M. Guyot was then asked his opinion of M. Zola’s good faith. He answered:
“Gentlemen, I have a very clear opinion of my own, and this opinion I share with the intellectualéliteof France. Moreover, as I was a member of the cabinet for three years, I am more or less intimate withpersonnelof the departments. Well, there I find many men who do not hesitate to say in private conversation that the Esterhazy trial was a parody on justice. And not only do these persons believe in M. Zola’s good faith, but so do many foreigners—specialists and men of science—with whom I am in relations. The truth is known beyond our frontiers, and will be appreciated there, though we stifle it here. In foreign countries the military officers and the diplomatists understand the Esterhazy case exactly.”
The next witness was M. Teyssonnière, who, as one of the experts in handwriting connected with the Seine court, served in the Dreyfus case of 1894, but, a few days before the trial, was stricken from the list of experts, in consequenceof a charge that in another case he had called on one of the parties thereto for a payment of 2,000 francs before beginning his report. He told at length of his troubles at that time, and said that before the first council of war he had demonstrated mathematically that thebordereauwas written by Dreyfus, he having found that certain words in it were identical with the handwriting of Dreyfus. Later he called upon M. Trarieux, who was then minister of justice, by whose intercession he was enrolled as one of the experts of the appellate court.
“It was on this occasion,” said M. Teyssonnière, “that I spoke of the Dreyfus case to M. Trarieux, and afterwards to M. Scheurer-Kestner, to whom he sent me. M. Scheurer-Kestner told me in June, 1897, that he had conceived doubts concerning the guilt of Dreyfus, and that he would like me to give him light. I brought to him the photograph of thebordereau, and demonstrated by a comparison of handwritings that the guilt of Dreyfus was certain. He seemed convinced. On July 9 he sent for me again, and showed me originals of the handwriting of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, and we compared them with thebordereau. I called his attention to entire syllables in thebordereauwhich were exact tracings of the handwriting of Dreyfus. M. Scheurer-Kestner then told me that he had had occasion to call upon the staff since my first visit, and that they had said to him: ‘Don’t talk to us of Teyssonnière; he is a thief. It was the testimony of Bertillon that convicted Dreyfus.’ Nevertheless, I have made twenty-five decisive comparisons with the handwriting of Dreyfus, and these comparisons reveal five complete superpositions. There is no doubt; it is a case of identity.”
The witness then told of his relations with another expert, M. Crépieux-Jamin, who had been asked by M. Bernard Lazare to examine thebordereau.
“I received a visit,” said the witness, “from M. Crépieux-Jamin. I remember it only too well, for he came on a day when I had just cut myself to the bone with a table-knife. As he is a doctor, I was not sorry to see him. He attended me professionally for several days, and during that time we naturally talked of the Dreyfus case. I told him that thefac-similesof thebordereaupublished in the newspapers were very rough pieces of work, and calculated to deceive the public. He tried to inspire me with doubts as to my own conclusions. Not until the last day did I perceive the purpose of his questions. One evening, suddenly, he askedme how much I had received for my report. ‘Two hundred francs, I believe,’ said I. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘you could have had a hundred thousand.’ ‘But, my dear friend,’ said I, ‘you know that I was formerly connected with the department of roads and bridges, and that I have a pension of 4-1/2 francs a day. My little house is mine; I have lived in it honorably, and I wish to die in it honorably.’ This convinced me that M. Crépieux-Jamin had come to sound me.”
M. Zola.—“At the time of your report in 1894 had you been offered money?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Nor afterward, either?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“I can say only one thing,—that M. Crépieux-Jamin told me that I could have had for my report a hundred thousand; the word ‘thousand’ was cut in two by my reply.”
M. Labori.—“Did he tell you that he was sent by anyone?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“No, but I felt that he was endeavoring to get me to express a doubt as to the conclusions of my report. He buried that in my brain as with a gimlet.”
On the demand of M. Labori, M. Trarieux was recalled for confrontation with M. Teyssonnière.
M. Trarieux.—“When M. Teyssonnière, who had been sent to me by his deputy, M. Descubes, came to tell me of his disgrace, he said that he had been denounced by a Jewish magistrate. I asked the judge of the civil court who had revoked him to restore him to his position. This magistrate explained that M. Teyssonnière had asked of a client an advance payment of 2,000 francs, that certain experts were in the habit of making these demands, and that an example must be made of some one. I fully approved, but I asked him if M. Teyssonnière was unworthy of my interest. Receiving a negative reply, I went to the president of the appellate court, and asked him to inscribe M. Teyssonnière on his list of experts, which he did.”
M. Teyssonnière.—“And I shall always be grateful to you. Investigation showed, however, that, far from having asked 2,000 francs too much, I was a loser by 600 francs.”
M. Trarieux.—“I remained on excellent terms with M. Teyssonnière. He came to see me several times. We talked of the Dreyfus case, and I saw that he had been much more struck by the dissimilarities between the writing of Dreyfus and thebordereauthan by the similarities. In the course of one of our discussions M. Bertillon was mentioned.‘Bertillon!’ exclaimed M. Teyssonnière; ‘he nearly spoiled everything. He made an incomprehensible report. Fortunately I was there.’ I sent M. Teyssonnière to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who, though at first convinced by his demonstration, soon afterwards was impressed, as I was, by certain dissimilarities, especially by certain doubless, which were writtenfsin the Dreyfus writing andsfin thebordereau. M. Teyssonnière maintained that these dissimilarities were intentional.
“Last June M. Teyssonnière came to me to tell me of a strange occurrence. The night before, as he was leaving his house, he found on the table in his vestibule a package that had been left there by an unknown hand. He opened it, and was astonished to find the photographs of Dreyfus’s handwriting that had been given to him to report upon in 1894. ‘How is it,’ he asked, ‘that these documents, which I surely returned, have been left at my house? It is the work of the Jews. They are trying to compromise me.’ I advised him to return the documents to the minister of war, or put them in a safe place. I do not know whether it was the same day or later that he told me that he had had occasion to go to the war offices for a certain piece of information, and had been received very unfavorably, the officer to whom he applied saying to him that he was astonished that M. Teyssonnière dared to show himself there. M. Teyssonnière was at a loss to understand such an attitude toward an expert whose testimony in the Dreyfus case had won him the congratulations of the staff.
“Last November I was told that M. Teyssonnière was suspected by the government of having communicated to ‘Le Matin’ thebordereauof which ‘Le Matin’ gave afac-similein November. Till then my confidence in M. Teyssonnière had been complete. But, beginning now to entertain doubt, I wrote about the matter to his deputy, M. Descubes, who sent my letter to M. Teyssonnière. Nevertheless I heard nothing more from him.”
The second expert was succeeded on the witness-stand by the third, M. Charavay.
M. Labori.—“Can M. Charavay tell us whether thebordereauwas traced, or written in a running hand?”
M. Charavay.—“I refuse to answer. It is a custom among experts never to give an opinion while a trial is pending.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then when do they give an opinion?”
M. Labori [handing specimen of thebordereauto the witness].—“Do you know these?”
M. Charavay.—“They are writings connected with the Dreyfus case. That is very far away.”
M. Labori.—“Certainly you cannot be very curious, if you have not heard it spoken of in the last few months.”
M. Charavay.—“At any rate I am determined not to answer. I was one of the experts in the first trial. I know nothing of the second.”
M. Labori.—“Would you ever condemn a person solely on the strength of an expert examination of handwriting?”
M. Charavay.—“I answer with your authorization,Monsieur le Président. I answer purely and simply that, as I do not believe in my own infallibility, or in the infallibility of anybody under such circumstances, never in my life would I condemn anyone on an expert examination of handwriting in the absence of material or moral proofs.”
The Judge.—“That is a very natural opinion. But it does not affect the situation at all.”
M. Labori.—“You add your impression,Monsieur le Président, to that of the expert, and I shall have something to say about that in my argument.”
Then the witness-stand was taken successfully by the two remaining experts in the Dreyfus case,—M. Pelletier and M. Gobert, the latter the expert of the Bank of France. Both of them testified that, while there were commonplace analogies between the handwriting of thebordereauand that of Dreyfus, the dissimilarities were too numerous to warrant the attribution to Dreyfus of the authorship of thebordereau. The day’s proceedings ended with brief examinations of the three experts in the Esterhazy case,—MM. Couard, Belhomme, and Varinard. M. Couard refused to testify on the ground that he and his colleagues had brought suit against M. Zola for 100,000 francs damages, but nevertheless declared that he and his two colleagues, working independently, had reached unanimously the conclusion that thebordereauwas not the work of Major Esterhazy. M. Belhomme’s testimony was virtually the same, and M. Varinard categorically refused to answer, on the ground that his report had been read behind closed doors.
After the opening of the court, permission was given to General Gonse to make an explanation concerning the testimony of M. Jaurès. He protested that the staff, far fromhaving delivered a secret document to Major Esterhazy as a cordial, as M. Jaurès had said, and far from being desirous of avoiding the light, wished the light most ardently; that in the preliminary investigation of the Esterhazy case an inquiry was begun to find out how the document reached Major Esterhazy, but then, in consequence of the rapidity with which the investigation was conducted, the inquiry could not be carried to the end, and so the light was not obtained; that it would be a great relief to the staff to know who conveyed the document, especially as the only persons in whose hands it had been were Colonel Henry, M. Gribelin, Colonel Picquart, and himself, General Gonse; that he could answer for Colonel Henry and M. Gribelin, but that it was not for him to speak of himself; that the newspapers had misreported that part of his testimony in which he declared that Colonel Picquart, prior to this affair, had been a very good officer, by making him say that Colonel Picquartiscapable of continuing to be a very good officer, whereas he had spoken, not in the present, but in the past tense, to give expression to the fact that such was his belief at the time when Colonel Picquart was sent on a mission; and that his present feeling regarding Colonel Picquart he had stated very clearly before the council of investigation, but could not now repeat, because the proceedings of that council were secret.
M. Labori.—“General Gonse declares that the staff is desirous of the light, and that he and his superiors are ready to contribute thereto as far as possible. Therefore I invite him to ask the minister of war to authorize General Mercier to explain the communication of the secret document, which is now proved; to release Colonel Picquart from the obligation of professional secrecy, except on matters vital to the national defence; to consent to the production in court of the originalbordereau, and of the papers used by M. Bertillon in his expert examination; and to instruct M. Bertillon and the experts in the Esterhazy case to testify.”
General Gonse.—“I am not authorized to speak of these questions, or to transmit them.”
M. Labori.—“Then don’t come here again to talk to us of the light, and to tell us that you love the light.”
M. Crépieux-Jamin then took the witness-stand to answer the charges made by M. Teyssonnière the day before.
“The testimony of M. Teyssonnière,” said the witness,“is a pure romance from one end to the other. In the first place, there is only one man capable of valuing M. Teyssonnière at 100,000 francs, and that is M. Teyssonnière himself. When I went to his house, I was absolutely ignorant of his report. He asked me to dinner, and we did not talk of this matter at all. After dinner he took me aside, and said: ‘Come, let us talk of the case.’ ‘Of what case?’ ‘The case of Dreyfus.’ Today, of course, everybody would understand that it was the case of Dreyfus, but at that time it was still possible for people to meet without talking of the Dreyfus case. My wife was engaged in some trifling work. M. Teyssonnière said to her in a theatrical tone: ‘Madame, drop what you are doing; I am going to show you things of much greater interest.’ And to my astonishment M. Teyssonnière spread before me the entire file of the first council of war. We talked at length about this file. I had all the documents—which were secret documents—in my hands, and M. Teyssonnière said to me: ‘Promise me that you will say nothing.’ I have kept my promise until today, and now it is only to defend myself that I declare that M. Teyssonnière showed me the file, which he got I know not where, I know not from whom, and which he certainly had no right to show me. I listened while M. Teyssonnière told me of his report. Every moment or two he stopped to ask me: ‘Well, are you convinced?’ ‘Oh, dear, no, and I assure you that your proofs are only quarter-proofs. There is absolutely nothing in your report that is convincing.’ We talked at length about thebordereauand thefac-similein ‘Le Matin.’ There is only one little difference between them; the ‘Matin’ plate was slightly damaged at the bottom. M. Teyssonnière said: ‘What annoys me is that they accuse me, or will accuse me, of having given thebordereauto “Le Matin.”’ I asked him why. ‘Oh!’ he said, ‘because each photograph of thebordereauhas its peculiar margin, and it seems that the photograph which ‘Le Matin’ obtained has the same margin as the photograph which I had upon which to make my report.’ ‘Well,’ I answered, ‘you have reason to be troubled, since in that case the document can have been communicated only by you or by the officers of the council of war.’ ‘Well,’ said he, finally, ‘I have not convinced you?’ ‘No,’ I replied, ‘and I believe that of all your reports this is the worst. You pretend to infallibility, and your report is indisputably false.’
“Now, gentlemen, if I had been sent by the Dreyfus family to bore a gimlet into M. Teyssonnière’s head, as heclaims, evidently he would not have waited four days, but would have speedily turned me out of his house. But nothing of the kind. I was not lodging at M. Teyssonnière’s. I was at a neighboring hotel. As my departure drew near, M. Teyssonnière said to me: ‘Excuse me, I have something to do. Wait five minutes.’ He went out. When I arrived at my hotel, I called for my bill. M. Teyssonnière said: ‘Dear friend, I am too happy to have had you for my guest. I have paid everything.’ That was not the conduct of a man who had just received impudent proposals. A fortnight later M. Teyssonnière wrote me an extremely affectionate letter, which I have in my pocket. My visit was on August 23; it was on September 3 that M. Teyssonnière gave me this evidence of affection. If my purpose in going to his house was to buy him, it is curious that a fortnight later he should have written me in such terms.”
M. Labori.—“Has not the witness refused to testify as an expert in the present trial?”
M. Crépieux-Jamin.—“That is a proof of my honesty and my independence. If I had been a paid agent of the Dreyfus family, I would not have refused. When I was approached about this matter, I answered: ‘Thank you; I am a physician and a dentist, not an expert in handwriting.’”
M. Labori.—“If I am well informed, the witness declined to testify for motives of prudence?”
M. Crépieux-Jamin.—“Yes; I am not particularly fond of having my windows broken. In the first place, I am not a professional expert in handwriting; I am only an amateur. When I was asked for a first report, I gave it, because it suited me to give it. When I was asked for a second, I refused, because it did not suit me to give it, and because I saw danger in doing so. I did not want people to come to me and say: ‘You have done such and such things; hereafter you shall not fill our teeth.’”
The witness being asked if the photographs shown him by M. Teyssonnière resembled thefac-similein “Le Matin,” he answered:
“It is inconceivable that any one should deny it. A fact is a hard thing to kill. Sooner or later the time will come when the original photograph of thebordereauwill be in the hands of everybody, and then the persons who have declared thesefac-similesto be false will see that they have been guilty of an impudence which lays them under suspicion.”
M. Labori.—“What is the difference between the official photographs and thefac-simile?”
M. Crépieux-Jamin.—“The difference is slight. It is more or less marked, according to the copy of ‘Le Matin’ that you happen to get. In my opinion, that newspaper had several plates. One of these plates must have received a blow in the lower right-hand corner that crushed a few of the words. The rest is so typical that there is not the smallest difference. Besides, if there is any forger here, it must be the sun, because these things are obtained by purely mechanical processes. One must be ignorant of the methods of reproduction to say that a plate has been altered. You can no more alter a plate of this kind than you can alter a photographic plate. What retouching process could it have been submitted to? It would have been necessary to efface entire words, and replace them with other words. But, I repeat, facts have a long life; they have time to live, and the truth that I am telling you will be very plain one of these days.”
The next witness called was M. Paul Meyer, director of the Ecole des Chartes, member of the Institute, and a professor in the College of France.
M. Labori.—“Is the witness an Israelite?”
M. Meyer.—“I was going to say a word on that point. In 1882, the year that I entered the Institute, when I took the biennial Grand Prize, the most important that the Institute awards, M. Drumont, in three odious pages of the first edition of ‘La France Juive,’ declared that I was the son of a German Jew, and that that was the reason why I had been awarded the principal of the Academy prizes. I wrote to M. Drumont to deny that. I was born in Paris of French parents. My grandfather on my father’s side was a native of Strasbourg, which explains my Alsatian name. I was baptized at Notre Dame. I made my first communion, and was confirmed, at Saint-Sulpice, where I studied the catechism until I was sixteen. It is provoking that without proofs a statement should be printed that I am of another religion, or have changed my religion, which I declare that I have not done, and have no intention of doing. I am glad to make this declaration, in order to save myself the trouble of writing letters of correction to newspapers in which I should not like to see myself in print.”
M. Labori.—“Will you give us your opinion of thebordereau?”
The Judge.—“Did you ever see the original?”
M. Meyer.—“I have seen onlyfac-similes, the original notbeing visible to the naked eye of the profane. One witness has testified here that thefac-similesresembled forgeries, and that nothing is less like the original than thesefac-similes. It is clear that, if they resemble forgeries, they do not resemble the original. But I believe that this witness, who is not accustomed to the precise formulation of thought, went farther than he intended. I shall try to dissect his declaration, and see what there is in it. Thesefac-similesare produced by what is known as the Gillot process. It is a zinc relief, the zinc being eaten in certain parts. When a plate of this sort is put on a rotary press, the zinc crushes a little, and the letters fill up. But this effect can be discounted in advance, and any comparison of writings should eliminate all difference between clear and filled letters. The process is not a particularly good one, but it has the advantage of being cheap; and, besides, it does not lend itself easily to retouching, which is a guarantee of sincerity. It alters in no way the form of the letters. If a person is in the habit of crossing hist’s on the bias, on the bias the crosses will remain. If he crosses them horizontally, they will remain horizontal. There is no possibility of error of this sort. The witness referred to says that thefac-simileresembles a forgery. No. There is the sort of alteration that I have pointed out, and there is another equally unimportant. The original is written on two pages, while thefac-simileis on a single page for convenience of publication. But this difference is purely external, and has no bearing on the form of the letters; so I do not see what they mean when they say that thefac-similedoes not resemble the original. Let me say, in passing, that I have had a conversation with M. Bertillon about all sorts of things. He said to me,—I quote him because it is a point of fact and not a point of reasoning,—‘Thesefac-similesare not so bad.’ M. Bertillon knows photography and knows this process of reproduction. Consequently it seems to me audacious to say that thefac-simileresembles a forgery.
“But the day after the deposition of the witness in question certain newspapers said: ‘It is a forgery.’ Such is the way in which a legend springs up. An inexact report in the first place, then a falsehood mingles with it, and then you have the legend. Well, the legend must be destroyed absolutely. I should like the witness who said thisfac-simileresembled a forgery to explain to me how it is, seeing that thisfac-similewas published at the beginning of 1896, that anyone could have had the idea of making afac-simileof Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, when at that time he had not been heard of in connection with the case. Well, thesefac-similesshow the writing of Major Esterhazy; as to that I have no sort of doubt. Is it Major Esterhazy’s hand? Ah! here is a distinction, and a subtle one. At least it seems to me subtle. It appears to result from the report of the experts in the second trial. I do not know that report, but I have read in a newspaper that it is the theory of these experts that thefac-simileis the writing of Major Esterhazy, but not his hand. That may be; I do not know. I have tried two or three hypotheses to explain this dualism,—on the one hand the writing, on the other the hand. I will spare you these hypotheses. I think it would be hardly charitable on my part to attribute them to the experts, because I, their author, consider them absurd. I hope that these gentlemen have found a hypothesis that has escaped me, and that will explain this difficulty.
“There is a certain way of refuting me, if I am wrong. I do not ask that the original be brought here,—to ask that would be enormous;—I ask simply for a more delicate photograph, simply two pages on albumen paper, something very clear. Or, better yet, I would like glass negatives. When a photograph is printed, there is always a negative. It would be as well to bring the negative. Now, by looking at the gelatine side of the negative, you can see whether it has been retouched or not. For me this glass plate is as good as the original, except in one point,—the quality of the paper, which cannot be seen on a glass plate. From it one could tell whether there is a difference between the original represented by the photograph and the original more or less imperfectly represented by the publishedfac-similes. If they will show me these plates, I will ask nothing better than to confess. If it proves to be true that thefac-similesmade by the Gillot process and published in ‘Le Matin’ are bad, I will say so frankly. But, if this request be refused, then I say that I am right. I felt very sad when I read the demonstration of a certain expert, for I had talked formerly with this expert, who in some respects is a very remarkable man, and has invented a really magnificent thing—anthropometry. Well, this conversation at first interested me—one always learns; then it amused me, and finally it distressed me, gentlemen. I was distressed to think that it was possible to entrust an expert examination in so serious a matter to a man whose methods of investigation it is impossible to dispute, because they are entirely foreign to common sense.”
M. Labori asked the court to recall the three Esterhazy experts that they might be confronted with M. Meyer.
The Judge.—“They are bound by professional secrecy.”
M. Labori.—“But,Monsieur le Président, I pray you.”
The Judge.—“No, no, they were right.”
M. Labori.—“I insist. M. Paul Meyer has told us that all the hypotheses which he could frame in order to understand that this document, while being Esterhazy’s writing, was not in his hand, had seemed to him impossible. Did I rightly understand?”
M. Meyer.—“Perfectly. But perhaps these gentlemen have found something that I have not found.”
M. Labori.—“Then it would be interesting to hear MM. Couard, Varinard, and Belhomme.”
The Judge.—“No, no, I have said” ...
M. Labori.—“But I have a question to put.”
The Judge.—“You shall not put it.”
M. Labori.—“I insist,Monsieur le Président.”
The Judge.—“I say that you shall not put it.”
M. Labori.—“Oh!Monsieur le Président, it is interesting” ...
The Judge.—“It is useless to shout so loud.”
M. Labori.—“I shout, because I need to make myself heard.”
The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”
M. Labori.—“You say that; but I say I wish to put it.”
The Judge.—“Well, I say that it is an understood thing. The court must keep out of the debate anything that would uselessly prolong it. I say that this is useless, and it is my right to say so.”
M. Labori.—“You do not even know the question.”
The Judge.—“I know very well what you wish to ask.”
M. Labori.—“Well, I offer a motion in order to get a decree from the court on this point.”
The Judge.—“Offer all the motions that you like.”
M. Labori.—“If you think that this shortens the debate, you are mistaken.”
The Judge.—“Well, we will pass on the motion during the recess. Next witness.”
M. Auguste Molinier is ushered in.
The Judge.—“What is the question, M. Labori?”
M. Labori.—“I am drawing up a motion, and I consider it absolutely indispensable that the deposition of M. Meyer and the incidents to which it has given rise should be finished before the next witness testifies.”
The Judge.—“But ask your question now. It is useless to waste our time.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me,Monsieur le Président, we must hear first MM. Couard, Belhomme, and Varinard. It is indispensable to the truth, and I insist that my motion shall be formally denied before the next witness testifies. I consider it indispensable from the standpoint of the defence.”
M. Labori then offered a motion that the court formally acknowledge its refusal to put to the Esterhazy experts a question that had not been framed, and order that these experts be heard regarding the interviews with them.
The court retired, and, returning five minutes later, rendered a decree refusing to order that the witnesses be heard, on the ground that they could plead professional secrecy, and that their testimony would only prolong the trial without useful results.
“Now,” said the judge, “the principle is laid down. Every time that you insist, the same decree will be rendered. Let that be understood.”
M. Labori.—“Then it is a standing decree?”
The Judge.—“It is a standing decree.”
M. Labori.—“There was nothing like that in the oldrégime. It is inaugurated in this assize court. I can only bow, while I protest.”
The Judge.—“It is the law, according to Article 270 of the code of criminal examination.”
M. Labori.—“It is the first time that a court of justice has declared that a decree rendered constitutes a standing decree, and that all incidents to come will be decided by the same decree. It is the first time, and, while I bow before your words, I can only protest.”
The Judge.—“Protest as much as you like. But every time, under the same circumstances, the same decree will be rendered.”
The next witness was M. Auguste Molinier, a professor in the Ecole des Chartes.
“I have lived among manuscripts,” said the witness, “for 25 years, and I have observed them in such detail that now, by signs almost imperceptible to others, I can recognize the identity of handwritings, and tell about how long a certain manuscript has been written. I have had in my hands afac-simileof thebordereau, and, after examining the formation of the letters therein, and comparing it with letterswritten by Major Esterhazy, I affirm, on my soul and conscience, that I find in Major Esterhazy’s letters all the principal formations that occur in thebordereau.”
The Judge.—“At whose request did you make this examination?”
M. Molinier.—“I made it of my own accord, for, in common with all Frenchmen, I am interested in this case.”
At this point M. Clemenceau read the report of the magistrate, M. Bertulus, who had been appointed to put certain questions to Mme. de Boulancy. The answers of Mme. de Boulancy, as stated in this report, were in substance to the following effect: that she was in possession of letters and telegrams from Major Esterhazy, some of which, notably two telegrams, were of recent date; that she had deposited these documents in a safe place, intending to preserve them as a means of self-defence; that the telegrams contained no threat, but urged her in polite, but most pressing, terms to restore to Major Esterhazy the letters which he had written to her between 1881 and 1884; that these letters are perhaps as compromising as the letter in reference to the Uhlans, and that they say certain rather serious things in regard to the army and to France; that she would not consent that these letters should be handed to the judge by those in possession of them, as she wished to be well armed, in case she should be charged with forgery; that Major Esterhazy had come to her door four or five times, but that she had refused to let him in; that, seeing that he was unwilling to leave the stair-landing, or was too persistent in his attitude toward the servant, she came to the half-open door, which was secured by a chain, and asked him to go away, pointing out to him that he was compromising her; that the object of each of these visits was to ask for a return of the letters and the telegrams; that she had always answered that she would not publish them, but must keep them for her defence; that she told him that the letters that had been published were published against her will, and in consequence of her too great confidence in the word of a person whom she had supposed to be a devoted friend; that Major Esterhazy had never said, in answer to her refusal, that he would kill himself; that on Saturday, February 5, 1898, when she had already taken up her residence at Neuilly, Major Esterhazy was seen on the stairs of her previous residence, 22, Boulevard des Batignolles, by the tenant occupying the floorabove; and that she did not know what attitude Major Esterhazy assumed when he heard this tenant coming.
M. Clemenceau then offered a motion that a magistrate be appointed to ask Mme. de Boulancy whether Major Esterhazy did not say in these letters; first, that “General Saussier is a clown, and we Germans would put him in a circus;” second, that, “if the Prussians were to come to Lyons, they could throw away their guns and keep only bayonets, and still drive the Frenchmen before them.”
The court postponed its decision, and called another witness, M. Emile Molinier, professor at the Ecole du Louvre, and a brother of the preceding witness. He testified that the similarity between the handwriting of thebordereauand that of Major Esterhazy is absolutely complete. “I will even say,” he added, “that, if asavantwere to find in one of the volumes of the National Library by the side of Major Esterhazy’s letters the original of thebordereau, he would be considered disqualified if he did not say that thebordereauand the letters were written by the same person.”
M. Molinier was then succeeded by M. Célerier, professor in the College of Fontenay-le-Comte.
“Thebordereauand Major Esterhazy’s letters,” said the witness, “are absolutely in the same handwriting. The letternis strangely formed. Now it is regular, now it becomes anx. Thus the wordteniroften appears as if it were the wordtexir. Well, I find the same thing five or six times out of ten in Major Esterhazy’s letters. One has only to open his eyes to see that it is absolutely the same handwriting.”
The Judge.—“Who asked you to make this examination?”
M. Célerier.—“M. Bernard Lazare. He asked me if I would make an examination, and I said yes, and afterwards sent him a report of a few lines containing my conclusions.”
The Attorney-General.—“Was the witness confronted in another case with the three Esterhazy experts?”
M. Célerier.—“Yes.”
The Attorney-General.—“And there, too, you did not agree with them?”
M. Célerier.—“I did not.”
M. Labori.—“In view of the questions of the attorney-general, I would like to ask if a fortnight ago a case was not heard before the court of Paris, in which the court refused to recognize the testimony of M. Varinard and M. Couard.”
Testimony to the same effect as that given by the preceding witnesses was then given by M. Bourmon, a paleographer,who in turn was succeeded by M. Louis Franck, a Belgian lawyer.
A blackboard was furnished to the witness, upon which he illustrated with much detail the similarities between Major Esterhazy’s handwriting and thebordereau. Among other things he showed that Major Esterhazy’s writing and thebordereauwere 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 thet’s in thebordereau, like Major Esterhazy’st’s, were crossed horizontally, while in the writing of Dreyfus the crosses are made in an upward direction from left to right; that in thebordereau68 per cent. of thet’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; “Thebordereaucan 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 thebordereauwas 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 thebordereauand 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 thebordereau, I had an intuition that the writer of thebordereauwas 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. Whenthis 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.”
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 thebordereau. 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 thissecret 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 abordereau.
“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 ofindifference, 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 tothe 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 twocries 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.
The witness first dealt with the similarities in handwriting between thebordereauand the Esterhazy letters, and contrasted them with the letters of Dreyfus, pointing out especially that in thebordereauand the Esterhazy letters the capitalJ’s are written half above and half below the line, while theJ’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 thesin 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 whereone is needed, writing, for instance,françaisorfaçonwithout a cedilla, or perhaps he will put a cedilla where there should be none,—for instance,forçeandsouffrançewith a cedilla. In this he is capricious. He writes the wordannonçantnow with and now without the cedilla. And the same as to the accents. If he writes the prepositionà, which should have a grave accent, he sometimes gives it a grave accent and sometimes does not. He also uses needless accents. The wordnécessaire, 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 prepositionànot 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, thebordereauand Major Esterhazy’s letters show absolutely the same orthographical habits, while thebordereaudiffers 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 thebordereauthere 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 wordnouvellesis one that would never be written in such a connection by a Frenchman perfectly acquainted with his tongue. Such a Frenchman would saysans 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 thebordereauis 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 wordsnombre fixeproperly 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 thebordereaumeant. He meant that eachcorps 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 oftoutes les traces imaginablesis 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 thebordereau, 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 thebordereau, while, on the contrary, it is perfectly natural that Major Esterhazy should have written it.”
This ended the day’s proceedings.
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 thefac-similesthat have appeared, that published by ‘Le Matin’ most resembles thebordereau, but I wish to point out an essential difference. Thebordereauis 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 thebordereauis photographed, the photograph necessarily shows something of the back as well as the front, so that, to print thesefac-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 onlyfac-similesor 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 thebordereau.’ I sent for M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and he asked for an expert examination of thebordereau. 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. Thebordereauwas 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 thebordereau, but its contents have not yet been referred to. I ask your permission, then, to take thisbordereau, 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 thebordereauis an officer of the war department, an officer of artillery, and, furthermore, a licentiate. I ask for a copy of thebordereauas 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.
“Thebordereaucontains 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.
“Thebordereaucontains also a note concerningtroupes 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 thetroupes de couverture? It has been said that Esterhazy, being a major, was in possession of his regiment’s plan of mobilization. True, but inthe plans of mobilization of regiments, especially of regiments that have nothing to do withcouverture, 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 calledfiches. Thesefichesof transportation give only a point of departure and a point of arrival. At the point of arrival the regiment receives newfichesfrom 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 regardingtroupes 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, thebordereaucontains 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, thebordereaucontains a note relating to Madagascar. Gentlemen, thebordereauis 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 manualin 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’splace, 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 myconfrèreshas 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” ...