Chapter L: Dreyfus (8)

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.