M. Dubois was summoned regarding the pretended confessions of Dreyfus. The judge having refused to put to Major Forzinetti the question relating to the confessions, M. Labori abandoned the hearing of all the witnesses who were to testify on this point. M. Dubois says that he desired to tell the court that a certain Mme. Chapelon, whose husband was intimately connected with M. Lebrun-Renault, had declared to one of his collaborators on ‘L’Aurore’ that, not once only, but a hundred times, Captain Lebrun-Renault had said to his associates that he never had received any important confidence from the ex-captain. “L’Aurore” having reproduced these declarations, M. Dubois received a visit from Mme. Chapelon, who expressed a fear that she might lose her situation, and that her son might not obtain the scholarship at Chaptal which he was seeking. Mme. Chapelon was taken into the office of M. Clemenceau. In his presence and in the presence of M. Gohier, she confirmed the remarks that had been attributed to her by “L’Aurore,” and again expressed her fears, adding that, to save her situation, she would refuse to speak before the assize court.
M. Dubois was summoned regarding the pretended confessions of Dreyfus. The judge having refused to put to Major Forzinetti the question relating to the confessions, M. Labori abandoned the hearing of all the witnesses who were to testify on this point. M. Dubois says that he desired to tell the court that a certain Mme. Chapelon, whose husband was intimately connected with M. Lebrun-Renault, had declared to one of his collaborators on ‘L’Aurore’ that, not once only, but a hundred times, Captain Lebrun-Renault had said to his associates that he never had received any important confidence from the ex-captain. “L’Aurore” having reproduced these declarations, M. Dubois received a visit from Mme. Chapelon, who expressed a fear that she might lose her situation, and that her son might not obtain the scholarship at Chaptal which he was seeking. Mme. Chapelon was taken into the office of M. Clemenceau. In his presence and in the presence of M. Gohier, she confirmed the remarks that had been attributed to her by “L’Aurore,” and again expressed her fears, adding that, to save her situation, she would refuse to speak before the assize court.
“If Mme. Chapelon had not come, we should have heard MM. Dubois and Gohier, in whose presence she made her declaration. Since then, an incident has occurred between Major Forzinetti and Captain Lebrun-Renault, of which you undoubtedly know through the newspapers, and which seems to me sufficiently serious to make it indispensable that I recall it to you. The story is told in ‘Le Temps’ of February 12, 1898, in the following language:
M. Dubois, one of the editors of “L’Aurore,” who was summoned as a witness in the Zola trial, relates an incident that occurred yesterday afternoon in the witnesses’ corridor between Major Forzinetti and Captain Lebrun-Renault. “During the last recess,” says M. Dubois, “Captain Lebrun-Renault was walking up and down the room, when, in my presence, Major Forzinetti approached him and said:‘A newspaper pretends that you have declared to a deputy, whosename I do not remember, that you have never said anything regarding Dreyfus. Now, you know very well that, when, six months ago, I asked you a precise question, you told me that Dreyfus had never made any confession to you.’“Visibly embarrassed, Captain Lebrun-Renault sought to evade the question, but Major Forzinetti followed him up.“‘Come, let me refresh your memory. You even added that you had been very much annoyed by this matter, and that, in consequence of the newspaper stories, you had been summoned before the minister of war, and then before the president of the republic.’“As Captain Lebrun-Renault still did not answer, but tried to escape, Major Forzinetti seized his cloak, and shouted:“‘If you used the language that is attributed to you, you are an infamous liar.’“The witnesses of this scene intervened. General Gonse, who was present, said to M. Forzinetti:“‘In these things we get too much excited. Come, Major, calm yourself.’“And that was all. Captain Lebrun-Renault went into the room assigned to the witnesses for the prosecution, and General Gonse shook hands with the former superintendent of Cherche-Midi.”This morning we asked Major Forzinetti ...
M. Dubois, one of the editors of “L’Aurore,” who was summoned as a witness in the Zola trial, relates an incident that occurred yesterday afternoon in the witnesses’ corridor between Major Forzinetti and Captain Lebrun-Renault. “During the last recess,” says M. Dubois, “Captain Lebrun-Renault was walking up and down the room, when, in my presence, Major Forzinetti approached him and said:
‘A newspaper pretends that you have declared to a deputy, whosename I do not remember, that you have never said anything regarding Dreyfus. Now, you know very well that, when, six months ago, I asked you a precise question, you told me that Dreyfus had never made any confession to you.’
“Visibly embarrassed, Captain Lebrun-Renault sought to evade the question, but Major Forzinetti followed him up.
“‘Come, let me refresh your memory. You even added that you had been very much annoyed by this matter, and that, in consequence of the newspaper stories, you had been summoned before the minister of war, and then before the president of the republic.’
“As Captain Lebrun-Renault still did not answer, but tried to escape, Major Forzinetti seized his cloak, and shouted:
“‘If you used the language that is attributed to you, you are an infamous liar.’
“The witnesses of this scene intervened. General Gonse, who was present, said to M. Forzinetti:
“‘In these things we get too much excited. Come, Major, calm yourself.’
“And that was all. Captain Lebrun-Renault went into the room assigned to the witnesses for the prosecution, and General Gonse shook hands with the former superintendent of Cherche-Midi.”
This morning we asked Major Forzinetti ...
“And it is because of this concluding paragraph that I read the extract.
This morning we asked Major Forzinetti if the story in “L’Aurore” was true. “Absolutely,” he answered. “I add that there is no trace of any confession on the part of Dreyfus in the report addressed, according to custom, by the captain to his corps commander, concerning his mission as a chief of escort, entrusted to him on the day of degradation. If there is any report from Captain Lebrun-Renault in which such confessions are mentioned, it was made afterward.”
This morning we asked Major Forzinetti if the story in “L’Aurore” was true. “Absolutely,” he answered. “I add that there is no trace of any confession on the part of Dreyfus in the report addressed, according to custom, by the captain to his corps commander, concerning his mission as a chief of escort, entrusted to him on the day of degradation. If there is any report from Captain Lebrun-Renault in which such confessions are mentioned, it was made afterward.”
“That, gentlemen, is the point that I desired to establish. If any confessions exist, or, rather, any record of pretended confessions, this record was made long afterward. But we may judge of this matter, not by the declarations of any witnesses whatsoever, but by the attitude of the government, and by that of the prime minister himself. You remember, gentlemen, that a few weeks ago certain members of the Left invited the government to publish these confessions. Whereupon the government published this singular note, officially communicated to the newspapers.
Several journals ask the minister of war to publish the declarations made to Captain Lebrun-Renault by Dreyfus on the day of the execution of the sentence of the council of war. Were the government to publish these, it would call in question, and seem to throw doubt upon, the authority of the thing judged. We are in a position to know, moreover, that the government thinks it has no right to make such a communication, for reasons analogous to those which determined the council of 1894 to order closed doors.
Several journals ask the minister of war to publish the declarations made to Captain Lebrun-Renault by Dreyfus on the day of the execution of the sentence of the council of war. Were the government to publish these, it would call in question, and seem to throw doubt upon, the authority of the thing judged. We are in a position to know, moreover, that the government thinks it has no right to make such a communication, for reasons analogous to those which determined the council of 1894 to order closed doors.
“This note, gentlemen, was followed by an interpellation. M. Godefroy Cavaignac insisted that the government should communicate the document, and the attitude taken by thepresident is very interesting. Answering M. Cavaignac, M. Méline said:
We are asked the reasons why the government thinks that it may not publish the declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault, received on the day of the execution of the Dreyfus trial. I admit—and everyone knows it—that there is such a declaration. It seems to me that the note of L’Agence Havas, concerning which M. Cavaignac questions me, said so with sufficient clearness. The first reason why the government thinks that it should not repeat this declaration from the tribune is that the chamber, the parliament, the government, have so far steadily refused—and rightly, in my view—to discuss the matter. From the first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial nature ...
We are asked the reasons why the government thinks that it may not publish the declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault, received on the day of the execution of the Dreyfus trial. I admit—and everyone knows it—that there is such a declaration. It seems to me that the note of L’Agence Havas, concerning which M. Cavaignac questions me, said so with sufficient clearness. The first reason why the government thinks that it should not repeat this declaration from the tribune is that the chamber, the parliament, the government, have so far steadily refused—and rightly, in my view—to discuss the matter. From the first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial nature ...
“And when an affair is of a judicial nature, you know the pretence that they make is that it is of a political nature, and that considerations of national defence do not allow the bringing out of the light.
From the first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial nature, and must preserve this character; that the public powers, in handing it over to parliamentary discussion, would completely change its nature, and effect a veritable confusion of powers. Yet to such a discussion M. Cavaignac invites us today. He has proved it by trying to enter into the substance of the matter, and by reading certain pamphlets relating to the case. It is not to be doubted that, if the declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault were read from the tribune, it would be discussed, for, everything is discussed in this case. The discussion once opened, you could not stop it, and we should soon be involved in a debate concerning the question of revision. The tendency would be to encourage the belief that, without this document, the verdict could not stand. Now we have always proclaimed,—and we repeat it,—that the verdict is sufficient unto itself. It is the legal truth. Nobody has a right to discuss it. This said, I give the last reasons, which are but supplementary to the others, for they are not needed. We consider that the publication would involve serious embarrassments, and the same reasons that determined the judges to order closed doors forbid us to publish this document, the significance of which, however, I do not wish to exaggerate.
From the first we have declared that this affair was of a judicial nature, and must preserve this character; that the public powers, in handing it over to parliamentary discussion, would completely change its nature, and effect a veritable confusion of powers. Yet to such a discussion M. Cavaignac invites us today. He has proved it by trying to enter into the substance of the matter, and by reading certain pamphlets relating to the case. It is not to be doubted that, if the declaration of Captain Lebrun-Renault were read from the tribune, it would be discussed, for, everything is discussed in this case. The discussion once opened, you could not stop it, and we should soon be involved in a debate concerning the question of revision. The tendency would be to encourage the belief that, without this document, the verdict could not stand. Now we have always proclaimed,—and we repeat it,—that the verdict is sufficient unto itself. It is the legal truth. Nobody has a right to discuss it. This said, I give the last reasons, which are but supplementary to the others, for they are not needed. We consider that the publication would involve serious embarrassments, and the same reasons that determined the judges to order closed doors forbid us to publish this document, the significance of which, however, I do not wish to exaggerate.
“Well, gentlemen, I ask you if we can be content with such reasons. What is, then, this excessive respect for form? The thing judged, the thing judged, even illegally judged? Would they thus appeal to form, if, by a word, by a decisive document, they could close the mouths of those whom they accuse of agitating the public by a pernicious campaign? The government, gentlemen, is not bound to respect the thing judged. It is its duty, when it can, to quiet the public conscience. Then, if M. Lebrun-Renault’s declaration has any value, what is the meaning of the government’s reserve? The truth is that it has no value, and I shall tell you why.
“I do not look at the matter solely from the standpoint of the evidence that M. Lebrun-Renault would have given, and of the contradictions with which we should have met him. Itake the ground that the attitude of Dreyfus throughout is a protest against these pretended confessions. And here pardon me for reading once more. My longest quotations come in this first part of the argument; and, when we shall have finished with them, we shall go on faster; but they are indispensable to enable you to travel this long road, step by step, as it has been travelled by all who have arrived at our opinion.
“There is a scene, gentlemen, which it is necessary for you to review,—the degradation. I know none of more grandeur, none that, from a moral point of view, could have greater influence in a trial like this. Again from ‘L’Autorité’ I borrow the story,—a journal that entertains a hostility towards Dreyfus that amounts to hatred. I might read you also ‘La Libre Parole’s’ version; it is almost the same thing. If you listen as judges, you will see how things can be distorted by prejudice and passion. You will see how this man’s proclamations of his innocence, which tell me that he is innocent, are received as indications of cynicism, and are met by a clamor of wrath and hatred. I want you to see that, gentlemen; and do not forget that I read the story as told by an enemy.
The School clock strikes the first stroke of the hour of nine. General Darras lifts his sword and utters the command, repeated from company to company: “Carry arms!”The troops execute the movement. Absolute silence follows. Hearts cease to beat, and all eyes are directed toward the right-hand corner of the square, where Dreyfus has been confined in a small building. Soon a little group appears. It consists of Alfred Dreyfus, surrounded by four artillerymen, accompanied by a lieutenant of the republican guard. Between the forms of the artillerymen may be seen very clearly the gilt stripes and glittering sword of the captain, and one may distinguish at a distance the black sword-knot at the hilt of the sword. Dreyfus walks with a firm step.“See how erect the scoundrel is,” they say.The group starts toward General Darras, in front of whom is the clerk of the council of war, M. Vallecalle. A clamor goes up from the crowd.But the group stops. Again there is silence, this time tragic. The cannoneers accompanying Dreyfus step back a little; the condemned man appears, detached from the group. The clerk salutes the general in military fashion, and, turning to Dreyfus, reads in a very distinct voice the sentence condemning him to exile and imprisonment in a fortified spot, and to military degradation. Then the clerk turns to the general again, and makes the military salute. Dreyfus has listened in silence. Then is heard the voice of General Darras, and, although there is a touch of emotion in it, this phrase is distinctly heard:“Dreyfus, you are unworthy to bear arms. In the name of the French people, we degrade you.”Then Dreyfus is seen to raise both his arms, and, holding his head high, cry in a loud voice, in which there is not the slightest trace of tremor:“I am innocent. I swear that I am innocent. Long live France!”“Death to him!” is the immense shout that goes up from the crowd. But immediately the noise subsides. The adjutant entrusted with the sad mission of taking off his stripes has laid hand upon Dreyfus, and already the first stripes, which had been loosened in advance, have been torn off by him and thrown upon the ground. Again Dreyfus protests against his condemnation, and his cries reach the crowd very distinctly.“On the head of my wife and the heads of my children I swear that I am innocent. I swear it. Long live France!”Meanwhile the adjutant has very swiftly torn the bands from his cap, the stripes from his sleeves, the buttons from his dolman, the numbers from his collar, and from his pantaloons the red band which the condemned man has worn since he entered the Polytechnic school. There remains the sword. The adjutant draws it, and breaks it across his knee. A snapping sound, and the two pieces lie with the rest upon the ground. Then the sword-belt is detached, and the scabbard falls in its turn.It is finished. These seconds have seemed a century. Never was there an impression of acuter anguish. And again, clear, without sign of emotion, the voice of the condemned man rises: “You degrade an innocent man.”Now he has to pass before his former comrades and subordinates. For any other it would have been a frightful torture.
The School clock strikes the first stroke of the hour of nine. General Darras lifts his sword and utters the command, repeated from company to company: “Carry arms!”
The troops execute the movement. Absolute silence follows. Hearts cease to beat, and all eyes are directed toward the right-hand corner of the square, where Dreyfus has been confined in a small building. Soon a little group appears. It consists of Alfred Dreyfus, surrounded by four artillerymen, accompanied by a lieutenant of the republican guard. Between the forms of the artillerymen may be seen very clearly the gilt stripes and glittering sword of the captain, and one may distinguish at a distance the black sword-knot at the hilt of the sword. Dreyfus walks with a firm step.
“See how erect the scoundrel is,” they say.
The group starts toward General Darras, in front of whom is the clerk of the council of war, M. Vallecalle. A clamor goes up from the crowd.
But the group stops. Again there is silence, this time tragic. The cannoneers accompanying Dreyfus step back a little; the condemned man appears, detached from the group. The clerk salutes the general in military fashion, and, turning to Dreyfus, reads in a very distinct voice the sentence condemning him to exile and imprisonment in a fortified spot, and to military degradation. Then the clerk turns to the general again, and makes the military salute. Dreyfus has listened in silence. Then is heard the voice of General Darras, and, although there is a touch of emotion in it, this phrase is distinctly heard:
“Dreyfus, you are unworthy to bear arms. In the name of the French people, we degrade you.”
Then Dreyfus is seen to raise both his arms, and, holding his head high, cry in a loud voice, in which there is not the slightest trace of tremor:
“I am innocent. I swear that I am innocent. Long live France!”
“Death to him!” is the immense shout that goes up from the crowd. But immediately the noise subsides. The adjutant entrusted with the sad mission of taking off his stripes has laid hand upon Dreyfus, and already the first stripes, which had been loosened in advance, have been torn off by him and thrown upon the ground. Again Dreyfus protests against his condemnation, and his cries reach the crowd very distinctly.
“On the head of my wife and the heads of my children I swear that I am innocent. I swear it. Long live France!”
Meanwhile the adjutant has very swiftly torn the bands from his cap, the stripes from his sleeves, the buttons from his dolman, the numbers from his collar, and from his pantaloons the red band which the condemned man has worn since he entered the Polytechnic school. There remains the sword. The adjutant draws it, and breaks it across his knee. A snapping sound, and the two pieces lie with the rest upon the ground. Then the sword-belt is detached, and the scabbard falls in its turn.
It is finished. These seconds have seemed a century. Never was there an impression of acuter anguish. And again, clear, without sign of emotion, the voice of the condemned man rises: “You degrade an innocent man.”
Now he has to pass before his former comrades and subordinates. For any other it would have been a frightful torture.
“You are listening to his enemies, gentlemen of the jury.
Dreyfus, however, does not seem embarrassed. He strides over what were the insignia of his office, which twogendarmeswill presently pick up, and places himself before the four cannoneers, who lead him before General Darras. The little group, with the two officers of the republican guard at the head, starts toward the band placed before the prison vehicle, and begins to march along the line of troops, at a distance of about a yard. Still Dreyfus walks with head erect. The public shout “Death to him!” Soon he nears the railing; the crowd has a better view of him; the shouts increase. Thousands of lungs call for the death of the wretch, who shouts again: “I am innocent. Long live France!” The crowd does not understand, but it has seen Dreyfus turn toward it and shout. A storm of hisses answers him; then a clamor that traverses the vast court-yard like a tempest. “Death to him! Death to him!” And outside there is a terrible swaying of the dark mass, and the agents have the greatest difficulty in preventing the people from rushing upon the Military School and taking the place by storm, in order to do swifter and more rational justice to the infamy of Dreyfus.Dreyfus continues his march. He reaches the group of journalists.“You will say to entire France,” he says, “that I am innocent.”“Silence, wretch!” answer some, while others shout: “Coward! Traitor! Judas!”Under the insult the abject personage straightens up. He casts at us a glance of ferocious hatred.“You have no right to insult me.”A clear voice comes from the group, answering:“You know well that you are not innocent.”“Long live France! Dirty Jew!” they shout again, and Dreyfus goes on his way.His garments have a pitiful look. In place of the stripes hang long bits of thread, and the cap has lost its shape. Dreyfus straightens up again, but he has now passed only half the line of troops, and it is evident that the continual shouts of the crowd and the various incidents of the parade are beginning to tell upon him. Though the head of thewretch is turned insolently toward the troops, whom he seems to defy, his legs are beginning to weaken, and his gait seems heavier. The group makes slow progress. Now it passes before the “Blues.” The tour of the square is finished. Dreyfus is handed over to the twogendarmeswho picked up his stripes and the remnants of his sword. They put him in the prison vehicle. The coachman whips up his horses and the wagon starts off, surrounded by a detachment of republican guards, preceded by two with drawn revolvers. The parade has lasted just ten minutes.After the parade Dreyfus was taken to the anthropometric department. The operation of measuring lasted another ten minutes. From beginning to end the condemned man was perfectly calm, and maintained an absolute silence. Then several photographs were taken, after which he was returned to his cell, where he again protested his innocence.
Dreyfus, however, does not seem embarrassed. He strides over what were the insignia of his office, which twogendarmeswill presently pick up, and places himself before the four cannoneers, who lead him before General Darras. The little group, with the two officers of the republican guard at the head, starts toward the band placed before the prison vehicle, and begins to march along the line of troops, at a distance of about a yard. Still Dreyfus walks with head erect. The public shout “Death to him!” Soon he nears the railing; the crowd has a better view of him; the shouts increase. Thousands of lungs call for the death of the wretch, who shouts again: “I am innocent. Long live France!” The crowd does not understand, but it has seen Dreyfus turn toward it and shout. A storm of hisses answers him; then a clamor that traverses the vast court-yard like a tempest. “Death to him! Death to him!” And outside there is a terrible swaying of the dark mass, and the agents have the greatest difficulty in preventing the people from rushing upon the Military School and taking the place by storm, in order to do swifter and more rational justice to the infamy of Dreyfus.
Dreyfus continues his march. He reaches the group of journalists.
“You will say to entire France,” he says, “that I am innocent.”
“Silence, wretch!” answer some, while others shout: “Coward! Traitor! Judas!”
Under the insult the abject personage straightens up. He casts at us a glance of ferocious hatred.
“You have no right to insult me.”
A clear voice comes from the group, answering:
“You know well that you are not innocent.”
“Long live France! Dirty Jew!” they shout again, and Dreyfus goes on his way.
His garments have a pitiful look. In place of the stripes hang long bits of thread, and the cap has lost its shape. Dreyfus straightens up again, but he has now passed only half the line of troops, and it is evident that the continual shouts of the crowd and the various incidents of the parade are beginning to tell upon him. Though the head of thewretch is turned insolently toward the troops, whom he seems to defy, his legs are beginning to weaken, and his gait seems heavier. The group makes slow progress. Now it passes before the “Blues.” The tour of the square is finished. Dreyfus is handed over to the twogendarmeswho picked up his stripes and the remnants of his sword. They put him in the prison vehicle. The coachman whips up his horses and the wagon starts off, surrounded by a detachment of republican guards, preceded by two with drawn revolvers. The parade has lasted just ten minutes.
After the parade Dreyfus was taken to the anthropometric department. The operation of measuring lasted another ten minutes. From beginning to end the condemned man was perfectly calm, and maintained an absolute silence. Then several photographs were taken, after which he was returned to his cell, where he again protested his innocence.
“Such, gentlemen, was the attitude of Dreyfus. You are to judge of it for yourselves. It is tragic to reread such a recital after an interval of three years, and under the present dramatic circumstances, but it was necessary for you to hear it. And after the degradation? After and before, rather? Let me read you the letters that he wrote to the minister of war and to his counsel.
Monsieur le Ministre:I have received by your orders the visit of Major du Paty de Clam, to whom I have again declared that I am innocent, and have never been guilty of the slightest imprudence. I am condemned. I have no pardon to ask. But, in the name of my honor, which, I hope, will one day be restored, it is my duty to beg you to continue your investigations. After I am gone, let the search go on. That is the only favor that I ask.
Monsieur le Ministre:
I have received by your orders the visit of Major du Paty de Clam, to whom I have again declared that I am innocent, and have never been guilty of the slightest imprudence. I am condemned. I have no pardon to ask. But, in the name of my honor, which, I hope, will one day be restored, it is my duty to beg you to continue your investigations. After I am gone, let the search go on. That is the only favor that I ask.
“And here is the letter that he wrote to M. Demange on the eve of his degradation:
January 3, 1895.Dear Master:I have just been notified that tomorrow I must undergo the most terrible affront that can be administered to a soldier. I was expecting it; I had prepared myself for it; yet the blow is terrible. In spite of everything, I hoped up to the last moment that some providential chance would lead to the discovery of the person really guilty. I shall march to this frightful torture worse than death, with head high, without blushing. To say that my heart will not be frightfully tortured when they tear from me the insignia of the honor that I have gained by the sweat of my brow would be to lie. I would have preferred death a thousand times. But you dear master, have pointed out to me my duty, and I cannot fail in it, whatever the tortures that await me. You have taught me to hope. You have persuaded me that an innocent man cannot remain forever condemned. You have given me faith. Thank you again, dear master, for all that you have done for an innocent man.Tomorrow I shall be transferred to La Santé. My happiness would be great if you could come there to give me the consolation of your warm and eloquent voice, and revive my broken heart. I rely always on you, and on all my family, to unravel this frightful mystery. Wherever I go, your memory will follow me. It will be the star from which I shall expect my happiness,—that is, my full and entire rehabilitation. Accept, dear master, the expression of my respectful sympathy.A. Dreyfus.P. S.—I just learn that the degradation will not take place until Saturday. I send this letter just the same.
January 3, 1895.
Dear Master:
I have just been notified that tomorrow I must undergo the most terrible affront that can be administered to a soldier. I was expecting it; I had prepared myself for it; yet the blow is terrible. In spite of everything, I hoped up to the last moment that some providential chance would lead to the discovery of the person really guilty. I shall march to this frightful torture worse than death, with head high, without blushing. To say that my heart will not be frightfully tortured when they tear from me the insignia of the honor that I have gained by the sweat of my brow would be to lie. I would have preferred death a thousand times. But you dear master, have pointed out to me my duty, and I cannot fail in it, whatever the tortures that await me. You have taught me to hope. You have persuaded me that an innocent man cannot remain forever condemned. You have given me faith. Thank you again, dear master, for all that you have done for an innocent man.
Tomorrow I shall be transferred to La Santé. My happiness would be great if you could come there to give me the consolation of your warm and eloquent voice, and revive my broken heart. I rely always on you, and on all my family, to unravel this frightful mystery. Wherever I go, your memory will follow me. It will be the star from which I shall expect my happiness,—that is, my full and entire rehabilitation. Accept, dear master, the expression of my respectful sympathy.
A. Dreyfus.
P. S.—I just learn that the degradation will not take place until Saturday. I send this letter just the same.
“And then this second letter, written also to M. Demange, a few hours after the degradation:
Prison de la Santé, Saturday.Dear Master:I have kept the promise that I had made you. An innocent man, I have faced the most frightful martyrdom that can be inflicted upon a soldier. I have felt the contempt of the crowd around me. I have suffered the most terrible torture imaginable. How much happier I should have been in the grave! There all would have been over; nothing would have reached my ears; there would have been perfect calmness, and all my sufferings would have been forgotten.But, alas! duty forbade, as you so clearly showed me. I am forced to live, forced to undergo martyrdom for long weeks yet, in order to arrive at a discovery of the truth, at the rehabilitation of my name. Alas! when will it all be over? When shall I be happy again? I rely on you, dear master. I tremble yet at the thought of all that I have endured today, of all the sufferings that still await me. Sustain me, dear master, with your warm and eloquent words. Bring this martyrdom to an end. Let them send me as soon as possible to my place of exile, where I shall wait patiently, in company with my wife.
Prison de la Santé, Saturday.
Dear Master:
I have kept the promise that I had made you. An innocent man, I have faced the most frightful martyrdom that can be inflicted upon a soldier. I have felt the contempt of the crowd around me. I have suffered the most terrible torture imaginable. How much happier I should have been in the grave! There all would have been over; nothing would have reached my ears; there would have been perfect calmness, and all my sufferings would have been forgotten.
But, alas! duty forbade, as you so clearly showed me. I am forced to live, forced to undergo martyrdom for long weeks yet, in order to arrive at a discovery of the truth, at the rehabilitation of my name. Alas! when will it all be over? When shall I be happy again? I rely on you, dear master. I tremble yet at the thought of all that I have endured today, of all the sufferings that still await me. Sustain me, dear master, with your warm and eloquent words. Bring this martyrdom to an end. Let them send me as soon as possible to my place of exile, where I shall wait patiently, in company with my wife.
“You see, gentlemen, that he hoped for the company of his wife.
Let the light be shed on this mournful affair, and let my honor be restored. For the present, that is the only favor that I ask. If doubts are entertained, if any believe in my innocence, I ask but one thing,—the society of my wife; then I will wait till all who love me have found a solution of this dreadful mystery. But let it be done as quickly as possible, for my strength is nearing its end. It is really too tragic, too cruel, to be innocent, and yet to be convicted of a crime so terrible.Pardon this disconnected style. In my physical and moral depression, I am not in full possession of my ideas. My heart has bled too much today. For God’s sake, then, dear master, let my unmerited torture be abridged. Meantime you will seek, and it is my firm conviction that you will find. Believe me always your devoted and unfortunateA. Dreyfus.
Let the light be shed on this mournful affair, and let my honor be restored. For the present, that is the only favor that I ask. If doubts are entertained, if any believe in my innocence, I ask but one thing,—the society of my wife; then I will wait till all who love me have found a solution of this dreadful mystery. But let it be done as quickly as possible, for my strength is nearing its end. It is really too tragic, too cruel, to be innocent, and yet to be convicted of a crime so terrible.
Pardon this disconnected style. In my physical and moral depression, I am not in full possession of my ideas. My heart has bled too much today. For God’s sake, then, dear master, let my unmerited torture be abridged. Meantime you will seek, and it is my firm conviction that you will find. Believe me always your devoted and unfortunate
A. Dreyfus.
“Well, gentlemen, for all men who have hearts, these letters have greater weight than all the declarations of a M. Lebrun-Renault.
“There is in the law an article of which there has been no mention here,—Article 377 of the code of criminal examination. It provides that in capital cases (and is not this of the nature of a capital case, when they condemn a man to an exile so absolute that his wife cannot even see his handwriting?)—it provides that those who are condemned to death can have until the last moment to make confession. The article says. ‘If the condemned man wishes to make a declaration, it shall be received by one of the judges at the place of execution, in the presence of a clerk.’
“Well, why were not such forms observed, if the confessions were to have a value?”
The Judge.—“M. Labori, you know that this article applies only to those who are condemned to death.”
M. Labori.—“Agreed,Monsieur le Président. I have not finished, and I am glad of your interruption, for you will see that I have an answer. It is certain, at any rate, that the law has made such a provision in capital cases, because people condemned to death are the only ones who cannot come back. As for others, their confessions cannot be used against them, unless they have been submitted to them and signed. To these the question can always be put: ‘Do you admit that you have made confessions?’ Put this question to Dreyfus, and you will see what reply he will make. He will be asked this question during the revision that is sure to come, and we shall hear his answer.
“There has been no case, gentlemen, where greater efforts were made to obtain confessions from an accused man,—a new proof that they had no evidence against him, for, when evidence is overwhelming, confessions are not solicited. But, when the evidence against a man is made up of things as ridiculous as the scene of the dictation from thebordereau, they will go to the point of fraud to extract a confession. I say that, if they had had the good fortune to obtain serious confessions, they would not have failed to get the prisoner’s signature thereto. I have in my hands some fragments of the examination to which Dreyfus was submitted at the last hour before the prosecution. Well, gentlemen, listen; and listen also any jurists, any magistrates, who may be here. On October 29, 1894, Major du Paty de Clam appeared in Dreyfus’s cell, and asked him these questions.
“Do you admit that what you have just written strangely resembles the writing of thebordereau?”Captain Dreyfus.—“Yes, there are similarities in the details; but, as a whole, there is no resemblance. I declare that I never wrote it. I now understand very well how this document could have given rise to the suspicions of which I am the object. But on this subject I should like to be heard by the minister of war.”
“Do you admit that what you have just written strangely resembles the writing of thebordereau?”
Captain Dreyfus.—“Yes, there are similarities in the details; but, as a whole, there is no resemblance. I declare that I never wrote it. I now understand very well how this document could have given rise to the suspicions of which I am the object. But on this subject I should like to be heard by the minister of war.”
“On October 30 Major du Paty de Clam appeared again.
“You asked, during your last examination, to be heard by the minister of war, in order that you might propose to him that you be sent away for a year, no matter where, under the eye of the police, while a thorough investigation should be carried on in the war department.”Captain Dreyfus.—“Yes.”Major du Paty de Clam.—“I show you the reports of experts who declare that the incriminated document is in your hand. What have you to answer?”Captain Dreyfus.—“I again declare that I never wrote it.”
“You asked, during your last examination, to be heard by the minister of war, in order that you might propose to him that you be sent away for a year, no matter where, under the eye of the police, while a thorough investigation should be carried on in the war department.”
Captain Dreyfus.—“Yes.”
Major du Paty de Clam.—“I show you the reports of experts who declare that the incriminated document is in your hand. What have you to answer?”
Captain Dreyfus.—“I again declare that I never wrote it.”
“And now, gentlemen, pay all your attention to this:
Major du Paty de Clam.—“The minister is ready to receive you, if you have anything to say in the direction of confession.”Captain Dreyfus.—“I tell you again that I am innocent, and that I have nothing to confess. It is impossible for me within the four walls of a prison to arrive at an explanation of this frightful enigma. But, if I may be allowed to work with the police, all my fortune and all my life shall be devoted to the unravelling of this mystery.”
Major du Paty de Clam.—“The minister is ready to receive you, if you have anything to say in the direction of confession.”
Captain Dreyfus.—“I tell you again that I am innocent, and that I have nothing to confess. It is impossible for me within the four walls of a prison to arrive at an explanation of this frightful enigma. But, if I may be allowed to work with the police, all my fortune and all my life shall be devoted to the unravelling of this mystery.”
“Well, that is what they did to get confessions. I say boldly that they went to the point of fraud, for they said to this man, after reminding him of his last words: ‘You ask to be sent away under police supervision; you wish to explain yourself to the minister; he will receive you if you confess.’ That meant: ‘Perhaps he will comply with your request.’ It was a trap. Dreyfus met it by repeating his declaration: ‘I will not confess; I have nothing to confess, though I should not see the minister.’ And this is the man against whom they would produce today confessions said to have been received by Captain Lebrun-Renault,—confessions whose exactness I dispute. The president of the cabinet is a prudent man, when he says that these confessions, if published, would be debated, because everything is debated in this affair,—and, I add, because everything in this affair is debatable. Of such material is the edifice constructed that we have to bear on our shoulders,—an edifice of hypocrisy on the part of those highest in place, who are the most guilty. Let them remember that, in history, the most humiliating name on the pillory is that of Pontius Pilate.”
The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the conclusion of M. Labori’s argument was postponed until the following day.
The Judge.—“M. Labori, you have the floor to continue your argument.”
M. Labori.—“I have shown you the value of all the lies scattered through the trial. I have endeavored also to establish the value of the famous secret document. Before entering into the heart of the discussion, it remains for me to speak to you of the pretended proofs—absolute this time, they declare—of which General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre have spoken at one of the later sessions. No more importance attaches to this proof than to the rest, as I shall prove to you irrefutably, though I have not the document before my eyes. I would not have complained of General de Pellieux’s sensational declaration, if I had been permitted, not to answer him, but to question the witnesses. But I was not permitted, and that is the saddest incident ofthis trial,—an incident which threatened for a moment to turn aside the course of the trial by a species of moral violence practised upon the defence. We asked ourselves what we should do, and then we said to ourselves that, whatever might happen, it was necessary to go to the end,—sadly, but courageously. If we could have asked General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre to explain themselves more in detail, the proof of the emptiness of their statements would have been made on the spot. We should have asked the original of the pretended documents. Now I am going to prove to you that, while one of the two documents, the visiting-card, is authentic, the note that accompanied it is a forgery.
“What are these two documents? There is, first, the visiting-card of a militaryattaché;—I will name him, if I am obliged to;—it is authentic. It makes arendezvouswith another militaryattaché. Only, at the bottom of this visiting-card, there is a borrowed name,—no matter what; call it Claude, if you like,—whereas the visiting-card is that of M. de X——. We will say that therendezvousis signed ‘Claude’; then, beside this card, there is a note, which says: ‘We have nothing in common with this Jew.’ Or perhaps this: ‘There is to be an interpellation concerning the Dreyfus case. It is always understood, of course, that, evenvis-à-visof our governments, we have never had dealings with this Jewry,’ signed ‘Claude,’ like the card.
“It is in a counterfeited handwriting, a note not authenticated in any way, the card being a puerile device for lending an appearance of truth to the note. But, gentlemen, I ask you: Is it likely, is it possible, that two militaryattachéswould feel any necessity of recommending to each other the policy of silence concerning this matter? Why? Who is going to question them? To whom must they render accounts? Have not their governments known the whole truth about this matter ever since 1894?A proposof what do they thus write in 1896? And why add to this anonymous note a card, and an authentic card, upon which an insignificantrendezvousis made? It was not difficult to procure such a card. You can pick up the card of a militaryattaché—or of an ambassador, for that matter—anywhere. Would it not have been an easy matter for a police spy to procure it? Among the police spies there are sometimes sharpers. Policemen, you know, are not the finest flower of humanity. I refer, not to their chiefs, but to the subordinates who necessarily make a trade of treason. Do you notsuppose that, when a public trouble like this comes up, they are too glad to find an opportunity of making money out of anybody? There are police spies—and, if the department of foreign affairs wants more complete information, I will furnish it,—there are police spies who imitate, who forge, the handwriting of militaryattachés. What has the forger done? He has placed upon the card of the militaryattachéthe false signature ‘Claude,’ and then, imitating the writing or not imitating it, he has affixed the name ‘Claude’ to the anonymous paper. That, gentlemen, is the whole swindle.
“Is it likely that militaryattachéswould write on such a question, after the famous history of thebordereau, which is said to have been found in a waste-basket in 1894? Whether it was so found or not, it was a warning to militaryattachés.
“And at what moment is this said to have been written? In November, 1896, on the return from the grand manœuvres which they attended,—a time, when, as the entire diplomatic world knows, the three militaryattachésof the Triple Alliance were seeing one another every day, to come to a common agreement upon the reports to be sent by each to his government.
“Was not Colonel Picquart,—from whom I do not get these facts—was not Colonel Picquart justified, then, in saying at this bar, not that his superiors had committed a forgery, not that they had dishonestly made use of a forgery, but that the document to which they appealed in good faith is a forgery?
“If these documents had had any value, do you believe that Colonel Picquart would have been sent on a mission in November, 1896? Do you believe that the minister of war and the president of the cabinet would have been silent regarding them, when the country was so profoundly stirred? If they had done so, gentlemen, and if the document was a serious one, they would have been the greatest of wretches. They would have allowed the anguish to continue, when they might have put a stop to it. They did not do so, because the document was not serious; because, shrewd political men as they are, accustomed to deal with forgeries and intrigues, they gauged its significance at once. This brave General de Pellieux has acted in good faith in the matter, but he was mistaken.
“The attorney-general forces us to plead here, in order to secure our acquittal, that the verdict of the council of war was rendered in obedience to orders. I will come to that. But right here let me ask what General de Pellieux andGeneral de Boisdeffre, with the countenance of the court, and with the best faith in the world, have asked of you here, if not a verdict in obedience to orders? What was their mission in this court, if not to repeat thecoupof the secret document? I use the familiar word, because there is none that better expresses my thought.
“And now, gentlemen, that the ground is cleared, let us come back to the basis of the accusation, thebordereau, the letter of 1894. In the first place, I must point out that the charge was incomplete, because the origin of the document was not established. You have heard all the experts say that expert examination in handwriting signifies nothing in itself; it is to be considered only in connection with the full knowledge of the facts in a given case. Well, gentlemen, what is more important in a trial of this character than to know the source of such a paper as thebordereau, to know where it was seized? Is not such knowledge indispensable, in order to enable the accused to establish, perhaps, that thebordereau, seized where it was, could not have emanated from him, because he had been in no sort of relations with the persons on whose premises it was found, and in no way connected with the place where it was found? A man is not to be confronted with a document, unless it be said to him: ‘This document comes from such a spot; it was addressed to such a person, with whom you are in relations.’ Otherwise, a terrible blunder may be committed, as all the experts have told you. Now listen to the report of Major d’Ormescheville.
The basis of the accusation against Captain Dreyfus is a letter-missive written on onion-skin paper, not signed or dated, which is in the file, and which establishes the fact that confidential military documents have been delivered to an agent of a foreign power. General Gonse, sub-chief of general staff, into whose hands this letter came, delivered it on October 15 last to Major du Paty de Clam, delegated October 14, 1894, by the minister of war, as a judicial officer of police to conduct an examination concerning Captain Dreyfus. General Gonse declared to the aforesaid judicial officer of police that the letter had been addressed to a foreign power, and that it had reached his hands, but that, by the formal orders of the minister of war, ...
The basis of the accusation against Captain Dreyfus is a letter-missive written on onion-skin paper, not signed or dated, which is in the file, and which establishes the fact that confidential military documents have been delivered to an agent of a foreign power. General Gonse, sub-chief of general staff, into whose hands this letter came, delivered it on October 15 last to Major du Paty de Clam, delegated October 14, 1894, by the minister of war, as a judicial officer of police to conduct an examination concerning Captain Dreyfus. General Gonse declared to the aforesaid judicial officer of police that the letter had been addressed to a foreign power, and that it had reached his hands, but that, by the formal orders of the minister of war, ...
“Remember that this minister of war was General Mercier.
But that, by the formal orders of the minister of war, he was prevented from saying by what means the document had come into his possession.
But that, by the formal orders of the minister of war, he was prevented from saying by what means the document had come into his possession.
“I know what the answer will be. It will be the eternal pretext of national security. But how was that concerned in view of the fact that the doors were closed? I say to the audacious apostles of theraison d’Etat, which mighthave had its justification under Louis XIV or under Napoleon, but which has no justification today,—I answer to these archaic apostles of an idea henceforth destroyed: If you invoke theraison d’Etat, invoke it to the end, but do not try people. If, General Mercier, you were sure of the guilt of the traitor, and if you felt sufficient firmness of heart to assume the responsibility of prosecution under conditions so lamentable, it was not even necessary to carry out the prosecution. You should have struck this man on your own responsibility, ruined him definitively, plunged him into I know not what abyss or what dungeon, that he might never more have been heard of; but you should not have given us the spectacle of a lamentable and audacious judicial comedy.
“But let us go on, gentlemen. The question, here, then, is one of writing, pure and simple; that is the charge. Since then, a fact of great importance has come to light; writing identical with that of thebordereauhas been discovered. We will not ask at this moment in whose hand this document has been written? The very subtle distinction of the experts has not escaped you. The writing of a document may be the writing of a certain person, and yet the document may not be of this person’s hand, because it may be forged or traced. There may be room for discussion as to whether thebordereauwas forged, as to whether it was traced, but there is no room for discussion as to the identity of handwritings, and the proof is that Major Esterhazy admitted it from the first day, even before he was denounced. And it is an interesting fact in this case that, on the eve of every new development, from whatever direction, Major Esterhazy foretold it, and, even before the documents were published, he announced a plot woven by a certain Colonel X or Y, which was intended to ruin him, and in the course of which would be produced a writing frightfully like his own. Then, gentlemen, there is no doubt. I do not say that thebordereauis of the hand of Major Esterhazy. I will come to that later. I say the writing of thebordereau, is the writing of Major Esterhazy. Well, confining myself to that for the moment, there is a contradiction between this and the conclusions of the experts in 1894. We know very well that, if thebordereauis in a handwriting identical with that of Major Esterhazy, it is not the writing of Dreyfus. The hypothesis of a tracing by Dreyfus is inadmissible. If Dreyfus has imitated any handwriting, it is, M. Bertillon tells us, his own. Never has it been supposed that he imitatedMajor Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, if he had done so, it would have been with some design. And then, being accused, he would have denounced Major Esterhazy, or made it known, by some more or less ingenious method, that the writing was that of Major Esterhazy. Gentlemen, I am going now to make a remark which, so far as I know, has not been made before, and which seems to me to be of considerable interest. I read first from the report of the examination of 1894.
Every interrogatory to which the accused was submitted before the judicial officer of police is full of the persistent denials and protests of Captain Dreyfus regarding the crime charged. At first Captain Dreyfus said that he seemed to recognize vaguely in the incriminated document the writing of an officer employed in the staff offices. Later he withdrew this allegation, which, moreover, was bound to fall of itself, in view of the complete dissimilarity between the writing of the officer mentioned and that of the incriminated document.
Every interrogatory to which the accused was submitted before the judicial officer of police is full of the persistent denials and protests of Captain Dreyfus regarding the crime charged. At first Captain Dreyfus said that he seemed to recognize vaguely in the incriminated document the writing of an officer employed in the staff offices. Later he withdrew this allegation, which, moreover, was bound to fall of itself, in view of the complete dissimilarity between the writing of the officer mentioned and that of the incriminated document.
“Consequently you see that it occurred to Dreyfus, crushed under the weight of this undecipherable enigma, to say: ‘Thebordereauis not my work, but the writing resembles certain other handwritings.’ He designated some one. This some one was not the author of thebordereau. He did not designate Major Esterhazy. Now, if he had traced the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, he would have attributed to Major Esterhazy the authorship of the document. But he said nothing of the kind. Consequently, whatever may be the truth as to the hand that traced thebordereau, and as to the circumstances under which it was traced, one thing is certain,—that, given the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, thebordereaucannot be in the handwriting of Dreyfus, and that it could not have been traced by Dreyfus, since it has never been pretended that Dreyfus traced any handwriting but his own. So, concerning thebordereau, I am perfectly easy. Whatever its source, it did not come from Dreyfus.
“The council of war of 1894, which was not acquainted with Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and to which it had not been submitted, did not have before it those elements of information that we have today. It had nothing before it but a simple question of handwriting; and you understand what I mean by those words, since I have shown you that they knew nothing of thebordereau,—that its origin had not been revealed to the judges. Well, never would any court have condemned a man on this handwriting alone.
“I have among my documents some very interesting and curious ones. First, a treatise on handwriting by M. Bertillon. It had been my intention, before I realized that myargument would assume such proportions, to read you the whole of this treatise, but, desiring to spare your time, I will read only the beginning.
When our criminologists are questioned regarding the way in which expert testimony is generally conducted in France, they either avoid the question, or take refuge in generalities. If you only knew, they say, how unimportant the matter is, and how little belief we have in the pretended science of the handwriting experts. This scepticism, however, does not prevent them from obeying the instructions of the law to take and follow the advice of appointed experts. Among the members of the bar this insufficiency of belief becomes atheism, and there is no end to the jokes and legends which you will hear at the Palace regarding the handwriting experts, who, if we may believe the lawyers, know less about their specialty than the first-comer. Let us add, moreover, that with the exception of the recent aid supplied by photography and the microscope, the art of the expert does not seem to have taken a forward step since Raveneau, the expert of the time of Louis XIV. Consequently it is not astonishing if public opinion, in spite of its proneness to allow itself to be imposed upon by specialists of all sorts, shares the incredulity concerning handwriting which has been consecrated by centuries.And yet the comparison of handwritings, considered as one of the elements of proof by writing,—first of proofs according to the code,—cannot be systematically set aside. Expert examination of handwriting is a decisive weapon in the hands of the defence, where the presumption of innocence carries with it the right of acquittal, but, in the hands of the prosecution, where nothing less than certainty will suffice, it constitutes only an indispensable precaution, one of those numerous verifications to which every thesis must be submitted.
When our criminologists are questioned regarding the way in which expert testimony is generally conducted in France, they either avoid the question, or take refuge in generalities. If you only knew, they say, how unimportant the matter is, and how little belief we have in the pretended science of the handwriting experts. This scepticism, however, does not prevent them from obeying the instructions of the law to take and follow the advice of appointed experts. Among the members of the bar this insufficiency of belief becomes atheism, and there is no end to the jokes and legends which you will hear at the Palace regarding the handwriting experts, who, if we may believe the lawyers, know less about their specialty than the first-comer. Let us add, moreover, that with the exception of the recent aid supplied by photography and the microscope, the art of the expert does not seem to have taken a forward step since Raveneau, the expert of the time of Louis XIV. Consequently it is not astonishing if public opinion, in spite of its proneness to allow itself to be imposed upon by specialists of all sorts, shares the incredulity concerning handwriting which has been consecrated by centuries.
And yet the comparison of handwritings, considered as one of the elements of proof by writing,—first of proofs according to the code,—cannot be systematically set aside. Expert examination of handwriting is a decisive weapon in the hands of the defence, where the presumption of innocence carries with it the right of acquittal, but, in the hands of the prosecution, where nothing less than certainty will suffice, it constitutes only an indispensable precaution, one of those numerous verifications to which every thesis must be submitted.
“I should like, gentlemen, to read the whole article. It appeared in ‘La Revue Scientifique’ of December 18, 1897, and I assure you that it had seemed to me of great value from the standpoint of my discussion, before I had witnessed these confrontations of experts, which, as a living picture, are more powerful than any reading. I had brought also an article by M. des Houx,—I have told you that I would borrow weapons only from our enemies,—an article entitled ‘The Graphologists,’ which is often read in the assize court, and which sums up in a delightfully humorous way some of the characteristics of the experts. This article, too, I should have liked to read you in full, but let this amusing bit suffice.
Once an expert was discussing before the presiding judge Bérard des Glasjeux the similarity in writing between an anonymous document and other documents introduced for comparison.“The writing of the anonymous documents,” said he, “in no way resembles that of the other documents, but in one corner of the paper there is a marginal note in pencil. This is clearly in the hand of the accused. There is no doubt about it.”“Then,” said the judge, “I am the forger. I am the author of the marginal note.”
Once an expert was discussing before the presiding judge Bérard des Glasjeux the similarity in writing between an anonymous document and other documents introduced for comparison.
“The writing of the anonymous documents,” said he, “in no way resembles that of the other documents, but in one corner of the paper there is a marginal note in pencil. This is clearly in the hand of the accused. There is no doubt about it.”
“Then,” said the judge, “I am the forger. I am the author of the marginal note.”
The Attorney-General.—“What expert was it who said that?”
M. Labori.—“Mon Dieu, Monsieur Attorney-General, his name is not given. But the anecdote is famous. Myconfrère, M. Hild, who had a case here some time ago, cited it as a classic, and I add that it was welcomed as a classic by the honorable organ of the public ministry.”
The Attorney-General.—“It was one of yours. Then keep him.”
M. Labori.—“One of ours? Let us say, then, that one expert is as good as another; that is all I ask. For my part, I have no need for any of these experts, and I assure you that, in a trial of this character, it is always a joy to provoke any remark whatever from an adversary, especially when it is his habit to be as sparing of his words as you are.
“To continue, gentlemen. I say, then, that, having nothing but this writing to go upon, conviction was impossible, especially as there were two of the five experts who did not attribute the writing to Dreyfus; and I may add that the first expert consulted, who was no other than he who is considered of the highest authority in his science, M. Gobert, expert of the Bank of France, declared, when thebordereauwas submitted to him, that it was not in the handwriting of Dreyfus, whereupon the accusers, instead of seeking another traitor, sought another expert, and found him.
“Then, things presenting themselves as they did, acquittal was about to follow, because the members of the council of war, though susceptible of being influenced by the words of a superior, could not, as honest men, convict upon such evidence. Then, gentlemen, there intervened this fact, of which we have already spoken, but which now must be recalled and stated more precisely,—this fact which in itself alone would justify any wrath in a good citizen and the revolt of any conscience,—the fact that, outside of the trial, without the knowledge of the accused or his counsel, and by a violation of one of the most elementary and sacred rules, a document, or documents, as you please, was placed under the eyes of the members of the council. Supposing that they were not so placed,—though they were, as I shall show you,—even had a man’s word guaranteed the existence of such documents before the president of the council of war, who is bound to believe the words of his superior,—even such a declaration would have been enough to secure a conviction illegally and irregularly.
“But the documents were communicated, gentlemen. The fact is established. Let us summarize the proofs.
“In the first place, there is the article that appeared in‘L’Eclair’ September 15, 1896, which was reproduced everywhere and never contradicted. Then there was a pamphlet spread by thousands of copies, written by Bernard Lazare, in answer to the article, and this pamphlet also has never been contradicted. Several times, and especially on January 9, 1897, ‘L’Echo de Paris’ has spoken, not only of a secret document, but of a secret file of documents, concerning which it has given details, saying that it was called the B file, in contrast to the A file, or judicial file. Then there is the Ravary report, in which this passage occurs: