This last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.”
This last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.”
General Gonse.—“After the firing lessons.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me; it says after the manœuvres; and that is very interesting, for here is an officer going to the manœuvres, who can use this document during the manœuvres, having not to restore it till after the manœuvres. Then I ask General Gonse: Why is this document difficult to procure, and why could the officer in question have it for a few days only?”
General Gonse.—“Regarding that, you should ask an officer of the third division,—the artillery division of the war department. I give only an opinion. I believe that, whenthese documents exist only as projects, the copies are numbered. They give perhaps ten to a regiment of artillery; these ten copies must be restored intact after use of them, so that, if they gave only ten, and there were thirty or forty officers, no single officer could keep his copy long. But this is only a supposition, because the distribution does not concern me. I know it only by hearsay.”
M. Labori.—“But just now it was necessarily an artilleryman. I say, at any rate, that it is necessarily a corps officer, for he would have a manual only during the time of the manœuvres. Is that General Gonse’s interpretation?”
General Gonse.—“Yes. But that does not prove that it is a regiment officer. It must be an artillery officer, and not an officer of a regiment of infantry, for this manual never goes to the infantry.”
The Judge.—“You said just now that it must be an artillery officer and a licentiate.”
General Gonse.—“It was not I who said that; it was General de Pellieux. But I corroborate him, because the enumeration of the documents in thebordereauconcerns the artillery division. The hydraulic check does not concern us at the staff. It is a technical matter in the artillery domain. The matter of thetroupes de couvertureconcerns at least three bureaus of the staff,—the first, third, and fourth. The writer of thebordereauthen must have been an officer initiated in the work of these three bureaus.”
The Judge.—“My inquiry concerned the words ‘and at the same time a licentiate.’”
General Gonse.—“The licentiates remain two years with the staff, passing six months in each of the four bureaus.”
General de Pellieux.—“Thebordereausays: ‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the corps.’ An infantry officer would have said: ‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the artillery corps.’”
M. Clemenceau.—“Would an artillery officer at the firing lessons have refused to lend his manual to a major of infantry?”
General Gonse.—“It is certain that it might have been done, because there is no distrust of the officers of infantry; but, if I remember rightly, the information obtained by Colonel Picquart from the artillery officers was to the effect that Major Esterhazy paid very little attention to what was going on on the firing grounds, and spent his time in smoking cigarettes.”
M. Labori.—“Then what becomes of that extraordinaryzeal which was made so much of before the council of war, to explain Major Esterhazy’s strong desire to go to the manœuvres at his own expense? Why was he so zealous, if he wanted to do nothing but smoke cigarettes? If he had asked an officer to lend him the manual, he would not have done so in order to follow the firing, for it is our contention that he wanted it in order to deliver it to a foreign power.”
Colonel Picquart.—“General Gonse said that the writer of thebordereaumust have been a licentiate who had passed through the first, third, and fourth bureaus. Well, thisbordereauhas been attributed to a person who had not reached the third bureau at the time of the appearance of thebordereau, and who was then in the second bureau, which relates to foreign armies. If, then, this person had had anything to deliver, it would have been other things,—for instance, how much we know about the status of foreign armies.”
A recess was then taken, and, when the court came in again, General de Pellieux asked to be recalled.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” said he, “I have an observation to make concerning what has just taken place. So far, we have kept strictly within the bounds of legality. We have said nothing of the Dreyfus case, and I do not wish to speak of it. But the defence has just read publicly a passage from the report of Major d’Ormescheville, which was made behind closed doors. I ask, then, to speak, not of the Dreyfus case,—I shall not speak of it,—but I say, as Colonel Henry said: ‘They want the light; they shall have it.’ At the time of the Castelin interpellation in 1896, a thing occurred which I desire to point out. There came to the war department—and notice that I do not speak of the Dreyfus trial—absolute proof of the guilt of Dreyfus. This proof I have seen. There came to the war department a paper the origin of which cannot be contested, and which contained these words: ‘There is going to be an interpellation regarding the Dreyfus case. Never tell the relations that we had with that Jew.’ Gentlemen, the note is signed. It is not signed with a known name, but attached to it is a visiting-card, and on the back of this card are a few words making an unimportant rendezvous signed with the same name that is signed to the document, and the visiting-card bears the name of the person. Well, gentlemen, a revision of the trial has been sought by indirect methods. I bring you this fact. I make the declaration on my honor, and I appeal to General de Boisdeffre in support of my testimony.”
M. Labori.—“I ask the floor for a moment, not to answer General de Pellieux, but to point out immediately the necessary consequence of his words, so far as this case is concerned. I ask the floor,Monsieur le Président, to say two words.”
The Judge.—“Two words only?”
M. Labori.—“Two words only.”
The Judge.—“Have you a question to put?”
M. Labori.—“How could I have questions to put in answer to an absolutely new matter just brought into the trial?”
General de Pellieux.—“You have brought into the trial a new matter by reading the indictment framed by Major d’Ormescheville, which was read behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“We are advancing, we are advancing.”
General Gonse.—“I ask the floor.”
The Judge.—“Presently, general.”
M. Labori.—“A matter of exceptional gravity has just arisen. There is one point on which we are all agreed here: General de Pellieux has not spoken of the Dreyfus trial. He has spoken of something that happened after the Dreyfus trial. This matter, then, must be discussed here. After such a statement, there can be no restriction of the debate. I point out to General de Pellieux that no document can have any scientific value as proof, until it has been discussed openly. We have now reached a point in this affair—an affair that is assuming the proportions of a State affair—where we are in the presence of two documents, or two files of documents, equally serious,—a secret file which was the basis of the conviction of Dreyfus in 1894 without contradiction, without discussion, without defence, and a second secret file which has been used for weeks to prevent anything but assertions from being made in this court. What ever respect I may have for the word of General de Pellieux as a soldier, I cannot grant that this document has the slightest importance. As long as we do not know it, until we have discussed it, until it shall be publicly known, it will go for nothing. And it is in the name of the eternal right of principles venerated from the beginning of civilization that I utter these words. Consequently I now arrive at a point so precise that my tranquillity, from any point of view, is increased. Only one thing has worried me—the constant obscurity, the increase of public anxiety, thanks to the daily thickening darkness, thickened I do not say by lies, but by equivocations. Whether Dreyfus be guilty or innocent, whether Esterhazy be guilty or innocent, these arequestions of the highest gravity. General de Pellieux, the minister of war, General Gonse, and myself are entitled to convictions upon them, and we are capable of going on forever unless the absolute light is brought out. But it will not do to let the excitement of the country go on increasing. Now we have a means, without closed doors, and without court decrees, of arriving at the light, at least at partial light, for the revision of the Dreyfus trial is now a thing of necessity. The protests of the crowd show that it does not understand the seriousness of this trial from the eternal standpoint of civilization and humanity. If Dreyfus is guilty, and if the statements of these generals are well founded, the proof will come out in a fair trial. If they are mistaken, the contrary will be proved, and, when the light shall be absolute, and all the darkness dissipated, there will be perhaps in France one or two men really guilty and responsible, and, whether they be on the one side or the other, they will be known and marked. And then we shall go quietly back to our works of peace or war,—for nobody fears war with generals worthy to speak in the name of the army which they command; and not by threats of war, which is not approaching, whatever they may say, are the jurors to be intimidated. Let General de Pellieux explain himself without reserve, and let the document be produced.”
The Judge.—“General Gonse, what have you to say?”
General Gonse.—“I confirm the testimony of General de Pellieux. He has taken the initiative, and he has done well. I would have taken it in his place, to avoid all equivocation. The army does not fear the light. To save its honor, it does not fear at all to tell the truth. But prudence is a necessity, and I do not believe that proofs of this character, though they are real and absolute, can be brought here and made public.”
General de Pellieux.—“M. Labori spoke just now of revision on the strength of the communication of this secret document to the council of war. There has been no proof of such communication. I do not know whether Colonel Henry’s testimony of the other day was listened to with sufficient attention. He pointed out that Colonel Sandherr had delivered to him a secret file, which had been sealed before the sitting of the council of war and had never been opened. Now, for a revision of the Dreyfus trial because of this document, what is necessary? The proof.”
The Judge.—“We have not to concern ourselves with revision. That cannot be done here.”
General de Pellieux.—“There is talk of nothing else.”
The Judge.—“I know that, but it cannot be done in an assize court. General Gonse, have you anything more to say?”
General Gonse.—“No.”
General de Pellieux.—“I ask that General de Boisdeffre be sent for to confirm my words.”
The Judge.—“Will you ask him to come tomorrow?”
General de Pellieux.—“Major Delcassé, take a carriage and go for General de Boisdeffre at once. I wish to say that I have brought up this letter only because I was forced to. Major d’Ormescheville told me himself that the newspapers mutilated his report. I ask that he be called to testify.”
M. Labori.—“Since it was I who read from this report, I ask permission to answer General de Pellieux in two words.”
The Judge.—“Is it a material fact?”
M. Labori.—“This report has been published. I had nothing to do with its publication.”
General de Pellieux.—“Has it been published in full?”
M. Labori.—“I do not know.”
General de Pellieux.—“Ah! that is the question.”
M. Labori.—“No, that is notthequestion, for there are several questions.”
General de Pellieux.—“It is one of the questions.”
M. Labori.—“The question is whether the note to which General Gonse attributed the date of August was really written in February. Whether some pages were omitted or not does not alter this fact. If the report has not been published entire, I ask that it be published entire. And I shall have only to congratulate myself when it appears, because thus we shall arrive at that light for which we are continually asking, and which will never be made too complete to suit us. General de Pellieux sends for General de Boisdeffre. He is right, but I wish to say—and within forty-eight hours my words will be recognized as prophetic—that it will not be possible to stop the debate at the words of General de Pellieux or at those of General de Boisdeffre. Either these documents must not be spoken of, or else they must be shown. That is why I say to General de Boisdeffre: ‘Bring the documents, or say no more’.”
M. Clemenceau.—“General de Pellieux told us that at the time of the Castelin interpellation they had absolute proofs. Does that mean that, before that, they had only relative proofs? I ask General de Pellieux—and it is a question that is beginning to be asked everywhere—how it happens that itis in an assize court that so serious an assertion is made? How happens it that General Billot, in the course of the Castelin interpellation, did not speak of these secret documents to the chamber, any more than he threatened the chamber with war? It is to an assize court that they come to say these serious things, and reveal secret documents.”
General de Pellieux.—“I have not threatened the country with war. All this is to play upon words. It is none of my affair whether General Billot spoke of this document at the time of the Castelin interpellation. General Billot does as he sees fit. Surely he said to the chamber several times: ‘Dreyfus was justly and legally convicted.’”
M. Labori.—“I interrupt to say that at least one of those two words is false.”
General de Pellieux.—“Prove it.”
M. Labori.—“It is proved.”
M. Clemenceau.—“We have tried to prove it, and have been prevented, and, if General de Pellieux wishes me to explain further, I am ready to do so.”
The Judge.—“It is useless.”
M. Labori.—“It is proved by M. Salle; it is proved by M. Demange; it is proved by publications in the newspapers that have not been contradicted; it is proved by General Mercier, who did not dare to look me in the face and say the contrary, though I had sent him, through the newspapers of the day before, a challenge which he has answered by silence, which he answered by a distinction which in itself alone is a decisive proof, for, when I said: ‘General Mercier delivered a document to the council of war, and has boasted of it publicly everywhere,’ General Mercier, throwing another equivocation into the debate,—I do not say wilfully, perhaps unconsciously,—answered; ‘That is not true,’ and I said to him: ‘What is not true,—that you have not said it everywhere, or that you did not deliver the document?’ and he answered me: ‘Simply that I have not boasted of it everywhere.’ So I say that to every honest mind the proof is made, and the proof that the proof is made is that no one has risen to say what General de Pellieux will not dare to say. I defy him to say it. Well, I say that the proof is made.”
General de Pellieux.—“How do you expect me to say what happened in the Dreyfus trial? I was not there.”
M. Labori.—“It is well. I thank you, my general.”
M. Clemenceau.—“We brought here a witness who had it from the lips of one of the members of the council of warthat a secret document was communicated to the judges. We were not allowed to question him.”
M. Labori.—“I have two letters that say the same thing, and I have another letter from a friend of the president of the republic, declaring that he will not come to testify, because he has been warned that, if he tells the truth, they will declare him a liar.”
M. Clemenceau.—“As to the secret document, why did not General Billot show it to M. Scheurer-Kestner when that gentleman went to see him? In that case the whole matter would have been finished by this time.”
Cutting the matter short, the court called the next witness. It was Major Esterhazy. He advanced to the bar, and rested himself upon it, facing the jury. A guard followed him, stopping a little distance away. But M. Labori insisted that the trial could not go on until the declarations of General de Pellieux had been either overthrown or confirmed, and, General de Boisdeffre not having arrived, the court postponed the hearing of Major Esterhazy to the following day, and an adjournment was declared.
At the opening of the hearing the judge called General de Boisdeffre to the bar, and said to him:
“General, yesterday an incident occurred which we did not expect. Although it concerns a matter outside of this trial, in view of what was said, and in view of the demand for your testimony, we thought it our duty to send for you. Let me read to you the stenographic report of the declaration made here yesterday by General de Pellieux.”
When the judge had finished reading, General de Boisdeffre spoke as follows:
“I shall be brief. I confirm General de Pellieux’s deposition in all points as exact and authentic. I have not a word more to say, not having the right. And now, gentlemen, permit me, in conclusion, to say one thing to you. You are the jury; you are the nation. If the nation has no confidence in the commanders of its army, in those who are responsible for the national defence, they are ready to leave this heavy task to others; you have only to speak. I will not say a word more.Monsieur le Président, I ask your permission to withdraw.”
The Judge.—“You may withdraw, General. Bring in the next witness.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I have some questions to put.”
The Judge.—“You have not the floor. The incident is closed.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me,Monsieur le Président” ...
The Judge.—“You have not the floor. [To the court officer.] Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori.—“I have some questions to put to the witness.”
The Judge.—“This was an incident outside of the trial. You have not the floor.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, I ask you for the floor.”
The Judge.—“I do not give it to you.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to make some observations, in order to indicate why I ask the floor.”
The Judge [to the court officer].—“Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori.—“I am going to offer a motion in order to obtain the floor.”
The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it later. Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori then began to draw up his motion, and in the meantime Major Esterhazy was ushered in. As he took the stand, the judge said: “M. Labori, what questions have you to put?”
M. Labori [without rising].—“Monsieur le Président, I am drawing up my motion.”
The Judge.—“Well, I am going to question the witness. It has been declared in this trial that you were the author of the famousbordereau. What have you to say thereupon?”
Major Esterhazy.—“I ask permission to make a declaration to the jurors before answering you.”
The Judge.—“You can make such a declaration, now that you have taken the oath.”
Major Esterhazy.—“Gentlemen of the jury, I do not know whether you realize the abominable situation in which I am placed. Without the shadow of a proof, a wretch, M. Mathieu Dreyfus, has dared to accuse me of being the author of the crime for which his brother is being punished. He has accused me of the crime of high treason. For seven weeks two examinations were in progress. My accusers had a chance to produce all their proofs. They were offered the widest latitude; they produced nothing. I have been judged by my peers, by my superiors, who have acquitted me unanimously. Today, in contempt of all rights, in contempt of all the rules of justice. I am summoned before you,not as a witness, but as an accused. I protest with all my might against this treatment. I am kept in the witnesses’ room, and not allowed to put anyone forward in my justification. Meantime my accusers question the witnesses whom they have prepared. There is no one to raise his voice in my favor. During the last eighteen months, in the shadow, there has been woven against me the most frightful conspiracy ever woven against any man. During that time I have suffered more than anyone of my contemporaries has suffered in the whole of his life. I have been made the object of the most infamous manœuvres, the most cowardly manœuvres,—for it is especially cowardice that figures in this campaign. I am ready to answer all the questions that the court or the jurors may ask me. It is your right. As for these people, I do not answer them.”
The Judge.—“M. Labori, have you any questions to put?”
M. Labori.—“I am drawing up my motion,Monsieur le Président.”
The Judge.—“Witness, you may be seated.”
M. Labori.—“I add that I shall have some questions to put to the witness.”
The Judge.—“You will put them now, or not at all.”
M. Labori.—“I call attention to the way in which, twice in succession, you have refused me the means of maintaining the defence.”
The Judge.—“I repeat to you that you are not the director of the trial.”
M. Labori.—“I do not direct the trial. The proof of that is that you forbid me the floor. I have a right to offer motions. I am drawing up a motion. When the court shall have passed upon it, I will put questions. You will pass upon it in the fulness of your rights. As for me, I will appeal by every way that is open to me.”
The Judge.—“You have the right to appeal, but as for me, I will direct the trial as to me seems proper. You ask the floor on a matter foreign to the trial. I have refused it to you, and I still refuse it to you. If you have no questions to put to Major Esterhazy, we shall ask him to be seated.”
M. Labori.—“I have questions to ask, but I will not ask them until the court shall have passed upon my motion.”
The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it tomorrow.”
M. Labori.—“The court will pass upon it when it likes, but, as for me, not another word shall be gotten from me.”
The Judge.—“Witness, take your seat.”
The court then called other witnesses, but none appeared. Thereupon General de Pellieux asked for the floor.
The Judge.—“Certainly.”
General de Pellieux.—“I have just received the declaration of a person whose name is on this card. This person was questioned day before yesterday by M. Atthalin. I ask that he be heard. He has an especially important declaration to make regarding a money proposition that has been made to him. He is in the Salle des Pas-Perdus, ready to come up. His name is M. Bouton. I do not know him.”
The Judge.—“We will hear this witness presently, if there is occasion.”
The court then declared a recess. An hour and a half later the court came in again, whereupon M. Labori read the following motion:
May it please the court,Whereas, after the deposition of General de Boisdeffre, M. Labori asked the floor in order to put several questions to the witness;Whereas the incident in question was raised spontaneously during yesterday’s session by General de Pellieux, who invoked, as a so-called proof against Dreyfus, and consequently as a so-called decisive defence of Major Esterhazy, two documents without any appearance of value or authenticity;Whereas, without having to touch any point concerning the national defence, the accused have a right to put to the witnesses in a general way questions relative to their depositions, and of such a nature as to aid in bringing out the truth;Whereas the accused cannot be forbidden, without outrageously violating the rights of defence, to ask questions concerning the manner in which General de Pellieux was made acquainted with these documents, the conditions under which they were shown to him, in order to find out whether they have been examined by experts, etc.;Whereas it cannot be pretended that General de Pellieux made a declaration so spontaneous that it was impossible to stop him;Whereas in fact, General de Boisdeffre, whose deposition had been announced in advance, has been called to the bar, after a day’s reflection, with the consent of the court and with full knowledge of the circumstances, in order to confirm the declaration of General de Pellieux;Whereas there is no occasion here to inquire into the value, from the standpoint of equity and right, of judicial processes which consist in calling, or allowing to come daily, to the bar generals who testify free of all control, and without prevention of any sort, concerning matters which it pleases them to approach, invoking or violating closed doors or professional secrecy at their convenience;But whereas in any case, and making, moreover, concerning this matter, all legal reserves, the accused believe it their duty to establish the following fact: The judge of the assize court, answering M. Labori, who asked for the floor in the terms of Article 319 of the code of criminal examination, and solely to put questions to witnesses; declared that the floor should not be given to him, and that no question should be asked either of General de Boisdeffre or of General de Pellieux;Whereas the court made this answer before any question had been formulated;Whereas M. Labori then asked to be allowed to offer a motion, in order to establish this refusal, and to make known to the court the reasons of fact and law by which he intended to obtain the floor immediately in the interest of the defence;Whereas the judge refused to let M. Labori offer his motion;Whereas the judge of the assize court undoubtedly has a right to direct the trial and to put questions to witnesses, but whereas, that this right may be exercised in conformity with the law, with equity, and with good sense, it is indispensable that the judge should at least inform himself of the questions to be put;Whereas the refusal of the court, under the general, rigorous, and absolute conditions in which it was declared, constitutes, from all points of view, and especially after the depositions of General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre, which are thus left without answer and with the protection of justice, a manifest violation of the rights of defence;Whereas by the deposition of General de Boisdeffre the question of confidence in the general staff is now laid before the jury, and the chief of the general staff has indicated that a verdict of acquittal would be followed by the resignation of the general staff;Whereas the defence thus finds itself confronted with a really abusive intervention of military authority in a matter of justice, and whereas it would be a veritable denial of justice to prevent the accused from disproving the serious charges made against them at this bar with the authorization of the court;Whereas, in consequence of these facts, the judge summoned the next witness, Major Esterhazy;Whereas, after having put a question to him upon the refusal of the defence to put questions itself for the reason that it needed time to draw up a motion, the judge invited M. Labori to put questions to Major Esterhazy if he thought it useful to do so, telling him that he must put them then, or that he would not be allowed to put them later;Whereas, after this declaration, and in spite of the protests of the defence, the witness, Major Esterhazy, was sent back to his seat, and another witness was called;Whereas it was only because no witness appeared at the bar that the judge found himself under the necessity of declaring a recess, and that the defence has had an opportunity of drawing up its motion;Whereas all these facts have done serious injury to the rights of the defence, the free exercise of which it is the business of the court to insure;For these reasons,To give the movers the benefit of record of the facts announced as the reasons for the present motion;To order that Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre shall be recalled to the bar, there to be examined on all questions that may be formulated by the defence and thereafter put by the court;To declare that the trial shall then go on according to the regular forms prescribed by law, under all reserves, notably under that of recalling to the bar Major Esterhazy when there shall be occasion;And that will be justice.Paris, February 18, 1898.
May it please the court,
Whereas, after the deposition of General de Boisdeffre, M. Labori asked the floor in order to put several questions to the witness;
Whereas the incident in question was raised spontaneously during yesterday’s session by General de Pellieux, who invoked, as a so-called proof against Dreyfus, and consequently as a so-called decisive defence of Major Esterhazy, two documents without any appearance of value or authenticity;
Whereas, without having to touch any point concerning the national defence, the accused have a right to put to the witnesses in a general way questions relative to their depositions, and of such a nature as to aid in bringing out the truth;
Whereas the accused cannot be forbidden, without outrageously violating the rights of defence, to ask questions concerning the manner in which General de Pellieux was made acquainted with these documents, the conditions under which they were shown to him, in order to find out whether they have been examined by experts, etc.;
Whereas it cannot be pretended that General de Pellieux made a declaration so spontaneous that it was impossible to stop him;
Whereas in fact, General de Boisdeffre, whose deposition had been announced in advance, has been called to the bar, after a day’s reflection, with the consent of the court and with full knowledge of the circumstances, in order to confirm the declaration of General de Pellieux;
Whereas there is no occasion here to inquire into the value, from the standpoint of equity and right, of judicial processes which consist in calling, or allowing to come daily, to the bar generals who testify free of all control, and without prevention of any sort, concerning matters which it pleases them to approach, invoking or violating closed doors or professional secrecy at their convenience;
But whereas in any case, and making, moreover, concerning this matter, all legal reserves, the accused believe it their duty to establish the following fact: The judge of the assize court, answering M. Labori, who asked for the floor in the terms of Article 319 of the code of criminal examination, and solely to put questions to witnesses; declared that the floor should not be given to him, and that no question should be asked either of General de Boisdeffre or of General de Pellieux;
Whereas the court made this answer before any question had been formulated;
Whereas M. Labori then asked to be allowed to offer a motion, in order to establish this refusal, and to make known to the court the reasons of fact and law by which he intended to obtain the floor immediately in the interest of the defence;
Whereas the judge refused to let M. Labori offer his motion;
Whereas the judge of the assize court undoubtedly has a right to direct the trial and to put questions to witnesses, but whereas, that this right may be exercised in conformity with the law, with equity, and with good sense, it is indispensable that the judge should at least inform himself of the questions to be put;
Whereas the refusal of the court, under the general, rigorous, and absolute conditions in which it was declared, constitutes, from all points of view, and especially after the depositions of General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre, which are thus left without answer and with the protection of justice, a manifest violation of the rights of defence;
Whereas by the deposition of General de Boisdeffre the question of confidence in the general staff is now laid before the jury, and the chief of the general staff has indicated that a verdict of acquittal would be followed by the resignation of the general staff;
Whereas the defence thus finds itself confronted with a really abusive intervention of military authority in a matter of justice, and whereas it would be a veritable denial of justice to prevent the accused from disproving the serious charges made against them at this bar with the authorization of the court;
Whereas, in consequence of these facts, the judge summoned the next witness, Major Esterhazy;
Whereas, after having put a question to him upon the refusal of the defence to put questions itself for the reason that it needed time to draw up a motion, the judge invited M. Labori to put questions to Major Esterhazy if he thought it useful to do so, telling him that he must put them then, or that he would not be allowed to put them later;
Whereas, after this declaration, and in spite of the protests of the defence, the witness, Major Esterhazy, was sent back to his seat, and another witness was called;
Whereas it was only because no witness appeared at the bar that the judge found himself under the necessity of declaring a recess, and that the defence has had an opportunity of drawing up its motion;
Whereas all these facts have done serious injury to the rights of the defence, the free exercise of which it is the business of the court to insure;
For these reasons,
To give the movers the benefit of record of the facts announced as the reasons for the present motion;
To order that Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre shall be recalled to the bar, there to be examined on all questions that may be formulated by the defence and thereafter put by the court;
To declare that the trial shall then go on according to the regular forms prescribed by law, under all reserves, notably under that of recalling to the bar Major Esterhazy when there shall be occasion;
And that will be justice.
Paris, February 18, 1898.
The Attorney-General.—“I have but a single observation to make,—namely, to recall my declaration of the opening day that the law is absolutely opposed to any attempt at revision in the assize court. I asked the court to exclude from the trial the Dreyfus file and the Esterhazy file. I foresaw all that is taking place here. It is because we haveallowed 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 offerin abstractothe 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 anaudience 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.
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 thebordereauand 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 thebordereau, and when it was necessary to prove that the author of thebordereauwas 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 inwhich 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.
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 thebordereau, 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 thebordereau.”
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 passagejust 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 wasseized 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 thatthe 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 supposedthat 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 thebordereau?” [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 thebordereau? [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 thebordereauand 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, militaryattachéof 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 thebordereau, 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 therastaquouèreof 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.
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 Picquarttestified 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.