Chapter L: Dreyfus (6)

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.