizens, in possession of their independence.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>Liberty to prove,—that is the power on which I depend.</p> - -<div class="p90"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>On February 7 M. Zola and M. Perrenx appeared for trial, and the -record of the court proceedings here follows.</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_TRIAL">THE TRIAL.</h2> -</div> - - -<h3><span class="smcap">First Day—February 7.</span></h3> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> 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:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The usual dialogue then ensued between the judge and -M. Zola.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span></p> - -<p>“Your name?”</p> - -<p>“Emile Zola.”</p> - -<p>“Your profession?”</p> - -<p>“Man of letters.”</p> - -<p>“Your age?”</p> - -<p>“Fifty-eight years.”</p> - -<p>“Your residence?”</p> - -<p>“21 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bis</i>, Rue de Bruxelles.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> 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.</p> -</div> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> -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: <em>Did the first council of war act in -obedience to orders in acquitting Major Esterhazy?</em> 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.”</p> - -<p>To this contention M. Labori made the following reply:</p> - -<p>“I am not much astonished, gentlemen, at the difficulties<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Reading then all the charges made at the end of M. -Zola’s letter, M. Labori continued:</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>; the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> concerning -which the first experts testified; the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> concerning -which, at the second trial, experts testified again. And it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>In reinforcement of the position of M. Labori, M. Albert -Clemenceau then addressed the court:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Albert Clemenceau.—“We accept any discussion before -the assize court.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Complete light!”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In regard to him we make a reservation.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Here is a letter from General Gonse. He -asks to be heard among the first, because of his service.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“Nor his service?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Nor his service.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I make a reservation, as in the case of General -Billot.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span></p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have not yet received it.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Then you make a reservation?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I make a reservation in regard to M. Casimir-Perier.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I regret to inform you that Mlle. de Comminges -is sick, and that she has sent a doctor’s certificate.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“There is no question here of Mlle. de -Comminges. The question is of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty -de Clam.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> -it seems, on the demand of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de -Clam, a meeting was appointed at the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cours la Reine</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But I do not see the relation between what -you have just said and the matter for which your client is -prosecuted.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“None.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“They have put forward the plea of the -nation’s defence. But that is a jest.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“The defence of the nation a -jest?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> -most that we deserve. It will be seen later whether we -deserve it.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“... and it is my duty, to tell the whole. -Mme. de Boulancy has other letters” ...</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“That is absolutely true.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“She lives in the Boulevard des Batignolles, -No. 22.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“She is not there either.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The judge then read the following letter from Major -Ravary:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>My presence at the trial would be absolutely useless. I abstain, then, -from appearing.</p> - -<p class="ml60"> -<span class="smcap">Ravary.</span><br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span></p> - -<p>The judge then announced that Major Rivals and the -court clerk, Vallecalle, had notified him that they would not -appear.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“In short, we should like to know whether -these persons have received orders from Billot, or are acting -on their own initiative.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“All these witnesses seem to imagine that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1) Is she aware that her name has been used in writing to Colonel -Picquart?</p> - -<p>(2) How did she become aware of it?</p> - -<p>(3) Did she not give the nickname “demigod” to Captain Lallement?</p> - -<p>(4) Does she know whether this name was used in a telegram which is -said to have been a forgery?</p> - -<p>(5) Had Colonel du Paty de Clam any reason for entertaining a revengeful -feeling toward her and her family?</p> - -<p>(6) Is it not within her knowledge that he resorted in 1892 to very -serious manœuvres, notably the employment of anonymous letters?</p> - -<p>(7) Was not this matter put in the hands of M. Lozé, prefect of police, -and did not General D—— have to intervene?</p> - -<p>(8) Did not Colonel du Paty de Clam arrange, for the restitution of a -letter, a scene that took place at <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cours la Reine</i>, in which a veiled lady -appeared?</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span></p> - -<p>After hearing these motions, the court adjourned for the -day.</p> - - -<h3 id="second"><span class="smcap">Second Day—February 8.</span></h3> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> without him.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> of ‘L’Aurore.’ -I demand that he be summoned again, and, if need be, forced -to come.”</p> - -<p>The next letter was from a widow Chapelon, who declared -herself afflicted with influenza.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> -that, as in the case of Major Esterhazy, she be brought to -court after a second summons.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“There is a doctor’s certificate.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Mme. Dreyfus.</span></h4> - -<p>The calling of the witnesses was then begun, the first to -take the stand being Mme. Lucie Dreyfus, wife of ex-Captain -Dreyfus.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What has that to do with the case?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It concerns M. Zola’s good faith.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Do you know Article 52, of the law of -1881?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> -will not be put by me. Let that be well understood. It is -useless to recur to the matter.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“He is not prosecuted for that.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“It is in the summons.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Offer your motion. The question will not -be put by me.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then the court will put no question -concerning good faith?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Concerning anything that relates to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> -Dreyfus case. No. Offer your motions. I repeat that I -will not put the question.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will you permit me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, -in our common interest, to ask you, then, what practical -means you see by which we may ascertain the truth?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That does not concern me.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1) What do you think of M. Zola’s good faith?</p> - -<p>(2) What are the reasons that have led you to believe in his good -faith?</p> - -<p>(3) Do you consider from what you know that the measures taken -against your husband were legal or illegal?</p> - -<p>(4) Will you describe the first visit of Major du Paty de Clam at your -house? Who were present?</p> - -<p>(5) Did not M. du Paty de Clam utter the grossest insults against -your husband?</p> - -<p>(6) Did he not pretend to demonstrate his guilt geometrically and by -drawing concentric circles?</p> - -<p>(7) Did he not speak of the Iron Mask?</p> - -<p>(8) Did he not expressly forbid you to speak of the arrest to anyone -whomsoever, even to his family?</p> - -<p>(9) After how long a time were you allowed the right to write to your -husband?</p> - -<p>(10) After how long a time did you again see your husband?</p> - -<p>(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”?</p> - -<p>(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?</p> - -<p>(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?</p> - -<p>(14) What do you think of your husband’s character and morals? -What was the nature of your life with him after your marriage?</p> - -<p>(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?</p> -</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Take it once for all, and do not renew this -scene with each witness.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“To the point of self-denial.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Gentlemen of the jury, to you will I address -myself. I am not an orator, I am a writer; but unfortunately” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You should address the court.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You said: ‘I have not to know the law at -this moment.’”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Bravo!”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“So, M. Labori, you give the -signal for these bravos?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is true, I said ‘Bravo;’ but frankly, it -was the cry of my conscience.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The court denied the motion of M. Labori, and the second -witness was called,—M. Leblois, a lawyer of the appellate -court.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Leblois.</span></h4> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, what question do you desire me -to put to the witness?”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span></p> - -<p>The court interposing no objection, M. Leblois made the -following statement:</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">salon</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What do you know about it?”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I know it in the -most certain and natural way, because I was myself a witness -before the council of inquiry.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Were you there throughout the hearing?”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“No, but I have knowledge of the facts with -which the colonel was reproached.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Permit me to observe, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Permit me, Maître Labori; I suppose that -the court is entitled to question witnesses.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is not entitled to interrupt them.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is what I have just done.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The deposition of M. Leblois is not finished. -He was in the course of it when you interrupted him.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Pardon, M. Leblois had finished. I asked -him a question to throw light upon his deposition.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You should have said so at the beginning.”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“I did say so.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I did not hear it.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> -the reporter in the case, is clearly in a position to prove -what I have just said.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge [hastily].—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, we are very desirous -that he should.”</p> - -<p>The Judge [sadly].—“Since the defence demands it, -speak.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Yet the witness said just now that -they sent a letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart after -having opened it.”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“That was in 1896. It was in December of -that year that the Speranza letter was sent.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then my question was appropriate. -All these things happened at the same time.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> -analogy with the participation of the veiled lady in the -Esterhazy case?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But you know nothing about it; this information -is second-hand.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But the sequel is interesting.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But what relation has all this to the charge -against the defendants?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“At what time did the events in connection -with this letter occur?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span></p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“In the spring of 1892, and, if I am not mistaken, -the restitution took place on Good Friday of that -year.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Scheurer-Kestner.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was M. Scheurer-Kestner.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, attributed in 1894 to -Captain Dreyfus, was really to be attributed to Major Esterhazy, -and what steps he took in the matter afterwards?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Monsieur Attorney-General!”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“It is always the same question.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It <em>is</em> always the same question, and I understand -why you are always ready to welcome it in the same -manner.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“I note what you say, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">à propos</i> of other matters, but relating to Major -Esterhazy, that there had been a mistake in 1894 in attributing -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to Alfred -Dreyfus. Colonel Picquart, showing him the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, that is not possible.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“We must have the light, and I consider it -indispensable that these letters should be put in evidence.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“General Gonse and Lieutenant-Colonel -Picquart have been summoned. They will testify -concerning the letters, if they see fit.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I suggest that M. Scheurer-Kestner be -authorized to hand the letters to the court.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“It is not possible. The government -should have been notified of them at the proper time.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Oh!”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Oh! <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, if you knew -how much pain it gives me, as a man of the world, to thus -make you suffer.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Very well; so be it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="right"> -<span class="smcap"><span class="mr10">Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),</span><br /> -<span class="mr20">September 7, 1896.</span></span></p> - -<p><span class="italic">My dear Picquart</span>: -</p> - -<p class="mb0">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.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> -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,</p> - -<p class="right mr15 p0"> -<span class="smcap">A. Gonse.</span> -</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> The reference here is to the documents that accompanied the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -attributed to Dreyfus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> The reference here is to the comparison of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting -with that of the bordereau.</p> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="p2 right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Paris, September 8, 1896.</span></p> - -<p><span class="italic">My General</span>: -</p> - -<p class="mb0">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,<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.,</p> - -<p class="right mr15 p0"> -<span class="smcap">Picquart</span>.<br /> -</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> The reference here is to the relatives of Dreyfus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="p2 right"> -<span class="smcap"><span class="mr10">Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),</span><br /> -<span class="mr20">September 10, 1896.</span></span></p> - -<p> -<span class="italic">My dear Picquart</span>: -</p> - -<p class="mb0">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,</p> - -<p class="right mr15 p0"> -<span class="smcap">Gonse</span>. -</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="p2 right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Paris, September 14, 1896.</span></p> - -<p><span class="italic">My General</span>: -</p> - -<p class="mb0">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.,</p> - -<p class="right mr15 p0"> -<span class="smcap">Picquart</span>. -</p> -</div> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span></p> - -<p>M. Scheurer-Kestner, after repeating the substance of the -foregoing letters, continued his testimony as follows:</p> - -<p>“Such, gentlemen, is the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">résumé</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span></p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“As they call me an Italian.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Without news, with insults.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Casimir-Perier.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, ex-president of -the republic.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Casimir-Perier.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, before -taking the oath, I ask your permission to reiterate the declaration -that I made yesterday in writing.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Yes, but, before making your declaration, -it is necessary to take the oath.”</p> - -<p>M. Casimir-Perier.—“I cannot tell the whole truth; it is -my duty not to tell it.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Let the Dreyfus case alone; let us have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> -nothing to say about it. Can you answer, M. Casimir-Perier, -in regard to the Esterhazy case?”</p> - -<p>M. Casimir-Perier.—“I did not know, while I was president -of the republic, that there were any Esterhazy papers.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“On that point the court has rendered a -decree.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“There can be no testimony against the thing -judged. That was repeated in today’s decree.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“We offer no testimony against the authority -of the thing judged.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is the same thing.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“No, no.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You maintain that in the Dreyfus case -there was illegality.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Then it is the same thing. It is useless to -insist.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“But the Esterhazy case is also a thing judged.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But you are prosecuted on that matter.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“But we are also prosecuted on the other.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Not the least in the world.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Then there are differences in the thing -judged?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The question will not be put. It is useless -to debate it.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> -court. I do not wish to detain M. Casimir-Perier longer, so -I shall ask you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I think the court does not clearly -understand my <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère’s</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is not a fact; it is an opinion.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then the court refuses to ask this -question?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is not a proper question to ask.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Well, on this question, as on the others, -we shall offer a motion.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is not at all what M. Casimir-Perier -said. He declared that he did not believe it his duty to -speak.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I demand that the question be put to -the witness.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Casimir-Perier.—“I am a simple citizen, and at the -service of the courts of my country.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“M. Casimir-Perier sets an illustrious -example, when others have to be forced by legal measures -to appear in the assize court.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You offer a motion, but you know what -the opinion of the court is. It will be the same decree -again.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Well, it will be only the easier to render -it.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. de Castro.</span></h4> - -<p>The witness-chair was then taken by M. de Castro, who -testified as follows:</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -of the famous <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.’ 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> -written by the same hand.’ and, indeed, I recognized Major -Esterhazy’s writing.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“At that time had Major Esterhazy’s name -been spoken as that of the possible author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>? -Did M. de Castro suspect that M. Esterhazy was already -under suspicion?”</p> - -<p>M. de Castro.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did M. de Castro receive threatening -letters?”</p> - -<p>M. de Castro.—“No; no letters. I received one day a -telegram. If the court desires, I will produce it.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, but what did it say?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did this handwriting resemble that of -Major Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The witness was then allowed to step down, and the court -adjourned for the day.</p> - - -<h3 id="third"><span class="smcap">Third Day—February 9.</span></h3> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“There must be no confusion here, no -arriving by indirect methods at that which the decree of the -court has forbidden.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I will question Mme. Dreyfus concerning -only the second council of war that tried the Esterhazy -case.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The trial is not in progress.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It is essential that the witnesses -should not be present at any part of the trial before their -deposition” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The day’s debate has not begun.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“No, their physicians were not present.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“The expert just said that the physician -of Mlle. de Comminges told him a certain thing.”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“That was in his certificate.”</p> - -<p>These preliminaries over, the witness-stand was taken by -General de Boisdeffre.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of General de Boisdeffre.</span></h4> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“Professional secrecy does not -permit me to answer.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Let us pass to another order of ideas.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I know absolutely nothing about -the veiled lady, and have not heard her spoken of except by -the newspapers.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“We did all that we could to find -out who the veiled lady was, but we found out nothing.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> -that she had some sort of relations with Colonel Picquart?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I know nothing about it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us how the -liberating document got away from the war department?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I know nothing about that, -either.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But the general must have made an -inquiry.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us what -charges are made against Colonel Picquart?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And are there other reprehensible points?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“He was sent upon an order of -the minister of war.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Which is also secret, evidently.”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“The object of the mission was -secret.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Exactly. Was Colonel Picquart sent away -in disgrace?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span></p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I cannot say of any officer sent -upon a mission that he was sent away in disgrace.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us what idea -it was that obsessed Colonel Picquart’s mind?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I do not believe that I can -answer that question, because I must not answer concerning -the case” ...</p> - -<p>Here the witness hesitated.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Concerning what case?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“The case of Dreyfus.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And why must not the witness go into the -Dreyfus case?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“Because a decree of the court, -which I have read in the newspapers, separates the two -cases.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does not General de Boisdeffre know that -Major Esterhazy has been prosecuted and examined concerning -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> attributed to Dreyfus in 1894?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“Major Esterhazy was examined -behind closed doors. Consequently it is not for me to know -what took place behind closed doors.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> -his doubts to our satisfaction, and we could only -invite him to abstain and not continue his researches.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What is the source of the communications -made to certain newspapers, seeming to come from the war -offices?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“To my knowledge, they do not -emanate from the war offices.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Has General de Boisdeffre investigated the -matter?”</p> - -<p>General de Boisdeffre.—“I have made an investigation, -and questioned the officers.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“And you are certain that these communications -do not emanate from them?”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The court suspended its decision, and General Gonse was -called to the witness-stand.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of General Gonse.</span></h4> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I cannot answer as to that.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Why did Major Esterhazy call that document<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> -the liberating document?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I cannot answer.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Do you know the veiled lady?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did you make an inquiry in order to discover -her?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I cannot answer these questions. They -are traps.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span></p> - -<p>General Gonse then resumed his testimony, speaking as -follows in regard to his correspondence with Colonel -Picquart:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Major Lauth.</span></h4> - -<p>General Gonse was succeeded at the witness-stand by -Major Lauth, Colonel Picquart’s subordinate in the bureau -of information.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And now your interpretation is different?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“It is certain that Colonel Picquart -wanted me to certify a handwriting that I did not know.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“None the less you remained Colonel Picquart’s -friend?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“I was under his orders.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You have dined at his house?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span></p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“And he has dined at mine. I could not -turn my back on him for a thing like that.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“When did you photograph Major Esterhazy’s -handwriting?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The stand was then taken by Adjutant Gribelin, keeper of -the archives in the bureau of information.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Adjutant Gribelin.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What do you know of the interviews that -M. Leblois had with Colonel Picquart at the war -department?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was that the only file that Colonel Henry -had so stamped?”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What was this secret file?”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“I do not know.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Who was the chief at that time,—Colonel -Henry, then major, or Colonel Picquart?”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori then demanded that M. Gribelin be confronted -with M. Leblois. Accordingly the latter advanced to the bar.</p> - -<p>“It is true,” said he, “that I visited Colonel Picquart. -The rest of M. Gribelin’s testimony I absolutely deny.”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“I swear that I have told the truth.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Where are these declarations?”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“They are in the file of the council of -inquiry which met to judge Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask that they be sent for.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of General Mercier.</span></h4> - -<p>Being asked by M. Labori if he was acquainted with the -document known as the liberating document, he answered in -the negative.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“That document contains a postscript beginning -with the words: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ Are you -familiar with this document?”</p> - -<p>General Mercier.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was a secret document communicated to -the council of war in the Dreyfus case in 1894, outside of the -trial?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can you answer the question?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does General Mercier know of the publication -in September, 1896, of certain confidential information<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> -belonging to the war department?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>General Mercier.—“What was the date of the indiscretion -to which you refer?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Could General Mercier tell me to whom he -attributes the publication?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I asked General Mercier just now if a -secret document was communicated to the council of war in -1894.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But I should have stopped him. We are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> -not a court of revision, but an assize court. Remember -that.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Agreed, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I point out to you that we are not a court of -revision, but an assize court.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General Mercier.—“Pardon me, I say that that is not -true.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General Mercier.—“I have not to answer the first question, -but, as to the second, I say that it is not true.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General Mercier.—“I thank you.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Have you anything to add, General?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You are mistaken, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> of the presiding judge. I point out to -you that you are encroaching on the Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>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’.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“And he did well.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The former minister of war then stepped down, and the -former minister of justice, M. Trarieux, took the stand.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Trarieux.</span></h4> - -<p>His deposition was as follows:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is not the material work of -Major Esterhazy. As everybody knows, they have affirmed -that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> could have been communicated<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> -Dreyfus was really a traitor, since his relations with <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> -of a foreign embassy were confessed by a foreign <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> -himself.</p> - -<p>“Gentlemen, who could have communicated this document? -A few days later another article was published in -‘Le Matin,’ which reproduced the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“It is certain—Major Esterhazy confesses it—that a document -was withdrawn from the war department,—the document<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>At this point an adjournment was taken for the day.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span></p> - - -<h3 id="fourth"><span class="smcap">Fourth Day—February 10.</span></h3> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span class="italic">Dear Master</span>:</p> - -<p class="mb0">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.</p> - -<p class="right mr15 p0 mb0"> -<span class="smcap">L. Dreyfus.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p class="ml5 p0"><span class="smcap">February 10, 1898.</span></p> -</div> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Trarieux.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Trarieux was recalled to the witness-stand.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will M. Trarieux tell us what he knows -about the way in which Colonel Picquart’s mission was -executed?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“In other words, you ask M. Trarieux if he -is familiar with the mission entrusted to Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“General de Boisdeffre told us yesterday -that it was a secret mission.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It may involve secrets concerning the -national defence. That is why I will put no question on the -point.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is so said, I know, but I should like to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Witness, you understand the question. I -will ask you to say what you think it is your duty to say.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Trarieux.—“I suppose you refer to the visit of M. -Demange?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Is this in relation to the Dreyfus case?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is in relation to a document involved in -the Dreyfus trial.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I ask you to say nothing about it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>,—and -the court with you, for you are not the sole master,—as -you see fit.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>,—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.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ipso facto</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Doctor Socquet.</span></h4> - -<p>Dr. Socquet was then recalled to the stand.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span></p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I forgot to ask Dr. Socquet whether he -found Mme. de Boulancy at No. 22, Boulevard des -Batignolles.”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Will he tell the court how he succeeded -in finding her, since that was the only address that he -knew?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“Through the letter handed to me by <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur -le Président</i>. He gave me a doctor’s certificate establishing -her sickness, which was accompanied by a letter that -gave the address.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i> recall the -incident?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Perfectly. I am looking for the address in -the letter.”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“It is on the third page.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“From whom is this letter?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Reference to the stenographic report will show -that Mme. de Boulancy’s present address was not given at -the hearing.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is a matter of no importance.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet [after some hesitation].—“Yes, we talked of -something else.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Something that did not concern her -health?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Did Dr. Socquet ask Mme. de Boulancy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span> -the following question: ‘Is it true that you have other -letters from Major Esterhazy than those that have been published?’”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Did the witness say to Mme. de Boulancy: -‘Is it true that you have three telegrams from Major -Esterhazy?’”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“No.”</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Was the name Esterhazy uttered at all -in the course of the conversation?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet [after reflection].—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Under what circumstances was this -name uttered, and by whom?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“By Mme. de Boulancy.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“As Mme. de Boulancy would not have -uttered this word singly, will the witness tell us what other -words she added?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I call M. Clemenceau’s attention to the fact -that he is entering into the domain of a private conversation.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“She said: ‘All his letters.’ Six letters, -plus a seventh, which contains the word ‘Uhlans.’”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Did she say that they were genuine?”</p> - -<p>Dr. Socquet.—“That is what she said. I did not question -her. I allowed her to talk, seeing no objection to it.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. du Paty de Clam.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Socquet then stepped down, and M. du Paty de Clam -took his place.</p> - -<p>“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>,” 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But here there has been no question” ...</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>M. du Paty de Clam.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he have a correspondence with one or -more members of his family?”</p> - -<p>M. du Paty de Clam.—“It is on this point, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You understand the answer?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yes, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I understand -the answer, and I understand also that, though you consider -it good, I do not.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Exactly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I do not, and I will tell you why, if you will -permit me.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go ahead.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“These are <em>your</em> witnesses.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, these are not <em>our</em> 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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Colonel Henry.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was Colonel Henry.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Henry tell us how far the facts<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Gribelin made the same answer.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“M. Gribelin, the keeper of the archives, -to whom I had given the key of my closet,” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Thus it results from the testimony of the -witness” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Gribelin was under Colonel Picquart’s -orders.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But what was Colonel Henry’s position?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Major.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Under whose orders?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Under the orders of Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It was Colonel Sandherr who gave those -orders. He is dead, I believe.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“He was sick and unconscious.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Who is now in the service under General -Gonse’s orders?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“I am.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Thank you.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Did not Colonel Henry confer concerning -a certain matter directly with M. Leblois? I ask no -details.”</p> - -<p>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’” ...</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Was it not the habit of the witness to -do that?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“No.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But one of the witnesses yesterday said -that it was?”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“In the absence of Colonel Picquart?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois.—“This conference lasted several hours in your -own private office. You admitted it before the council of -war.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span></p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. de la Batut.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was M. de la Batut, who testified as follows:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“After he had thus relieved you, was -the punishment replaced by another of a more general -character?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Major Ravary.</span></h4> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“There is an error. It is <em>a</em> secret file, not -<em>the</em> secret file.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask first not what this file contained, since -it is secret, but to what it related?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“As to that, I am completely ignorant.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“That is enough; I am satisfied.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary—“It was so stated in the testimony of either -Colonel Henry or M. Gribelin.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“I said either M. Gribelin or Colonel -Henry.”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin, being recalled testified as follows: “What I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“My report is a sincere expression of the file -of documents. Let the file be called for.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“M. Gribelin says that the file was in an -envelope.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“The envelope was cut lengthwise.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“We know it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Exactly.”</p> - -<p>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....’”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But we ask nothing better.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“That does not concern me. My conduct -was that of an honest man; that is all.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of General de Pellieux.</span></h4> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“We shall remember this promise.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span> -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, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. M. Mathieu Dreyfus -had accused Major Esterhazy of being the author of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. About this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> much has been said. -Few people have seen it; I believe that it would be easy to -count them. But many have seen <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i>, and I, who -have seen it, must say that these <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> singularly resemble -forgeries, and that to pretend to base an expert -opinion of handwriting on <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> that have appeared in -the newspapers is, it seems to me, to go a long way. -Nothing less resembles the newspaper <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> than the -original <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>; consequently all the expert testimony -made so lightly is of no value.</p> - -<p>“I listened to Major Esterhazy’s defence concerning the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -speaks. The council of war has judged that matter, and I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The judge refused to allow the request.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I have no opinion to express.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Ah! very well.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“What opinion do you expect me -to express?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Were you familiar, in the Esterhazy case, -with the communication of secret documents by Colonel -Picquart to M. Leblois?”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“It was absolutely useless to search<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span> -the premises of Major Esterhazy, as that had been done during -eight months by Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Thévenet.</span></h4> - -<p>Being asked what he thought of the good faith of M. Zola -in writing the article, “I Accuse,” he said:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Surely.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrères</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span></p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Salle.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does M. Salle know any fact of interest to -the defence of M. Zola?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is not a question. In relation to -what?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In relation to the affair of M. Zola.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Permit me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span> -trial. [To the witness.] Have you anything to say in relation -to the Esterhazy case?”</p> - -<p>M. Salle.—“Concerning the Esterhazy case I have nothing -to say.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Of the Dreyfus case let us say nothing.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I do not wish -to speak of the Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Pardon me, you wish to speak of it -indirectly.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Will <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i> 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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I have told you that that question would -not be put.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then I ask a legal declaration to that -effect from the court.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The court grants you a legal declaration of -anything you like.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Oh! <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The accusation concerning the Esterhazy -case.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge [to the witness].—“Do you know of anything -in the Esterhazy case which” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask that the question be put in the terms -in which I framed it.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have no right to ask indirect questions -in order to reach an end which you should not reach.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I use no indirect -methods.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I ask your pardon.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I accept no observations which imply that I -desire to reach an end by indirect means.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You know the summons; you know the -court’s decree. Let us not go outside of that.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I do not go outside of it. And let me tell -you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I repeat that I will put only such questions -as concern the Esterhazy case, and none that concern the -Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I make no reference to the Dreyfus case. -Here we come to the culminating point of this trial. -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i> -will not have time to stop him.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Monsieur, do not answer.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h3 id="fifth"><span class="smcap">Fifth Day—February 11.</span></h3> - -<p>At the beginning of the session the judge recalled General -de Pellieux to the stand.</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did not this word ‘demigod’ occur in one -of the dispatches sent to Colonel Picquart at Sousse in -November, 1897?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes, and the expression occurs -again in a letter signed ‘Bianca,’ addressed to Colonel Picquart -by Mlle. de Comminges.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did he abandon his declaration later?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“From whom was the letter -signed ‘J,’ seized on the premises of Colonel Picquart?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It is the court that is conducting this -trial.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“There are different ways of serving France.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Oh! no phrases. You can only ask questions. -What questions do you wish to put to the general?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I will not -answer.”</p> - -<p>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?’”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Those documents are on file with -the other documents pertaining to the investigation.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is unfortunate that we cannot obtain -these documents. Did not this dispatch show an astonishing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span> -resemblance to the dispatch that Major Esterhazy pretends to -have received from the veiled lady?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“These two telegrams resemble -each other as all documents written in the characters of print -resemble each other.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did you take no pains to see the dispatch -sent to Major Esterhazy by the veiled lady?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois ask you to have an -expert examination of the two telegrams at the time?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“The matter was never mentioned.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In the dispatch addressed to Colonel Picquart, -was not that officer’s name written without a <em>c</em>?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes, he called my attention to it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was not this peculiarity found also in the -telegram signed ‘Speranza’ and addressed to Colonel Picquart -at Sousse?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And in an insulting letter addressed by -Major Esterhazy to Colonel Picquart was not the name again -written without a <em>c</em>?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I do not know that letter.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, because the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -had been attributed to Dreyfus by the verdict of 1894, and -that to so order would be a reconsideration of the thing -judged?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to the Ravary -papers for expert examination?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> -ground that I had taken, and saying that to make a new -examination of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was not General de Pellieux present at the -second session of the council of war held on Tuesday, January -11, 1898?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I was present at all the sessions of -the council of war as a delegate of the governor.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did not the general wear civilian dress?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he not sit behind General de Luxer, -president of the council?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he not intervene several times in the -course of the testimony of M. Leblois?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I never took the floor without -asking permission of the defence, of the public minister, and -of the president.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he not take the floor to correct an error -of fact that had just been committed by General de Luxer?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I do not know to what you -refer.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I confess that I cannot -remember.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did not the witness take the floor spontaneously<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span> -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?’”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Never.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois ask a question of such a -character as to necessitate some supplementary -information?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The general says it was behind closed -doors.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Offer your motion.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It seems to me that the general has -been answering my <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i> 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.’”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Permit me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, to repeat -the question before asking you to put it again. Here are -two questions belonging to the same order of ideas: first,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> -did not M. Leblois offer an observation of such a nature as to -bring out supplementary information?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You hear the first question?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I will not answer, for it is a matter -of closed doors.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did not General de Pellieux intervene -spontaneously, saying that that was useless?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“No, I had nothing to say to the -president.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have finished on that point.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I do not deny it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, nothing concerning what happened -behind closed doors.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I said nothing at all relating to -the case.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Did the intervention of General de -Pellieux take place behind closed doors?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The general has never answered on this -point.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I no longer understand you.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is I who do not understand you.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then I will begin again. I say that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Is that all?”</p> - -<p>M Clemenceau.—“Yes.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of General Gonse.</span></h4> - -<p>After General de Pellieux, the court recalled General -Gonse, and asked him: “Who are the lawyers of the -minister of war?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“MM. Nivart and Danet.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can a lawyer representing the minister -enter the offices?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“No.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“With whom must he correspond?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“With the controller.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Had Colonel Picquart been authorized to -receive a lawyer in his office?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“Certainly not.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Are there questions of spying concerning -which lawyers are consulted?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What do you think of Adjutant Gribelin?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span></p> - -<p>The court then called Adjutant Gribelin, the keeper of -the archives.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Adjutant Gribelin.—“Yes, he asked me if I could not -have a postal stamp put on that document. I swear that it -is true.”</p> - -<p>Adjutant Gribelin then stepped down, and the court -called Major Lauth.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Colonel Picquart.</span></h4> - -<p>The witness-chair was then taken by Lieutenant-Colonel -Picquart. Being asked his residence by the court, he -answered: “Mont-Valérien.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.’ 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span> -handwriting of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, Alfred Dreyfus had made a -mixture of his own handwriting with that of his brother. -The pointer was a valuable one for me.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>“Later a second incident happened, which was to me even -more disagreeable. The publication in ‘Le Matin’ of the -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. A thing that especially struck -me in the publication of this <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to Dreyfus.</p> - -<p>“In short, these various incidents had produced a certain -embarrassment, and I saw clearly that I would do well not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en route</i> 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 <em>c</em>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">hors d’œuvre</i> from the standpoint of the Esterhazy -investigation.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“In the Ravary report there is another important thing. -It is said that Major Henry, entering my office, found me -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en tête-à-tête</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I prefer not to answer.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is there in the war department a file of -documents that makes Major Esterhazy’s guilt -inadmissible?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know, but I do not think so.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“When Colonel Picquart was thinking of -inquiring whether M. Esterhazy was not the author of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?’”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“No, that was never said to me.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“To what does M. Picquart attribute the -numerous and complex machinations of which he has been -the victim?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does the witness think that Major Esterhazy -took part in these machinations, directly or indirectly?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You simply think so?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I think so.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I believe that he had accomplices.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Accomplices in the war offices?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was the mission on which Colonel Picquart -was sent an important one?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart always clearly understand -the purpose of his mission?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I tried very hard to understand it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Picquart explain what he -meant by saying that his mission was to end at Gabès?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is the place to which Colonel Picquart was -sent a dangerous place?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“It is not one of the safest.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is not the police agent with whom Colonel -Picquart was in relations concerning the Esterhazy dispatch -the one through whom the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, reached the minister of -war?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Consequently, when occasion arose for discussion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> -of the origin of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, did not this origin -seem more than suspicious from the very fact that it came -through this police agent?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“How happens it, then, that the serious -character of this origin is now disputed?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“The serious character of the origin is -not disputed; the origin itself is denied.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart declare, on his soul -and conscience, that the document really originated as he -has said?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“If, then, Colonel Picquart were not telling -the truth, he would be guilty of falsehood, and even of -perjury?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Exactly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It follows, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Not that I know of.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Colonel Picquart has told us that he -gathered information unfavorable to Esterhazy. Will he go -a little more into details?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That has no relation” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I insist on the smallest details.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I saw certain of these notes in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span> -newspapers. I read them even prior to the council of war, -and I was greatly astonished, because all documents relating -to the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">personnel</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What is this secret file?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart ever see the original -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I think so. I certainly have seen the -photographic reproductions which were in circulation.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In circulation where? In the war offices?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then there were official reproductions?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Were these photographs placed in the hands -of experts?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I think so, but cannot say so positively. -I was not then connected with the service.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart consider that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> published by ‘Le Matin’ November 10, 1896, -differs essentially from the authentic original?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“It differs so little from it that it was -asked who could have committed the indiscretion.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Into how many fragments was the Esterhazy -dispatch torn?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart—“I cannot say, but there were many. -There were little bits no larger than one’s finger-nail.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was Colonel Picquart able to rearrange the -pieces?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And from what did Colonel Picquart desire -to remove the traces of pasting?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Why, from the photograph.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Would it have been possible to remove such -traces from the original?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In the charges made against Colonel Picquart -are there any relating to events that occurred later -than 1896?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Were not all the doings of Colonel Picquart -known to all his superiors?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Why, then, had they not taken in 1896 the -attitude that they have taken since?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“That was my opinion, but it did not -prevail. My superiors thought otherwise.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly. There was enough -against Esterhazy to send him to a fortress.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In occupying yourself with the Esterhazy -case, were you obeying your conscience?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did you feel that you were endangering -your military career and your interests?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And yet you continued?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart never receive a formal -order to stop?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Never.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“In Colonel Picquart’s eyes which was the -more damaging evidence against Major Esterhazy, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -or the dispatch?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart make it known to -General Gonse?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“How, then, could General Gonse say that it -was necessary to distinguish the Dreyfus case from the -Esterhazy case?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But, if Major Esterhazy had been recognized -as the author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, would not the charge against -Dreyfus have fallen necessarily?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes; that is why I never understood -the attempt to separate them.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Do you remember having sent for M. -Leblois to call on you at your office?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Do you remember the date?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I was going to ask you. What is this -carrier-pigeon file of documents? Is it not a secret file?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You had by the side of this carrier-pigeon -file another file on which was the letter ‘H’ written with -blue pencil?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</span> -latter part of August to the beginning of November, and M. -Leblois left Paris August 5, and did not return until November -7.”</p> - -<p>The court here recalled M. Gribelin to confront him with -Colonel Picquart. M. Gribelin repeated his testimony as -follows:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You saw no documents?”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“No, the envelope was closed.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I asked General Gonse concerning him -just now, and he spoke of him in the highest terms.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I do not believe him capable of an -infamy, but I believe him capable of an error.”</p> - -<p>M. Gribelin.—“You can believe what I say; I saw it.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“But I say that you did not see it.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“To stamp a letter?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“To stamp a letter; not with the date of its -arrival, but with an earlier date.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But did you not ask this information of -Major Lauth almost in the same terms?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I? Oh, never, never, never!”</p> - -<p>The court recalled M. Lauth, who repeated his accusation -as follows:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You see, it is almost the same thing.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux was recalled.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can General de Pellieux tell us anything of -the search of which he spoke yesterday?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“General, did you enter the apartment?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“No.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Then you do not know what state it was -in?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“No.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But yesterday you gave us details.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Major Esterhazy says that a piece -of furniture was forced, and that traces of this still remain.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then what General de Pellieux told us -he got from Major Esterhazy.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart admitted that one of his agents had -entered Esterhazy’s premises, which were to let.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“This agent had no legal warrant.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“No, but he entered the apartment by -lawful means.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“He did not enter as a robber.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I think he has the right.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The reply is satisfactory.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“But I add that I do not admit his -right to do so without a legal warrant.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Show me that it is illegal.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Were you not a judicial officer of police?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Yes, and had the right to make a -search. The military code will show it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I am evidently ignorant regarding -procedure. At every step I took the advice of a magistrate, -M. Bertulus.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was it M. Bertulus who suggested to General -de Pellieux to search the house for smuggled matches?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span> -daily to the offices of ‘Le Jour,’ ‘La Libre Parole,’ and -other newspapers?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I did, and in writing.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“How well, in the opinion of General de -Pellieux, were his orders obeyed by Major Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The court then recalled Major Ravary.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Tell us what these irregularities were.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“If I had desired to invoke Article 378, I -need not have said anything. I could have pleaded professional -secrecy.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“But, since you did not invoke it, you -are at liberty to speak.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“Military justice does not proceed as yours -does.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“There are not two justices. There is -only one—the true justice.”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“Our code is not the same.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Answer the question, if you see fit,”</p> - -<p>M. Ravary.—“I refuse to answer.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Under these circumstances there is nothing -left of all that M. Ravary has said.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“And, covering all that with an insinuation, -you were allowing it to be supposed that there were -many other things.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“And for three months that has been -going on.”</p> - -<p>The court then adjourned for the day.</p> - - -<h3 id="sixth"><span class="smcap">Sixth Day—February 12.</span></h3> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Lauth was recalled, to be again confronted with -Colonel Picquart.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“When I received it, I could not say that -the origin was not the same, for I received it at second-hand.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Has it ever been pretended that this dispatch -was seized on Major Esterhazy’s premises?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“That is sufficient for me. Then I would -like to know how the dispatch, having the same origin as -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, or as the fragments of paper mingled with -the dispatch, could have been considered as coming from -Major Esterhazy’s premises.”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“I do not understand you.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span></p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“No.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“It is not for me to explain what Colonel -Picquart may have believed.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was Major Lauth ever asked to remove the -appearance of tear from the original?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“Oh! that would not have been possible.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The reply satisfies me. Was not the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> also in bits?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Into how many pieces was the dispatch -torn?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“Perhaps sixty.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“How large was the largest piece?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“Perhaps one-twentieth of a square inch.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“How were these pieces reassembled?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“I have no explanations to furnish concerning -that matter.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“The dispatch was pasted after I had had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“The pieces had been reassembled.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“By what process?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“By the use of a transparent paper, cut in -very narrow strips that followed almost exactly the traces of -the tearing.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“On which side of the dispatch were -these strips pasted?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“On the addressed side.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Major Lauth.—“I have no explanation to give.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“When you compared Major Esterhazy’s -handwriting with the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, was the original of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> before you, or the photographs only?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Photographs only. The original of -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was in the Dreyfus file, sealed. That file has -been unsealed only twice, when General Gonse had occasion -to withdraw some papers from it.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did the photographs conform absolutely -to the original?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“They were used for the experts.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The court then recalled General Gonse, and asked him -whether the file was in disorder when it was returned to him.</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Colonel Picquart, what have you to say?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You hear, Colonel Henry. Had you the -secret file?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Leblois, being recalled, said:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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——”’”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did you see the document?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Searching ... searching?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Either Colonel Henry does not tell the -truth, or else the truth is not told in Major Ravary’s -report.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry [walking toward Labori].—“I will not -permit you to call my words in question. I will not permit -it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I say that there is a formal contradiction -between Major Ravary’s report and your evidence.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“That is not my affair.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Possibly not, but it is mine.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Ask an explanation of Major Ravary.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“At present I can seek an explanation only -from you, who are here.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“The expression ‘searching,’ if it is not -real, is at least figurative.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What was the date of this visit?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Did Colonel Henry enter my office by -the door opposite the desk, or by the little side door?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“By the main door.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“About how far into the office did he -come?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“I could not say whether it was four -inches or a step.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Cette canaille de D ...</i>, but <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ce -canaille de D....</i>”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“I would know it at a distance of ten -steps. This is not to be disputed, especially when one is in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You are in disaccord.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Permit me. What, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You will take note of what you like.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Exactly.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“For months I have been in the most -horrible situation that an officer can occupy,—assailed in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“Perhaps two or three days after; I do -not remember exactly.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“How long after this conversation with -General Gonse did Colonel Picquart leave the bureau?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“A week, I think.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Summing up the matter, we shall have -the truth. The presence of M. Leblois at the war -department” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You are not asking questions now.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I wish to bring out the truth.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You can bring it out in your argument.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Ask questions.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“No.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You will do what you like in your -argument.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then take the floor away from me, and -I will be silent.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I take the floor away from you so far as -summing up is concerned. You can ask questions, if you -like.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I wish, by the testimony of two witnesses -who are in disaccord, to bring out the proof of the -truth.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Not now.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“But” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“When you sum up.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“My claim is that, in two words, I can -show which of these two officers has committed an involuntary -error.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Ask questions. You have not the floor for -arguing the matter.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span></p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Have I the floor for proving the truth?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I deprive you of the floor for argument.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I ask you this question, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur -le Président</i>. A point is in doubt between two officers of -the French army” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have not the floor for argument. You -can offer a motion; that is all.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Two officers have contradicted each -other. If you will accord me the floor, I will, in two -words” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No. Offer a motion. I do not accord you -the floor.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“And Article 319?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I know it.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Gentlemen of the jury, permit me to -read to you Article 319.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I know it.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It is to the jurors that I wish to read -it.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Read if you like, but you will read it to the -jurors, who have nothing to do with it.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i> adheres to those -words, I ask him to repeat them.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The jurors have nothing to do with the -direction of the trial.”</p> - -<p>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.’ -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, in conformity with the terms of this -article, I ask the floor to point out which of these two officers -is right.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But you will point it out in your -argument.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Explain, then, the question that you are -going to put. I will put it.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Colonel Henry says: ‘I spoke to -General Gonse of what I saw in Colonel Picquart’s office,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Henry.—“You understand that I do not specify -dates to a day. I have not spoken of dates.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Demange.</span></h4> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Speak only of the Esterhazy case; nothing -else.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“Exactly, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and said to me: ‘M. Scheurer-Kestner says -that it is my duty to denounce as the author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -M. Esterhazy, whose writing this is.’ Obeying a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will M. Demange tell us what he thinks of -this passage from Major Ravary’s report? ‘To sum up what<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Why not?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But it concerns the Esterhazy case.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What violation?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, no, M. Demange; do not answer that.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Permit me to ask a question. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur -le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“Why, yes, of course.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Demange, do not answer.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I ask you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, to -put the question.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, no, I will not put the question.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does M. Demange know the reasons why M. -Leblois never entered into relations with the Dreyfus family -or with M. Demange?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did M. Demange see the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> that was -produced in the Esterhazy case?”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I believe I did.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he see it in the original?”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Has he seen the photographs of it?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is M. Demange familiar with the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -that was published in ‘Le Matin’?”</p> - -<p>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”.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then there was a resemblance between this -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> and the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“A striking resemblance. You have not -the original, then?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> and the original there -is no resemblance? What does M. Demange think of that?”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I think that two honest men can differ in -opinion.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Ranc.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness called was M. Ranc, member of the -senate. He testified as follows:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span></p> - -<p>“M. Zola’s good faith is complete and absolute. I know, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Pierre Quillard.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Pierre Quillard, man of letters, who was present as a -disinterested spectator at the Esterhazy trial, succeeded M. -Ranc upon the witness-stand.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What does M. Quillard think of M. Zola’s -letter?”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> -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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Jean Jaurès.</span></h4> - -<p>Following M. Quillard came M. Jean Jaurès, a Socialist -member of the chamber of deputies, whose deposition follows:</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. Why, then, was it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. I know it, and I can appeal here to the -testimony of one of our honest <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrères</i> 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:</p> - -<p>“‘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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, moreover, is but an -accessory element in the case; but, so far as the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and my own a frightful resemblance, and when -‘Le Matin’ published the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, I felt that I was -lost.”’</p> - -<p>“I point out to the jurors that the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">blasé</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -Now, how could the possession of a document containing -these words: ‘That scoundrel D——,’ help Esterhazy -to show that he did not write the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>? 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>; 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</span></p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">prolétariat</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, the court order the production -of the original of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. The first motion was -granted, but the court refused to order the production of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<p>The testimony of the experts being now in order, M. Bertillon -took the witness-stand.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Bertillon.</span></h4> - -<p>“I am absolutely sure,” he testified, “that Dreyfus wrote -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> exhibits.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</span> -It could have been written only at the house of the condemned -man.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“This is very interesting. We pretend to -prove that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is the work of Major Esterhazy.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> can not be the work of -Major Esterhazy, but is necessarily the work of another.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Have you Major Esterhazy’s handwriting?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tabula rasa</i>. But I -have convincing proofs; they are not simply proofs that put -one on the scent; they constitute a demonstration that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was written by the man originally condemned.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“And that it could not have been written by -anybody else?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“No. The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> for -you out of independent elements. But you must give me -these elements; I cannot speak in the dark.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</span> -Président</i> ask M. Bertillon if he recognizes this little paper, -which I pass first to the court?”</p> - -<p>The Judge [stupefied].—“What is this?”</p> - -<p>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’.”</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp45" id="bertillons" style="max-width: 70em;"> - <img class="w100" src="images/bertillons.jpg" alt="" /> - <div class="caption"><p>M. BERTILLON’S PLAN OF EXPERT PROOF.</p></div> -</div> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“That is not at all the plan of my deposition; -it is a scheme for a special point in my deposition. I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“M. Bertillon will make the necessary -correction.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Yes, if you will give me the documents to -which I have referred.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did you mention these documents in your -written expert testimony?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I furnished no written expert testimony.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“First of all, M. Bertillon, will you tell us -what this plan is?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What are these documents?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Oh! I do not know their titles. There -was a note of this, a note of that, etc.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can you not sum up what you said in your -report?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did you not once receive a visit from M. -Picquart?”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. Now, I -have absolute proof that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I am absolutely determined to say -nothing until the documents are produced.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Oh! not at all.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“It seems to me that this matter is too -serious for joking.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“What! you think that the reading of -your paper constitutes a joke?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I simply ask where this document is to be -placed in this plan.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Produce the document, and I will tell -you.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“They were numbered from 1 to 30, including -three or four letters from Mathieu Dreyfus and various -notes regarding the service.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is it for their writing that M. Bertillon -needs these documents?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“This is a matter of judicial identity. Do -you contend that your demonstration is absolutely certain?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Well, if the witness needs time for preparation, -we will adjourn until Monday.”</p> - -<p>The proposition was accepted, and the court adjourned.</p> - - -<h3 id="seventh"><span class="smcap">Seventh Day—February 14.</span></h3> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>Following is M. Papillaud’s dispatch:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Beaulieu (Alpes-Maritimes).</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>In convalescence here, I read deposition of Jaurès. Have already -contradicted in “Libre Parole.” Beg you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</span> -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, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, to establish the truth, and beg you to accept the -assurance of my distinguished sentiments.</p> -</div> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“These are not documents of the trial.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“If, in the course of the trial, we receive -documents of a similar character, we shall ask the court to -read them.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I have read these by virtue of my discretionary -power.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, it is to your discretionary -power that we shall appeal.”</p> - -<p>M. Jaurès.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>: ‘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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> as evidence -in the investigation. That was the starting-point of a -conversation concerning the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, in the course of -which M. Papillaud said to me: ‘If it were only a matter of -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, the thing would be soon settled, for I am -convinced that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, having -previously recognized the same resemblance between his -own handwriting and that of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>. Therefore -there is no difference between the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> and the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>The judge then reread the telegram from M. Papillaud, -and M. Jaurès added:</p> - -<p>“I reassert most absolutely the declarations made in my -deposition. I add that in controversies between friends—for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Under what conditions did M. Bertillon -ask for them, and under what conditions were they -refused?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I remain on the ground of my previous -deposition.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Clemenceau asks you how you asked -for these documents, and how they were refused.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I have answered that question.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“M. Bertillon must have gone to the war -department and said something to somebody, who must have -made him some answer.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I believe that I have explained sufficiently -that in my relations with the war department I have acted -in my individual capacity.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“You do not answer my question.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You are asked what steps you have taken -to obtain the documents.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</span></p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I have reflected upon the situation, and -have realized that these plates are the property of the -minister of war.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then, contrary to what the witness -just said, he has not been forbidden to produce these -documents.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I have been forbidden nothing at all.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then the witness has seen nobody?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I have seen nobody. I have consulted -the situation.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then the witness, instead of consulting -the prefect of police and the minister of war, has consulted -the situation?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, will you explain to us what this -document is?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I handed this little work to M. Bertillon at -the last session.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But will you explain to us, M. Labori, of -what it consists?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“That is the explanation which I am trying -to get at.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“What is the question?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask if this little work really emanates -from M. Bertillon.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“It refers to my deposition of 1894 in the -Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“What conclusion does the witness -draw from it?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And I am determined, as counsel, to demand<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“That is not it at all.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Let us say that the witness will not speak.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sapristi!</i>”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You see that the witness will not speak. -Come, M. Bertillon, have you photographs of the letters -which served you for comparison?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“In which case?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“In the first, since you have declared that -you had nothing to do with the second.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“In the case of ex-Captain Dreyfus? I -thought that this case was not to be treated here.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is not a question of treating it. You are -asked if you have documents.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“That is to speak of that case.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori then read an interview from “L’Echo de Paris.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Very well; then will M. Bertillon prove to -us, by the interesting methods that are peculiar to him, not -that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is the work of Dreyfus, because the court -will stop him, but that it is not the work of Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> came from the hand of Major -Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“It is impossible.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The experts are not yet oracles, and we ask -them for explanations.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Wait, I have not asked why.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have been waiting a long time.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Witness, what makes you think that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is not the work of Major Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Because it is the work of another.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“And what makes him think that it is -the work of another?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Now we are falling back upon my depositions -of Saturday. This will never end.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you answer?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Of which case is he speaking?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Of the Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I thought that there was a decree of the -court forbidding us to speak of that case.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It is not for the witness to tell the -court the meaning of its decrees.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I know the theory of that matter, but I -did not use it in my expert examination.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Without concerning ourselves with the -Dreyfus case, I take the words <em>A. Dreyfus</em> and the word -<em>adresse</em>, and I ask him what scientific consequence he can -draw from the possible superposition of the words, both of -which begin with <em>adr</em>, 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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“This question relates to my deposition of -1894, and, moreover, is of no importance.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will the witness tell us if the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is -written in a running hand?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“It is absolutely impossible for me to -answer that question without entering into my deposition of -1894.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Permit me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> in a running -hand, or is it made up of traced words?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -for it is impossible to reconcile their testimony. -That is why the witness will not answer. I repeat: Is the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>—and here I pay no attention to Dreyfus; call him -Tartempion, if you will, but answer me—is the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -written in a running hand, or is it made up of traced -words?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“It is impossible to answer that in a single -word.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“We do not ask that you shall answer it in a -single word.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“That is to enter into my deposition of -1894. I cannot do it.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Has the witness seen the Esterhazy -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“You torment me with questions.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Has the honorable witness seen the thin -paper original of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I am willing to answer yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“You are very accommodating.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“This is something, at any rate.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Perhaps I did wrong to say so.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I beg the court to ask M. Bertillon if the -writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is natural or disguised.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can you answer that?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Absolutely no, not without entering into -my deposition of 1894.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, in the Dreyfus case -three experts say that it is in a running hand; three say<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> in a natural handwriting -or in a disguised handwriting?”</p> - -<p>The witness made no answer.</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Has not the witness demonstrated his -system to friends?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I have been the object of a thousand -attempts, of a thousand plots, but” ...</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“By a lawyer?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“I repeat, attempts have been made” ...</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Yes or no, has he demonstrated the -principle of his system to a lawyer of the appellate court of -Paris?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Has the witness had a twenty minutes’ -talk with our <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i> Decori, a lawyer of the appellate -court of Paris, concerning the principle of his system?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</span></p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“All these questions relate to the Dreyfus -case.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, no, this is a general question. It has -nothing to do with the Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“That is, you transform into an -accusation” ...</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“You always come back to the affair of -1894.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I have nothing more to say, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur -le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“There has been but one charge, the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>; and there you see the expert, the principal -expert.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Then you pretend that, without speaking -absolutely of the case of which you have no right to speak, -you cannot explain yourself?”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>M. Bertillon was succeeded on the witness-stand by M. G. -A. Hubbard, representing Seine-et-Oise in the chamber of -deputies.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. G. A. Hubbard.</span></h4> - -<p>He testified as follows:</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the writing of -Dreyfus disappeared upon comparison with the writing of -Esterhazy.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.’</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Yves Guyot.</span></h4> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Guyot was then asked his opinion of M. Zola’s good -faith. He answered:</p> - -<p>“Gentlemen, I have a very clear opinion of my own, and -this opinion I share with the intellectual <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">élite</i> of France. -Moreover, as I was a member of the cabinet for three years, -I am more or less intimate with <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">personnel</i> 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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Teyssonnière.</span></h4> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. I called his attention -to entire syllables in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>The witness then told of his relations with another expert, -M. Crépieux-Jamin, who had been asked by M. Bernard -Lazare to examine the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“At the time of your report in 1894 had you -been offered money?”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Nor afterward, either?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Did he tell you that he was sent by anyone?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>On the demand of M. Labori, M. Trarieux was recalled for -confrontation with M. Teyssonnière.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> than by the similarities. In -the course of one of our discussions M. Bertillon was mentioned.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</span> -‘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 <em>ss</em>, -which were written <em>fs</em> in the Dreyfus writing and <em>sf</em> in the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. M. Teyssonnière maintained that these dissimilarities -were intentional.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Last November I was told that M. Teyssonnière was suspected -by the government of having communicated to ‘Le -Matin’ the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> of which ‘Le Matin’ gave a <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Charavay.</span></h4> - -<p>The second expert was succeeded on the witness-stand by -the third, M. Charavay.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Can M. Charavay tell us whether the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was traced, or written in a running hand?”</p> - -<p>M. Charavay.—“I refuse to answer. It is a custom among -experts never to give an opinion while a trial is pending.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Then when do they give an opinion?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori [handing specimen of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to the -witness].—“Do you know these?”</p> - -<p>M. Charavay.—“They are writings connected with the -Dreyfus case. That is very far away.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Certainly you cannot be very curious, if you -have not heard it spoken of in the last few months.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Would you ever condemn a person solely on -the strength of an expert examination of handwriting?”</p> - -<p>M. Charavay.—“I answer with your authorization, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur -le Président</i>. 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is a very natural opinion. But it -does not affect the situation at all.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You add your impression, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>, to that of the expert, and I shall have something -to say about that in my argument.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and that of -Dreyfus, the dissimilarities were too numerous to warrant -the attribution to Dreyfus of the authorship of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - - -<h3 id="eighth"><span class="smcap">Eighth Day—February 15.</span></h3> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</span> -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 <em>is</em> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I am not authorized to speak of these -questions, or to transmit them.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then don’t come here again to talk to us of -the light, and to tell us that you love the light.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Crépieux-Jamin.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Crépieux-Jamin then took the witness-stand to answer -the charges made by M. Teyssonnière the day before.</p> - -<p>“The testimony of M. Teyssonnière,” said the witness,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</span> -“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to “Le Matin.”’ I -asked him why. ‘Oh!’ he said, ‘because each photograph -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.’</p> - -<p>“Now, gentlemen, if I had been sent by the Dreyfus -family to bore a gimlet into M. Teyssonnière’s head, as he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Has not the witness refused to testify as an -expert in the present trial?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“If I am well informed, the witness declined -to testify for motives of prudence?”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The witness being asked if the photographs shown him by -M. Teyssonnière resembled the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> in “Le Matin,” he -answered:</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> will be in the -hands of everybody, and then the persons who have declared -these <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> to be false will see that they have been -guilty of an impudence which lays them under suspicion.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What is the difference between the official -photographs and the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Paul Meyer.</span></h4> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Is the witness an Israelite?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will you give us your opinion of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Did you ever see the original?”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“I have seen only <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i>, the original not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</span> -being visible to the naked eye of the profane. One witness -has testified here that the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> resembled forgeries, -and that nothing is less like the original than these <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i>. -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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> -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 <em>t</em>’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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> are not so bad.’ M. Bertillon -knows photography and knows this process of reproduction. -Consequently it seems to me audacious to say that the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -resembles a forgery.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> -resembled a forgery to explain to me how it is, seeing -that this <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> was published at the beginning of 1896, -that anyone could have had the idea of making a <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</span> -of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, when at that time he had -not been heard of in connection with the case. Well, these -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i>. If -they will show me these plates, I will ask nothing better -than to confess. If it proves to be true that the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori asked the court to recall the three Esterhazy -experts that they might be confronted with M. Meyer.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“They are bound by professional secrecy.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I pray you.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, no, they were right.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“Perfectly. But perhaps these gentlemen -have found something that I have not found.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then it would be interesting to hear MM. -Couard, Varinard, and Belhomme.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, no, I have said” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But I have a question to put.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You shall not put it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I insist, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I say that you shall not put it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Oh! <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, it is -interesting” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is useless to shout so loud.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I shout, because I need to make myself -heard.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You say that; but I say I wish to put it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You do not even know the question.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I know very well what you wish to ask.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Well, I offer a motion in order to get a -decree from the court on this point.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Offer all the motions that you like.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“If you think that this shortens the debate, -you are mistaken.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Well, we will pass on the motion during -the recess. Next witness.”</p> - -<p>M. Auguste Molinier is ushered in.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What is the question, M. Labori?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But ask your question now. It is useless -to waste our time.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“Now,” said the judge, “the principle is laid down. -Every time that you insist, the same decree will be rendered. -Let that be understood.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then it is a standing decree?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is a standing decree.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“There was nothing like that in the old -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i>. It is inaugurated in this assize court. I can only -bow, while I protest.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is the law, according to Article 270 of the -code of criminal examination.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Protest as much as you like. But every -time, under the same circumstances, the same decree will be -rendered.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Auguste Molinier.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was M. Auguste Molinier, a professor in -the Ecole des Chartes.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and, after examining the formation -of the letters therein, and comparing it with letters<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“At whose request did you make this -examination?”</p> - -<p>M. Molinier.—“I made it of my own accord, for, in common -with all Frenchmen, I am interested in this case.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Mme. de Boulancy.</span></h4> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</span> -above; and that she did not know what attitude Major -Esterhazy assumed when he heard this tenant coming.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -and that of Major Esterhazy is absolutely complete. “I -will even say,” he added, “that, if a <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">savant</i> were to find in -one of the volumes of the National Library by the side of -Major Esterhazy’s letters the original of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, he -would be considered disqualified if he did not say that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the letters were written by the same person.”</p> - -<p>M. Molinier was then succeeded by M. Célerier, professor -in the College of Fontenay-le-Comte.</p> - -<p>“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and Major Esterhazy’s letters,” said the -witness, “are absolutely in the same handwriting. The letter -<em>n</em> is strangely formed. Now it is regular, now it becomes -an <em>x</em>. Thus the word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tenir</i> often appears as if it were the -word <em>texir</em>. 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Who asked you to make this -examination?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“Was the witness confronted in -another case with the three Esterhazy experts?”</p> - -<p>M. Célerier.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“And there, too, you did not -agree with them?”</p> - -<p>M. Célerier.—“I did not.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Testimony to the same effect as that given by the preceding -witnesses was then given by M. Bourmon, a paleographer,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</span> -who in turn was succeeded by M. Louis Franck, a -Belgian lawyer.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Franck.</span></h4> - -<p>A blackboard was furnished to the witness, upon which he -illustrated with much detail the similarities between Major -Esterhazy’s handwriting and the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. Among other -things he showed that Major Esterhazy’s writing and the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <em>t</em>’s in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, like Major -Esterhazy’s <em>t</em>’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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 68 per cent. -of the <em>t</em>’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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and contains all the elements of similarity with an -arithmetical rhythm so decisive.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Who asked you to make this -examination?”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -I had an intuition that the writer of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“How did the witness come into possession -of original letters from Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>M. Franck.—“Through M. Bernard Lazare.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Grimaux.</span></h4> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">littérateurs</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will M. Grimaux tell us what these threats -were?”</p> - -<p>M. Grimaux.—“If M. Labori thinks it necessary to the -defence” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I think it indispensable, and I beg you to -complete your great act of courage by telling the whole -truth.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</span> -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.’</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“Absolutely.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Be good enough, M. Grimaux, to say aloud -what you have just said to M. Zola.”</p> - -<p>M. Grimaux.—“I said that I had never seen M. Zola -before; I now see him for the first time.”</p> - -<p>The last witness of the day was M. Louis Havet, professor -in the College of France, and member of the Institute.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Louis Havet.</span></h4> - -<p>The witness first dealt with the similarities in handwriting -between the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the Esterhazy letters, and contrasted -them with the letters of Dreyfus, pointing out especially -that in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the Esterhazy letters the -capital <em>J</em>’s are written half above and half below the line, -while the <em>J</em>’s of Dreyfus always stop at the line. Passing -then from handwriting to orthography, M. Havet testified -as follows:</p> - -<p>“Both Captain Dreyfus and Major Esterhazy spell well. -They make no mistakes regarding the <em>s</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</span> -one is needed, writing, for instance, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">français</i> or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">façon</i> without -a cedilla, or perhaps he will put a cedilla where there -should be none,—for instance, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">forçe</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">souffrançe</i> with a -cedilla. In this he is capricious. He writes the word -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">annonçant</i> now with and now without the cedilla. And the -same as to the accents. If he writes the preposition <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">à</i>, which -should have a grave accent, he sometimes gives it a grave -accent and sometimes does not. He also uses needless -accents. The word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nécessaire</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">à</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and Major Esterhazy’s -letters show absolutely the same orthographical habits, while -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> differs totally in this respect from the letters of -Captain Dreyfus.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> there are incorrect -turns of phrase which seem to indicate a writer unfamiliar -with the language, or accustomed to think in a foreign -language. ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Sans nouvelles m’indiquant que vous désirez me -voir, je vous adresse cependant, monsieur, quelques documents -intéressants.</i>’ The word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nouvelles</i> is one that would -never be written in such a connection by a Frenchman perfectly -acquainted with his tongue. Such a Frenchman would -say <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sans avis</i>. The author thought in German and translated -into French. But let us go on. ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Sans nouvelles m’indiquant -que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse cependant, -monsieur.</i>’ Instead of this, an educated Frenchman, with -the instinct of his language, would say: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Quoique je n’ai -pas reçu d’avis me disant que vous désirez me voir, je vous -adresse</i>. Or else he would separate the phrase. The phraseology -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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: ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Chaque corps en reçoit un -nombre fixe</i>.’ The words <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nombre fixe</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> meant. He meant that each<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“Now, Captain Dreyfus writes perfectly correct French. -There never are any mistakes of phrase in his letters. Take -this, for instance: ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">J’ai légué à ceux qui m’ont fait condamner -un devoir</i>,’ 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: ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Telles et telles personnes doivent -avoir conservé toutes traces de cette affaire</i>.’ This phrase, -instead of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">toutes les traces imaginables</i> is one that occurs -in the famous Uhlan letter: ‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Je ferai toutes tentatives pour -aller en Algérie</i>.’ It is a phrase peculiar to Major Esterhazy.</p> - -<p>“The writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, while, on the contrary, it is perfectly natural -that Major Esterhazy should have written it.”</p> - -<p>This ended the day’s proceedings.</p> - - -<h3 id="ninth"><span class="smcap">Ninth Day—February 16.</span></h3> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“I recognize that, of all the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> that have appeared, -that published by ‘Le Matin’ most resembles the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -but I wish to point out an essential difference. The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is photographed, -the photograph necessarily shows something of the -back as well as the front, so that, to print these <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i>,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</span> -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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.’ I sent for M. Mathieu -Dreyfus, and he asked for an expert examination of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“Much has been said of the writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, but -its contents have not yet been referred to. I ask your permission, -then, to take this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on, General.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask permission to offer a motion. I ask -for the presence of Colonel Picquart here.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have not the floor. Go on. General.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</span></p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I pretend to prove here, documents -in hand, that the officer who wrote the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is an -officer of the war department, an officer of artillery, and, -furthermore, a licentiate. I ask for a copy of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -as it appeared in ‘Le Matin’.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask you to send for Colonel Picquart. I -protest against the absence of Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I will send for Colonel Picquart when I get -ready.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“That is understood. Well, I point that out -to the jury.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Point out what you like.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I intend to do so. You think to turn the -course of the debate, because General de Pellieux is here -alone.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I have told you that you have not the floor. -Do not oblige me to take measures. Go on, General.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I thank you, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>.</p> - -<p>“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> contains also a note concerning <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de -couverture</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>? It -has been said that Esterhazy, being a major, was in possession -of his regiment’s plan of mobilization. True, but in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</span> -the plans of mobilization of regiments, especially of regiments -that have nothing to do with <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">couverture</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fiches</i>. -These <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fiches</i> of transportation give only a point of departure -and a point of arrival. At the point of arrival the regiment -receives new <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fiches</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>“Thirdly, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“Fourth, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> contains a note relating to Madagascar. -Gentlemen, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</span> -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.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</span> -place, whether Dreyfus was guilty or not. I have -done.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask the floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What question do you wish to ask?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What questions?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have the floor only to ask questions.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Can I retire, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You may sit down.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have the honor to ask the court to be good -enough to wait until my motion is ready.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have the floor.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have the floor.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, pay no attention to what takes -place in the audience. You talk to everybody except the -court.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrères</i> has just passed to me, which says: ‘M. Labori,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</span> -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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“This has no relation to your motion. I am -going to deprive you of the floor.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“If you deprive me of the floor, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have the floor, but in support of your -motion. Let us have done with it.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I am saying something now of greater consequence -than my motion.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But we are not here to hear all these -things. This is the first time that I witness such a -struggle.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“According to Article 311 of the code of -examination, I tell you that you must explain yourself with -moderation.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will you tell me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, -what expression has fallen from my lips that was lacking in -moderation?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Everything that you say.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I do not accept your warning, -unless it is made more precise.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I repeat that this incident has now taken -up ten minutes. Develop your motion simply.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you speak in support of your -motion?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“But, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, do you hold to -what you just said?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I have no account to render to you.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</span> -criminal examination, to exclude everything that would -needlessly prolong the trial.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“He is not here.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I know it, but his place is here. I ask that -he be sent for, and confronted with General de Pellieux.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“He will come when he is free.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yes, at five o’clock tonight, when the hearing -is over.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“We will send for him soon.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“At once. I will ask no other question until -he is summoned.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“I thought that Esterhazy’s name was -mentioned. At least I found it on my notes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What notes?”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“The notes that I take daily.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The article contains a letter written to you -by M. Trarieux. Who gave the letter to that newspaper?”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“I did.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Have M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux -brought any pressure to bear upon your conscience?”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Well, then, be off.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Teyssonnière.—“I have not said that.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The court gave its consent, and M. Labori put this question -to General de Pellieux: “Will you explain your statement -that the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> ‘Matin’ was a forgery?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I maintain that among the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> -reproduced by the journals there are some that singularly -resemble forgeries.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</span></p> - -<p>M. Paul Meyer.—“But what interest had ‘Le Matin’ in -committing a forgery in 1896, when nobody was thinking -of Major Esterhazy?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-similes</i> that have appeared in -certain pamphlets.”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“I have made no use of those. But the -resemblance, according to ‘Le Matin’s’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, between -Major Esterhazy’s writing and the writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -is undeniable.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“You have never seen the original -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“I have seen the ‘Matin’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i>, to an expert examination -made from an original by people whom I do not know.”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer then asked General de Pellieux to procure for -him at least the original photographs of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“If there is no instruction in writings at the -Ecole des Chartes, where did you get your instruction, Monsieur -Expert?”</p> - -<p>M. Couard.—“By practice, my dear master,—practice for -eight years.”</p> - -<p>M. Meyer.—“Pardon me, I do not defend myself. Pupils -are always the best judges of their professors.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“What is the package, so preciously wrapped, -that you have there under the table? Does it contain, perchance, -photographs of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of M. Paul Moriaud.</span></h4> - -<p>The next witness was M. Paul Moriaud, professor in the -Geneva law school. He desired to use a blackboard for his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, he discussed the -question whether the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was produced by tracing.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, you would not succeed. The process -is an utter impossibility.</p> - -<p>“You have been told by previous witnesses of the style -and punctuation of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. Another thing. The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> all -the first part is in one handwriting, and all the second part -in the other, which clearly shows that M. Esterhazy wrote -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> at two sittings, in two different states of mind.</p> - -<p>“Some words are repeated in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. The word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ne</i>, -for instance, occurs four times; the word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">de</i> seven times. It -is very evident that, if these words had been hunted for in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</span> -M. Esterhazy’s letters, in order to trace them, on finding the -word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ne</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> one -of the four words <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ne</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">vous</i>, 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> there is this variety of form which life always -gives.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ne</i>, -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">savants</i> will take these documents and say that M. Esterhazy -wrote the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and there will be no doubt about it -whatever. There may have been an original corresponding -as a whole to the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>At the end of this demonstration the court adjourned.</p> - - -<h3 id="tenth"><span class="smcap">Tenth Day—February 17.</span></h3> - -<p>After a renewed demand on the part of the defence for the -production of the original of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and a refusal of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</span> -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 <em>x</em> form -given to the letter <em>n</em>, giving the word “Uhlan” the appearance -of “Uhlax,”—a peculiarity which had been pointed -out in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> a year previously by an expert to whom -M. Esterhazy’s writing was unknown.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Surely; it was placed under seal -by me.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and that of Major Esterhazy -amounts to identity, after which Colonel Picquart was -called to the stand.</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Yesterday General de Pellieux declared -that Major Esterhazy could not have procured in 1894 the -documents enumerated in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. What has Colonel -Picquart to say in answer to that?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</span> -opinions in regard to this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>I address you meantime:</p> - -<p> -(1) A note on the hydraulic check;<br /> -(2) A note on the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>;<br /> -(3) A note on the firing manual;<br /> -(4) A note relating to Madagascar.<br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is the question.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“Another thing. An agent informed us that a major<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Concerning the statement of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, in relation to -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Now as to this passage from the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</span> -to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must -return his copy after the manœuvres.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Now I must speak of two very serious matters in the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. It contains this phrase: ‘Unless you wish me -to have it copied <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in extenso</i>.’ Now, one who wishes to have -a document copied <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in extenso</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux, recalled, declared that he could -answer concerning two points only.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</span></p> - -<p>“I said yesterday,” he testified, “that the writer of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse then came to the stand.</p> - -<p>“The documents enumerated in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“What is the second point in the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</span></p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>, some -modifications in the organization of artillery; consequently -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> states the truth when it adds to the note concerning -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</span> -questioning the secretary, as I have already stated. Now I -come to the question of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. Dates must not be -confused. There were manœuvres in the autumn of 1894, -but the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“One word. The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was -not written in April. I appeal to General Gonse.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It has always been said at the war department -that it was written in April.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Not at all.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“This is an interesting point. Will you ask -whichever of these gentlemen it is who knows, at what date -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“It reached the department toward the -end of September, 1894.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“And at what date was it written?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. -This is a begging of the question.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“Permit me. I do not give the date -with absolute certainty. I know only that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -reached the department at the end of September. We suppose -that it must have been written toward August.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“At what date was the important note on -Madagascar drawn up in the department?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“In the course of the month of August.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I read from the Dreyfus indictment:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“I ask General Gonse how he reconciles the date August, -which he has given, with the report of M. d’Ormescheville,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“There was a note in August. I do not -know whether there was a note in February.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, we find mention of a note -written in February, 1894. So that matter is settled.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I have nothing to say. I maintain all -that I have said.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard on -these points.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I have another word to say concerning -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>. I said just now that I did not -believe that the author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was connected with -the department. Otherwise he would not have written: ‘A -note on the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i>; there will be some modification -in the new plan.’ If, as I had always believed -hitherto, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Why have you always supposed that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was written in April?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I have always heard it so said at the -war offices.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You do not know of your own knowledge?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“No.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I maintain my first declaration.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You refuse to answer?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Does General de Pellieux think that -Colonel Picquart may answer?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux—“I cannot speak of the Dreyfus -trial. I had nothing to do with it.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</span></p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“That is not my question. I ask: Does -General de Pellieux think that Colonel Picquart may answer -the question put to him?”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Colonel Picquart is judge of his -own answers. I have no advice or command to give him.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“It is not advice or command that I ask, -but an opinion.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I have no opinion to offer to -Colonel Picquart.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le President</i>, will you ask -General Gonse if Colonel Picquart was not delegated by the -minister of war to attend the Dreyfus trial?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I have not to answer that question.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> furnished any -serious revelations regarding the important subjects -mentioned.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“From the titles themselves. I cannot -suppose that these notes contained trifles.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I have no answer to make on that -matter.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Come back now to this passage of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>General Gonse.—“After the firing lessons.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You said just now that it must be an artillery -officer and a licentiate.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de couverture</i> concerns at least -three bureaus of the staff,—the first, third, and fourth. The -writer of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> then must have been an officer -initiated in the work of these three bureaus.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“My inquiry concerned the words ‘and at -the same time a licentiate.’”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“The licentiates remain two years with -the staff, passing six months in each of the four bureaus.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Would an artillery officer at the firing -lessons have refused to lend his manual to a major of -infantry?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Then what becomes of that extraordinary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“General Gonse said that the writer of -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> must have been a licentiate who had passed -through the first, third, and fourth bureaus. Well, this -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> has been attributed to a person who had not -reached the third bureau at the time of the appearance of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p>A recess was then taken, and, when the court came in -again, General de Pellieux asked to be recalled.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</span></p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, to say two -words.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Two words only?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Two words only.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Have you a question to put?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“How could I have questions to put in answer -to an absolutely new matter just brought into the trial?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“We are advancing, we are advancing.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I ask the floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Presently, general.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“General Gonse, what have you to say?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“We have not to concern ourselves with -revision. That cannot be done here.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</span></p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“There is talk of nothing else.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I know that, but it cannot be done in an -assize court. General Gonse, have you anything more to -say?”</p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“No.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I ask that General de Boisdeffre -be sent for to confirm my words.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you ask him to come tomorrow?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Since it was I who read from this report, I -ask permission to answer General de Pellieux in two words.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Is it a material fact?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“This report has been published. I had -nothing to do with its publication.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Has it been published in full?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I do not know.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Ah! that is the question.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“No, that is not <em>the</em> question, for there are -several questions.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“It is one of the questions.”</p> - -<p>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’.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I interrupt to say that at least one of those -two words is false.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“Prove it.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is proved.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It is useless.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“How do you expect me to say -what happened in the Dreyfus trial? I was not there.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It is well. I thank you, my general.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“We brought here a witness who had it -from the lips of one of the members of the council of war<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</span> -that a secret document was communicated to the judges. -We were not allowed to question him.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h3 id="eleventh"><span class="smcap">Eleventh Day—February 18.</span></h3> - -<p>At the opening of the hearing the judge called General de -Boisdeffre to the bar, and said to him:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>When the judge had finished reading, General de Boisdeffre -spoke as follows:</p> - -<p>“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. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I ask your -permission to withdraw.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You may withdraw, General. Bring in the -next witness.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I have some questions to put.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have not the floor. The incident is -closed.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have not the floor. [To the court -officer.] Bring in Major Esterhazy.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have some questions to put to the -witness.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“This was an incident outside of the trial. -You have not the floor.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I ask you for the -floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I do not give it to you.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to make some observations, -in order to indicate why I ask the floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge [to the court officer].—“Bring in Major -Esterhazy.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I am going to offer a motion in order to obtain -the floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it later. Bring -in Major Esterhazy.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori [without rising].—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I -am drawing up my motion.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. What have you to say thereupon?”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“I ask permission to make a declaration -to the jurors before answering you.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You can make such a declaration, now that -you have taken the oath.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, have you any questions to -put?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I am drawing up my motion, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Witness, you may be seated.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I add that I shall have some questions to -put to the witness.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You will put them now, or not at all.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I call attention to the way in which, twice -in succession, you have refused me the means of maintaining -the defence.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I repeat to you that you are not the -director of the trial.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have questions to ask, but I will not ask -them until the court shall have passed upon my motion.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it tomorrow.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The court will pass upon it when it likes, -but, as for me, not another word shall be gotten from me.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Witness, take your seat.”</p> - -<p>The court then called other witnesses, but none appeared. -Thereupon General de Pellieux asked for the floor.</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Certainly.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“We will hear this witness presently, if -there is occasion.”</p> - -<p>The court then declared a recess. An hour and a half -later the court came in again, whereupon M. Labori read the -following motion:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>May it please the court,</p> - -<p>Whereas, after the deposition of General de Boisdeffre, M. Labori -asked the floor in order to put several questions to the witness;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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.;</p> - -<p>Whereas it cannot be pretended that General de Pellieux made a -declaration so spontaneous that it was impossible to stop him;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Whereas the court made this answer before any question had been -formulated;</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</span></p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Whereas the judge refused to let M. Labori offer his motion;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Whereas, in consequence of these facts, the judge summoned the next -witness, Major Esterhazy;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>For these reasons,</p> - -<p>To give the movers the benefit of record of the facts announced as the -reasons for the present motion;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>And that will be justice.</p> - -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Paris, February 18, 1898.</span><br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“For ten sessions this has been going on.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I shall take the floor from you, if you go -on in that tone; it the last degree of impropriety.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No.”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</span> -[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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The impropriety is in exciting the protests -that you excite.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, this trial has now risen to such -a point that such opinions as those which you have just -uttered, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in abstracto</i> the motion which I have just -offered.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The court then rendered the following decree:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>After listening to the accused and their counsel, and to the public -prosecutor, and after deliberating in conformity with the law;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Considering that the latter, at today’s session, has confirmed the -declaration of General de Pellieux;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Adopting, furthermore, the reasons indicated in the aforesaid decree;</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Considering, further, that the direction of the trial belongs exclusively -to the president of the assize court in conformity with the law;</p> - -<p>For these reasons,</p> - -<p>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;</p> - -<p>Declares that Major Esterhazy will be recalled to the bar, if there is -occasion;</p> - -<p>Rejects consequently the motion of the defence, and declares that the -trial shall be proceeded with.</p> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</span></p> - -<p>Then Colonel Picquart was recalled to the stand.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and when it was -necessary to prove that the author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</span> -which it is framed,—language absolutely improbable,—I -think that there is reason to consider it a forgery.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“The document of which Colonel Picquart -speaks is the document alluded to here yesterday?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy was then called to the bar.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Testimony of Major Esterhazy.</span></h4> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and to call his -attention to the fact that the question is put by the court.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I repeat the question to Major Esterhazy. -You are asked what you think of the writing of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“Although you do me the honor to -convey to me this question, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, it is still -the question of M. Labori. Consequently I will not answer.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you answer?”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“I will answer none of the questions -put to me. That is flat.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You hear the question.”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“Always the same reply.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</span></p> - -<p>No answer.</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I will continue. Did the witness ever -know a person answering to the name of Mme. de -Boulancy?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you answer this question?”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“None, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>A few “Bravos” were heard in the court-room.</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will -not answer.”</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>After waiting a moment and receiving no reply, M. Clemenceau -continued:</p> - -<p>“Are not the passages that I have just read contained in -letters whose authenticity the witness admitted to General -de Pellieux? [Silence.]</p> - -<p>“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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that the passage<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</span> -just read was contained in a letter whose authenticity -he did not deny to General de Pellieux?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that this letter -was produced before General de Pellieux, and that he did -not deny its authenticity?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on. The major has told you that he -will not answer.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, I am going to -read a letter the authenticity of which the witness denies, -and, after that, I will ask him a question.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</span> -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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have no more questions?”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Yes, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. Does -the witness admit having written other letters to Mme. de -Boulancy and recently two telegrams?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“At first did not the witness deny all -these letters?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</span> -the French officers, and notably Major Esterhazy, did not -protest?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Will you answer?”</p> - -<p>Major Esterhazy.—“No, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?” [Silence.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“When did he learn it?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You may go on. The witness has told you -that he will not answer you.”</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>? -[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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.]</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Go on.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Oh! nothing about that. Not a word concerning -foreign politics.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“This does not concern foreign politics.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Say nothing of officers belonging to foreign -countries.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I have not a right to speak of an act -committed by a French officer?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, let us not discuss that.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I have told you that I will not put the -question.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that he had -relations, not frequent, but not hidden, with Colonel de -Schwarzkoppen, military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> of the German embassy, -whom he knew at Carlsbad, as ‘Le Paris’ says?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, I will not put the question.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I will offer a motion, if necessary.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Oh, come!”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“Certainly. How is it that one cannot -speak of justice in a court?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Because there is something above that,—the -honor and safety of the country.”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I note, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, that -the honor of the country permits these things to be done, -but does not permit them to be said.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</span> -and found among them no astonishment at the mention of -Major Esterhazy’s name in connection with the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rastaquouère</i> -of the French army.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - - -<h3 id="twelfth"><span class="smcap">Twelfth Day—February 19.</span></h3> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori sustained the demand of Colonel Picquart that -General de Galiffet be called, but the court ruled that his -testimony would be useless.</p> - -<p>In answer to questions put by M. Labori, Colonel Picquart<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Please put that question to General -de Pellieux.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Pardon me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I am going to deprive you of the floor.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Every time that you deprive me of the floor, -you do me a little more honor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Well, it is understood; you may take your -seat.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Can the witness withdraw? Has the -defence any objection?”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have no objection to anything, since I cannot -make any observations.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is not the question.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You ask me a question. Will you permit -me to answer it or not?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I ask you a question.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You ask me if I object to the withdrawal of -General de Pellieux.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Answer yes or no.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I cannot answer yes or no, because I have -distinctions to make.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Monsieur the attorney-general?”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“Incidents may arise. The -general had better remain in the court-room.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Then, General, be good enough to remain in -the court-room.”</p> - -<p>General de Pellieux.—“I remain at the disposition of the -court and the jury.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“But I have not deprived you of the floor. -I deprived you of the floor when you were going to argue.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I have not argued.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“This is too much.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“You had deprived me of the floor.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I did so because you desired to argue; -because it is my right; because it is my duty.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“It relates to a question.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“The witness has answered that he will say -nothing.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Very well. It is not the court that is judge, -but the whole country.”</p> - -<p>General Gonse was then called, and asked by M. Labori at -what date the hydraulic check was introduced into the -service.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</span></p> - -<p>General Gonse.—“I am not in charge of the artillery service, -and cannot answer.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Ask questions only.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Come, Monsieur Labori, say serious -things.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Ask questions.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was not Colonel Picquart appointed chief -of the bureau of information on July 1, 1895?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>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’?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I have not to answer that question, -for it relates to conversations with the chief of staff.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“At what date did the witness say to General -Gonse: ‘I shall not carry this secret to the grave’?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</span></p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“The obligations of professional -secrecy prevent me from answering.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Was it not then that Colonel Picquart proposed -to have Major Esterhazy arrested for certain matters -of indelicacy?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“This proposition having been rejected by -General de Boisdeffre, did he not ask Colonel Picquart to -formulate another?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot testify in the assize court -concerning the details of my service.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Colonel Picquart.—“At that time nobody questioned the -authenticity of the dispatch.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Does the witness know anything concerning -M. Zola’s good faith?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, it is useless. We have no right to say -anything about the Dreyfus case.”</p> - -<p>M. Stock.—“I can enumerate four of these documents, if -you like.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“We are not concerned with the Dreyfus -case.”</p> - -<p>The next witness was M. Lalance, who formerly sat in the -German reichstag representing Alsace-Lorraine, as protesting -deputy.</p> - -<p>“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:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</span> -‘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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Say nothing of Dreyfus.”</p> - -<p>M. Lalance.—“The family, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, it is useless.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Why did I sign the protest?</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac-simile</i> of the famous <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>,—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?</p> - -<p>How was I led to sign a protest?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</span> -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.</p> - -<p class="right mr15"> -<span class="smcap">Gabriel Séailles.</span><br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>This ended the testimony, and, the attorney-general not -being ready to begin his argument, an adjournment was -taken until Monday, February 21.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</span></p> - - -<h3 id="thirteenth"><span class="smcap">Thirteenth Day—February 21.</span></h3> - -<p>With the opening of the session, Attorney-General Van -Cassel began his summing-up.</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Speech of Attorney-General Van Cassel.</span></h4> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Alfred Dreyfus alone was in a position to procure the -documents concerning the national defence which are -enumerated in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. General de Pellieux and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“‘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?</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“M. Demange was the first to render homage to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">M. le Ministre</i>:</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="right mr15"> -<span class="smcap">General de Luxer.</span><br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Is not the misinterpretation of so simple a matter identical -with calumny?</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</span> -regarding him. And finally he contradicted himself. The -scene was so saddening that I have not the courage to dwell -upon it.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</span> -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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Speech of M. Emile Zola.</span></h4> - -<p>At the conclusion of the attorney-general’s address, M. -Zola read the following declaration to the jury:</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gendarmes</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Certainly, gentlemen, I do not offer you the insult of believing -that you have been caught by this nursery tale. I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en masse</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</span> -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?</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> 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?</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Speech of M. Labori.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Zola was followed by his counsel, M. Labori, who -summed up his case with the following elaborate argument:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“The insult that is thrown in their face may be summed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</span> -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.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>, 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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“This is an error. The document was examined by five -experts, three of whom declared Dreyfus the writer, the two -others dissenting.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Unhappily for Dreyfus, there seems to be something else. There is -talk of another document found in the office of the same military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>, -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> has played an ignoble <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i>? 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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</span> -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and then they come -to this matter which it is indispensable that I should make -known to you.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> of the German -embassy addressed to their colleagues of the Italian embassy a letter in -cipher.</p> -</div> - -<p>“This is another lie. The letter was not in cipher.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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....</p> -</div> - -<p>“Yes, again become master of himself, because somewhere -in the article—and this is another lie—it is said that he had -made confessions.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i>, 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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“The reference here is to the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</span> -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“Such is the article, in substance. Three days after its -appearance, M. Demange, counsel of Dreyfus, meeting his -old friend Salle, was greeted thus:</p> - -<p>“‘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.’</p> - -<p>“‘What do you mean?’ said Demange.</p> - -<p>“‘Well, since it is published, I can tell you.’</p> - -<p>“‘Published? What? What are you talking about?’</p> - -<p>“‘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.”’</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</span> -further confirmation came in ‘Le Matin’s’ publication of the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">savants</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’être</i> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, do not address the public.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“Try, then, to explain otherwise what this man is doing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>,—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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Insults to the army? But, in the first place, what is the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</span> -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?</p> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<p>“‘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.’</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> which still is, and which may -remain, a <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> of liberty, no free mind can admit that.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“Well, the sword is the exact symbol of that political -state which I have just tried to picture to you, and I have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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?’</p> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It is monstrous to see the chief command of the army in the hands of a -septuagenarian....</p> -</div> - -<p>“The reference here is to General Saussier, and it reminds -one of the opinions of Major Esterhazy.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rossard</i> 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. [<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Service de Renseignements</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coup de torchon</i>.</p> -</div> - -<p>“If you continue, you will find the same language and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</span> -same expressions. Here is an unsigned article that appeared -in ‘L’Intransigeant’ October 3, 1897.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And, on July 14, 1896, we find this, over the signature -of M. Rochefort:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And in the same newspaper, on September 7, 1897, I find -this:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i>.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And there is one more passage that I wish to read, also -by M. Rochefort, which appeared on Friday, April 12, 1894.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And, if, gentlemen, we open ‘La Libre Parole’ of -November 5, 1894, we find this from the pen of M. Drumont:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And, finally, gentlemen, I read to you a letter that -appears in ‘L’Autorité’ of this morning under the title -‘Billot.’</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="mr10 right"> -<span class="smcap">Paris, February 20, 1898.</span></p> - -<p> -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Directeur</i>: -</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</span> -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“Well, gentlemen, these are the supporters of the army. -These are the patriots. I point them out to you.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“True, gentlemen, it would not have been easy to entirely -close my mouth. I should have risen just the same after<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>At this point the court interrupted M. Labori, declaring -an adjournment until the following day.</p> - - -<h3 id="fourteenth"><span class="smcap">Fourteenth Day—February 22.</span></h3> - -<p>Resuming his argument at the point at which he had -dropped it the day before, M. Labori continued as follows:</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“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, ...</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i>, “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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“On the morning of October 15 Dreyfus appeared at the -war department. There he was arrested by Major du Paty<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</span> -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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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....</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bouillon</i> and -sweetened wine, refusing all other nourishment.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</span> -gives me <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">carte blanche</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>On January 4, 1895, I was relieved of my heavy responsibility. After -shaking hands with Captain Dreyfus, I gave him over to the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gendarmes</i>, -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</span> -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>, -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</span> -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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> which was made to Captain Dreyfus at the moment -of his arrest?”</p> - -<p>Here M. Labori read the passage from the d’Ormescheville -indictment, describing the dictation from the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> to -Dreyfus by M. du Paty de Clam, who notes the agitation of -the accused. Then he continued:</p> - -<p>“I have a right to say that these are puerile methods of -judicial examination.</p> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“On this first point, gentlemen, let us try to connect all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“Were you aware, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Ministre</i>, of another document incriminating -Dreyfus, outside of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>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?</p> -</div> - -<p>“And what does M. Dupuy, the president of the cabinet, -say to ‘Le Gaulois’? This:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Never did I know of any document incriminating the condemned man, -except the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> and the dictation scene; and that even of -these not the entire cabinet, but only M. Dupuy and M.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</span> -Guérin, had been informed by the minister of war, proving, -as I have just said, that General Mercier took everything -upon himself.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> to -another, which was photographed <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en route</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <em>he</em> 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 <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pro</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">con</i>,—until it had been shown to the -accused and his counsel, who perhaps could overturn it with -a word.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I hasten to say that we would not have -listened to them.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Very likely, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“No, pass on.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“I pass on, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. But I do -not think there is anything in my words that can be attacked -by anybody.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Pass on, pass on.”</p> - -<p>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——.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“You see the spirit of this article. Is it attributable to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</span></p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> before them; because the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -was the only document involved at the beginning of the -trial; because nothing was left but the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> at the end -of the trial, just as today there is nothing but the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The presiding judge orders the call of witnesses to begin. Then the -representative of the government rises.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange asks the floor.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“In fact, from the point of view of the charge here preferred, whereas -the only document” ...</p> - -<p>But the judge abruptly stops him, and says in an imperious tone:</p> - -<p>“I remind the counsel of my pressing invitation to make no reference -to any document here involved.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>But M. Demange insists:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>And he resumes: “Whereas the only document” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“I cannot allow you to continue thus. You cannot -speak of the only document.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I had asked to be given a record of the refusal to -allow me to offer a motion.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“How can I demonstrate that publicity is not dangerous, -if I cannot refer to the material proofs?”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You have no right to do so.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</span></p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“But the interest of the defence requires me to develop -my motion.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“Yes or no, is my motion accepted?”</p> - -<p>M. Brisset.—“File your motion without reading it.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I ask for a record of the filing of my motion, and of -the refusal to allow me to read it.”</p> - -<p>M. Brisset.—“But you have been doing that for the last half-hour.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I have examined only the question of right.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is sufficient.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I have read only a part.”</p> - -<p>M. Brisset.—“It is the principal part.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You must not speak of the documents.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“A decree has declared that the court must consider -the circumstances of the case.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“That is what I deny, for then your argument begins.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“No, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>: 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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“You are now making an argument.”</p> - -<p>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” ...</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“There I stop you. Otherwise the demand for the closing -of the doors becomes illusory.”</p> - -<p>M. Brisset.—“These are the tactics of the defence.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“In view of the demand of the defence, the council will -retire for deliberation.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“One word more. If we ask publicity, let it be well<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>At these words the presiding judge rises abruptly and says:</p> - -<p>“By virtue of my discretionary power, I order that the council now -retire.”</p> - -<p>M. Demange.—“I ask a record of the interruption to which my remarks -are thus subjected.”</p> - -<p>“Yes, I give you the record,” said the judge, as he withdrew.</p> - -<p>And the council retired amid much excitement.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, I would declare nevertheless that Dreyfus -wrote it, because I have the proof.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</span> -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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Do you assert that Captain Lebrun-Renault has always declared -that ex-Captain Dreyfus made him no confession?”</p> - -<p>“I assert it on my honor.”</p> - -<p>And solemnly Mme. Chapelon added, as we took our departure: ‘I -swear it.’</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>‘A newspaper pretends that you have declared to a deputy, whose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</span> -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.’</p> - -<p>“Visibly embarrassed, Captain Lebrun-Renault sought to evade the -question, but Major Forzinetti followed him up.</p> - -<p>“‘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.’</p> - -<p>“As Captain Lebrun-Renault still did not answer, but tried to escape, -Major Forzinetti seized his cloak, and shouted:</p> - -<p>“‘If you used the language that is attributed to you, you are an -infamous liar.’</p> - -<p>“The witnesses of this scene intervened. General Gonse, who was -present, said to M. Forzinetti:</p> - -<p>“‘In these things we get too much excited. Come, Major, calm -yourself.’</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>This morning we asked Major Forzinetti ...</p> -</div> - -<p>“And it is because of this concluding paragraph that I -read the extract.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</span> -president is very interesting. Answering M. Cavaignac, M. -Méline said:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 ...</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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!”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“See how erect the scoundrel is,” they say.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“Dreyfus, you are unworthy to bear arms. In the name of the -French people, we degrade you.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</span></p> - -<p>“I am innocent. I swear that I am innocent. Long live France!”</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“On the head of my wife and the heads of my children I swear that I -am innocent. I swear it. Long live France!”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Now he has to pass before his former comrades and subordinates. -For any other it would have been a frightful torture.</p> -</div> - -<p>“You are listening to his enemies, gentlemen of the jury.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Dreyfus, however, does not seem embarrassed. He strides over what -were the insignia of his office, which two <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gendarmes</i> 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.</p> - -<p>Dreyfus continues his march. He reaches the group of journalists.</p> - -<p>“You will say to entire France,” he says, “that I am innocent.”</p> - -<p>“Silence, wretch!” answer some, while others shout: “Coward! -Traitor! Judas!”</p> - -<p>Under the insult the abject personage straightens up. He casts at us -a glance of ferocious hatred.</p> - -<p>“You have no right to insult me.”</p> - -<p>A clear voice comes from the group, answering:</p> - -<p>“You know well that you are not innocent.”</p> - -<p>“Long live France! Dirty Jew!” they shout again, and Dreyfus -goes on his way.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gendarmes</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Ministre</i>:</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And here is the letter that he wrote to M. Demange on -the eve of his degradation:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">January 3, 1895.</span></p> - -<p> -<span class="italic">Dear Master</span>: -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">A. Dreyfus.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>P. S.—I just learn that the degradation will not take place until -Saturday. I send this letter just the same.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</span></p> - -<p>“And then this second letter, written also to M. Demange, -a few hours after the degradation:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">Prison de la Santé, Saturday.</span></p> - -<p> -<span class="italic">Dear Master</span>: -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“You see, gentlemen, that he hoped for the company of -his wife.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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</p> - -<p class="right mr10"> -<span class="smcap">A. Dreyfus.</span><br /> -</p> -</div> - -<p>“Well, gentlemen, for all men who have hearts, these -letters have greater weight than all the declarations of a M. -Lebrun-Renault.</p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p>“Well, why were not such forms observed, if the confessions -were to have a value?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</span></p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, you know that this article -applies only to those who are condemned to death.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“Agreed, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Do you admit that what you have just written strangely resembles -the writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>?”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“On October 30 Major du Paty de Clam appeared again.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>Captain Dreyfus.—“Yes.”</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<p>Captain Dreyfus.—“I again declare that I never wrote it.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“And now, gentlemen, pay all your attention to this:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Major du Paty de Clam.—“The minister is ready to receive you, if -you have anything to say in the direction of confession.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the conclusion -of M. Labori’s argument was postponed until the -following day.</p> - - -<h3 id="fifteenth"><span class="smcap">Fifteenth Day—February 23.</span></h3> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Labori, you have the floor to continue -your argument.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“What are these two documents? There is, first, the -visiting-card of a military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>;—I will name him, if I am -obliged to;—it is authentic. It makes a <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rendezvous</i> with -another military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rendezvous</i> 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">vis-à-vis</i> of our governments, we have never had dealings -with this Jewry,’ signed ‘Claude,’ like the card.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> -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? <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">A propos</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rendezvous</i> is made? It was not difficult to -procure such a card. You can pick up the card of a military -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i>—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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i>. What has the forger -done? He has placed upon the card of the military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> -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.</p> - -<p>“Is it likely that military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> would write on such a -question, after the famous history of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i>.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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?</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coup</i> of the secret -document? I use the familiar word, because there is none -that better expresses my thought.</p> - -<p>“And now, gentlemen, that the ground is cleared, let us -come back to the basis of the accusation, the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, to know -where it was seized? Is not such knowledge indispensable, -in order to enable the accused to establish, perhaps, that the -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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, ...</p> -</div> - -<p>“Remember that this minister of war was General -Mercier.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i>, which might<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is of the hand of Major Esterhazy. I will -come to that later. I say the writing of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“Consequently you see that it occurred to Dreyfus, crushed -under the weight of this undecipherable enigma, to say: -‘The <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> is not my work, but the writing resembles -certain other handwritings.’ He designated some one. This -some one was not the author of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, and as to -the circumstances under which it was traced, one thing is -certain,—that, given the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, I am perfectly -easy. Whatever its source, it did not come from Dreyfus.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>,—that its origin had not -been revealed to the judges. Well, never would any court -have condemned a man on this handwriting alone.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“Then,” said the judge, “I am the forger. I am the author of the -marginal note.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“What expert was it who said -that?”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</span></p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mon Dieu</i>, Monsieur Attorney-General, his -name is not given. But the anecdote is famous. My <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i>, -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.”</p> - -<p>The Attorney-General.—“It was one of yours. Then keep -him.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“But the documents were communicated, gentlemen. -The fact is established. Let us summarize the proofs.</p> - -<p>“In the first place, there is the article that appeared in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</span> -‘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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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?</p> -</div> - -<p>“Now listen, gentlemen, to the reply of M. Jules Méline, -president of the cabinet.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>I answer you that we are unwilling to discuss this matter from the -tribune, and that I am unwilling to serve your designs.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</span></p> - -<p>“Then, a few moments later, M. Méline added:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</span></p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span class="italic">Dear Lucie</span>:</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</span> -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!</p> -</div> - -<p>“In addition, I read to you some short extracts from the -last letter, received at Paris, and dated December 25, 1897.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span class="italic">My dear Lucie</span>:</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And beneath are these tragic words, which I must read -to you, for they add to the horror:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Read in accordance with orders, the Chief of the Penitentiary -Administration.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“This is an error. There were three experts who recognized -it, and two who did not.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It has been said that this document was found, torn up, in the waste-basket -of a military <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attaché</i> of a great neighboring power, from which it -was taken by an agent in our pay. Later it was pretended that this was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</span> -not the case at all. It has been said since that the document was found -in the war department itself.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Now I read to you what M. de Cassagnac wrote on September -14, 1896:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Our <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i>, “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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i> for pursuing such a demonstration, -but that this demonstration is impossible. Like most of our -fellow-citizens, we believe Dreyfus guilty, but, like our <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i>, we are -not sure of it. And, like our <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">confrère</i>, “Le Jour,” will be able to give any interest to its -investigation.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i>, 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en masse</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“Make no reference to that.”</p> - -<p>M. Labori.—“<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le Président</i>, all this has been -told at length in the newspapers.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“It cannot be very useful in your -argument.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rôle</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</span> -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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -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.</p> - -<p>“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?</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> that was in -question; that the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“And General Gonse replies:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“Now I wish to say a word of the difficulty of procuring -the documents mentioned in the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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 -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</span></p> - -<p>“You have been spoken to also concerning the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">troupes de -couverture</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attachés</i> see these -things at the grand manœuvres, and get all the information -that they want.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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!’”</p> - - -<h4><span class="italic">Speech of M. Georges Clemenceau.</span></h4> - -<p>M. Labori was followed by M. Georges Clemenceau, -representing the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> of “L’Aurore.” He spoke as -follows:</p> - -<p>“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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Here a formidable question arises.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</span> -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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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?</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“Yes, gentlemen, many events have taken place since -1894. Did we then know the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>? 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>The Judge.—“M. Clemenceau, will you turn toward the -jury?”</p> - -<p>M. Clemenceau.—“I beg you to excuse me, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Monsieur le -Président</i>; 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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was found, -torn as the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> was torn, without a stamp as the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> -was without a stamp, and which yet was deemed of -no force against Major Esterhazy, while against Dreyfus so -much was made of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i>. And yet, gentlemen, this -dispatch contains the name of Major Esterhazy in full.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</span> -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?</p> - -<p>“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!’</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“Well, since the first suspicions to which the publication -of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bordereau</i> 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, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">a -priori</i>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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?</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>M. Zola.—“And he is an anti-Semite.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">en -masse</i>. Their entire profession is at stake.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’être</i> 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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</span></p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">par excellence</i>, the traitor who had -no excuse, the traitor whose outstretched hand France -awaited on the day of her supreme disaster. To what <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> -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:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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.</p> -</div> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“If the jury gives him its aid, the pacification of minds -may be accomplished, and the agitation of this day finished<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">esprit de corps</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i>, 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i>. -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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i> is intelligible. In a democracy -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i> 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 <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">raison d’Etat</i> has had its day, and that the -hour has come for us to attach ourselves to the modern idea<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</span> -of liberty and justice. After the original duty of defence of -the soil, nothing can be more urgent than to establish among -us a <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">régime</i> of liberty and justice, which shall be in accordance -with the ambition of our fathers, an example to all -civilized nations.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.]</p> - -<p>“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.’</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>It was six o’clock when M. Clemenceau took his seat and -Attorney-General Van Cassel rose to reply.</p> - -<p>“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!’”</p> - -<p>To this address M. Labori made rejoinder. Facing the -audience, which was crying “Enough! enough! Down with -Labori!” he said:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>Then, turning to the attorney-general, he continued:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Then, turning to the jury, he concluded:</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“On my honor and my conscience the declaration of the -jury is: as concerns Perrenx, <em>yes</em>, by a majority vote. As -concerns Zola, <em>yes</em>, by a majority vote.”</p> - -<p>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.’</p> - -<p>The court then retired to deliberate upon the sentence. -Returning a few minutes later, it condemned M. Perrenx, -the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gérant</i> 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.</p> - -<p class="mb3">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. -</p> - - -<div class="transnote"> -<p class="center"><b>Transcriber’s Note</b></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The table of contents was created by the transcriber; none existed -in the printed book.</p> -</div> - - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF EMILE ZOLA ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -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. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -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™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - 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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. 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. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • 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™ - 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™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • 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. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -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. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/68561-h/images/bertillons.jpg b/old/68561-h/images/bertillons.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1942ed6..0000000 --- a/old/68561-h/images/bertillons.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68561-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68561-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1c55e27..0000000 --- a/old/68561-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
