M. Labori.—“It is not only the newspapers that have spoken of her; she was a means of defence employed by Major Esterhazy before the council of war in the public part of the trial. I should like to know whether either the minister of war or General de Boisdeffre ordered any investigation concerning her.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“We did all that we could to find out who the veiled lady was, but we found out nothing.”
M. Labori.—“Does General de Boisdeffre declare that he does not know at all whence the veiled lady came, or with whom she was connected, or, on the contrary, does he knowthat she had some sort of relations with Colonel Picquart?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I know nothing about it.”
M. Labori.—“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us how the liberating document got away from the war department?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I know nothing about that, either.”
M. Labori.—“But the general must have made an inquiry.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Yes, but I arrived only at uncertain results, which, being doubtful, I cannot state here, for they are simple presumptions concerning people that may be entirely innocent.”
M. Labori.—“Yet Major Ravary insinuates in his report that the document may have reached the veiled lady through indiscretions on the part of Colonel Picquart. Does General de Boisdeffre accept the responsibility for such insinuations?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I have been in no way mixed up in the Esterhazy case. I know nothing of what was done in the examination, and have kept quite aloof from the whole matter.”
M. Labori.—“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us what charges are made against Colonel Picquart?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“They are of two kinds. There are some which have not yet taken on a definite character. There are others relating to his professional service, and which have been absolutely proved. The best proof is that certain letters appear in the newspapers of this morning which were the property of their writer, and which were written for the service.”
M. Labori.—“And are there other reprehensible points?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Yes; the attention of the council of inquiry was called to them, and, the doings of that body being absolutely secret, I can make no explanation concerning them.”
M. Labori.—“Does General de Boisdeffre know that Colonel Picquart was sent on a mission in November, 1896, and can he tell us why he was so sent?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“He was sent upon an order of the minister of war.”
M. Labori.—“Which is also secret, evidently.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“The object of the mission was secret.”
M. Labori.—“Exactly. Was Colonel Picquart sent away in disgrace?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I cannot say of any officer sent upon a mission that he was sent away in disgrace.”
M. Labori.—“Oh! everything that comes from a general’s mouth does not necessarily concern the national defence. General de Boisdeffre must tell us whether Colonel Picquart was sent away in disgrace or not.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Colonel Picquart was in a state of mind that did not permit him to attend to his duties satisfactorily. He was absorbed by a single idea. The minister of war thought it wise to send him on a mission that would restore him to his normal state of mind.”
M. Labori.—“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us what idea it was that obsessed Colonel Picquart’s mind?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I do not believe that I can answer that question, because I must not answer concerning the case” ...
Here the witness hesitated.
M. Labori.—“Concerning what case?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“The case of Dreyfus.”
M. Labori.—“And why must not the witness go into the Dreyfus case?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Because a decree of the court, which I have read in the newspapers, separates the two cases.”
M. Labori.—“Does not General de Boisdeffre know that Major Esterhazy has been prosecuted and examined concerning thebordereauattributed to Dreyfus in 1894?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Major Esterhazy was examined behind closed doors. Consequently it is not for me to know what took place behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“I believe that General de Boisdeffre is mistaken, for I was present at the public part of that trial. I imagine that General de Boisdeffre, having so many secrets to keep, confuses those concerning which he is obliged to keep silence with those concerning which he need not keep silence. At any rate, he cannot dispute that thebordereauhas been in question, for it has been discussed by the newspapers for the last fortnight. I ask him to tell us, since I well understand that it was the question of the innocence of Dreyfus that obsessed the mind of Colonel Picquart, what Colonel Picquart did in relation to the Esterhazy case.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“He made known his doubts concerning Major Esterhazy’s situation. We told him to do everything to illuminate the matter, and to settle the doubts that preoccupied him. He could find no document that sustainedhis doubts to our satisfaction, and we could only invite him to abstain and not continue his researches.”
M. Labori.—“I note here, for the benefit of the jurors, that at the time when General de Boisdeffre, chief of staff of the army, learned that Colonel Picquart was obsessed by this case which he will not name, he invited him to confirm his doubts. It results therefrom that at that time it did not seem impossible to General de Boisdeffre that Major Esterhazy was the author of the crime for which Dreyfus had been condemned.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“My words are incorrectly interpreted. The guilt of Captain Dreyfus has always been to me a thing absolutely certain, and my conviction is absolute regarding it. I do not say more, because I wish to touch this matter as little as possible. Consequently, when another officer was pointed out to me as guilty of such a crime, it was my duty to order an investigation. My doubts concerned the guilt of Major Esterhazy, and not the guilt of Captain Dreyfus.”
M. Labori.—“Is General de Boisdeffre’s belief in the guilt of Dreyfus based on the facts of 1894, or on facts of earlier or later date?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“It is based on the facts and the trial of 1894, the outcome of which is beyond discussion. There have been other facts, subsequent and prior, which have,—I do not say confirmed, for my conviction needed no confirmation,—but which have assisted my certainty most decidedly.”
M. Labori.—“What is the source of the communications made to certain newspapers, seeming to come from the war offices?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“To my knowledge, they do not emanate from the war offices.”
M. Labori.—“Has General de Boisdeffre investigated the matter?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I have made an investigation, and questioned the officers.”
The Judge.—“And you are certain that these communications do not emanate from them?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I take their word. There is only one case,—a communication from Major Pauffin de Saint-Moret to M. Rochefort. That communication was made by this officer’s initiative. For it I punished him with thirty days’ confinement, and by suppressing his application for the cross of the legion of honor. It will be seen,then, that he is very far from the fifth stripe which, it has been said, he was on the point of obtaining. He yielded to an impulse of his heart, but he is an excellent officer and a very worthy fellow.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It results from the testimony of the witness that the liberating document is a secret document which was at the war department. It was stolen from the war department by some unknown person and given to a veiled lady. This veiled lady carried it about Paris, and one evening gave it to Major Esterhazy. He brought it back to the chief of staff, and the importance of the document is such that the chief of staff, when asked concerning its nature, says: ‘I consider that here my professional secrecy is one with the secret of State.’ Upon which I observe, gentlemen of the jury, that secrets of State are ill-kept at the war department. And that is simply what I wished to say.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“My staff officers, several of whom have been so violently attacked, are worthy people who do their whole duty. They have at heart nothing but the interest of the country.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I have never attacked the staff officers. They are very honest, and I am persuaded that they do not take documents. I desire simply to note a fact, and against a fact there is no possible struggle. I note it again. A secret document has been taken from the war department and carried about by Major Esterhazy and by a veiled lady. That is what I said; nothing more, nothing less.”
M. Labori then offered a formal motion that, whereas professional secrecy can be invoked only by those who have received a confidence in some sense forced and constrained, and who have received it in a professional capacity, the court rule that General de Boisdeffre cannot be relieved of the duty of answering the questions put to him, on the ground of professional secrecy.
The court suspended its decision, and General Gonse was called to the witness-stand.
M. Labori.—“What was the document emanating from the war department that was carried from the war offices and given to Major Esterhazy for his protection, by the veiled lady?”
General Gonse.—“I cannot answer as to that.”
M. Labori.—“Why did Major Esterhazy call that documentthe liberating document?”
General Gonse.—“I cannot answer.”
M. Labori.—“Do you know the veiled lady?”
General Gonse.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Did you make an inquiry in order to discover her?”
General Gonse.—“I cannot answer these questions. They are traps.”
M. Labori.—“Ah! my general, they are traps? You permit yourself to say the defence is laying traps for you? Those are words that are not familiar here. I wait for the attorney-general to rise and enforce respect for the defence.”
The attorney-general made no response, but half turned his back, whereupon the president of the bar, M. Ployer, amid great tumult on the part of the audience, advanced to the middle of the court-room. In the absence of any response from the attorney-general, M. Labori, addressing General Gonse in a loud voice, said: “In the name of the entire bar” ...
But the clamor that arose prevented him from finishing his sentence, and was so great that the judge ordered the guards to clear the court-room. The order was executed, and the session was suspended. When the session was resumed half an hour later, with the president of the bar standing at the bar beside General Gonse, Attorney-General Van Cassel rose, and said:
“The word uttered by General Gonse certainly exceeded his thought. This is proved by the deference with which he has put himself at the disposition of justice. If I did not intervene at an earlier moment, it was because I am not in the habit of responding to a summons; but the bar is familiar with my sentiments.”
M. Ployer.—“I thank the attorney-general for his words. I hope that General Gonse will spontaneously give us the satisfaction demanded by the entire profession and its chief.”
General Gonse.—“It is true that under the influence of excitement my words exceeded my thought. It was not my intention to attack the bar.”
M. Labori.—“In my name, and in the name of the entire bar, I accept the explanations of General Gonse. I regret but one thing,—that the president of the bar deprived me of the pleasure of being the first to accept General Gonse’s frank apology. I was not personally hit, and now the defence is not hit either. The incident is closed.”
General Gonse then resumed his testimony, speaking as follows in regard to his correspondence with Colonel Picquart:
“When Colonel Picquart came to me in the country in August, 1896, to tell me that he was on the track of a traitor, I told him to pursue his investigations and get at the light. He informed me that Major Esterhazy had had confidential documents copied, and had tried to question artillery officers. I told him that it was necessary, first of all, to distinguish between the Esterhazy case and the Dreyfus case, as the latter was not to be reconsidered. The letters that I wrote to him had but one object,—to find out whether Major Esterhazy was guilty or not. Colonel Picquart wanted him arrested. To this I was opposed. I awaited sufficient proofs. I am astonished that Colonel Picquart has made use of my letters, but I declare that I never dreamed of a reconsideration of the Dreyfus case.”
General Gonse was succeeded at the witness-stand by Major Lauth, Colonel Picquart’s subordinate in the bureau of information.
M. Labori.—“Is it true, as Major Ravary declares in his report on the Esterhazy case, that Colonel Picquart kept for a month a card-telegram addressed to Major Esterhazy, instead of immediately communicating it to Major Lauth?”
Major Lauth.—“Not quite. Colonel Picquart kept the card only a week. Then he asked me to photograph it, and remove all evidence of tear. He also insisted that I should certify to the handwriting. ‘Never in my life,’ said I; ‘this writing is utterly unknown to me.’ Colonel Picquart tried to make me say that it came from a personage whom I cannot designate, but from whom we had more than twenty letters. I refused. At that time it did not occur to me that Colonel Picquart wanted to make me an accomplice in a forgery. Nevertheless there was an animated scene between us, and some of our remarks were heard by my comrades through the partition.”
M. Labori.—“And now your interpretation is different?”
Major Lauth.—“It is certain that Colonel Picquart wanted me to certify a handwriting that I did not know.”
M. Labori.—“None the less you remained Colonel Picquart’s friend?”
Major Lauth.—“I was under his orders.”
M. Labori.—“You have dined at his house?”
Major Lauth.—“And he has dined at mine. I could not turn my back on him for a thing like that.”
M. Labori.—“When did you photograph Major Esterhazy’s handwriting?”
Major Lauth.—“In May, 1896. Colonel Picquart had me photograph his correspondence, concealing certain passages. I still have the plates. After Colonel Picquart’s departure from the bureau of information, the report spread that he had made suspicious assertions regarding several officers. He persisted in carrying on an investigation concerning Major Esterhazy. He also wrote us in complaint of our hostility toward him. ‘When,’ he asked, ‘is this campaign of mystery and falsehood to end?’ He was answered that the mystery was now cleared up, and that, as to the falsehood, the future would show who had lied.”
The stand was then taken by Adjutant Gribelin, keeper of the archives in the bureau of information.
M. Labori.—“What do you know of the interviews that M. Leblois had with Colonel Picquart at the war department?”
M. Gribelin.—“I saw M. Leblois in Colonel Picquart’s office several times after hours. The lamp was lighted. One evening I saw them both with files before them. One of these files related to carrier pigeons. The other was a secret file in an envelope, bearing the initial of Colonel Henry, put there so that the envelope could not be opened without his knowledge.”
M. Labori.—“Was that the only file that Colonel Henry had so stamped?”
M. Gribelin.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“What was this secret file?”
M. Gribelin.—“I do not know.”
M. Labori.—“Who was the chief at that time,—Colonel Henry, then major, or Colonel Picquart?”
M. Gribelin.—“Colonel Picquart.”
M. Labori then demanded that M. Gribelin be confronted with M. Leblois. Accordingly the latter advanced to the bar.
“It is true,” said he, “that I visited Colonel Picquart. The rest of M. Gribelin’s testimony I absolutely deny.”
M. Gribelin.—“I swear that I have told the truth.”
M. Leblois.—“And so do I. M. Gribelin already stands convicted of a material inaccuracy. At the Esterhazy investigation he declared that my visits dated back to August,1896. I showed that at that time I was absent from Paris. Now he says that this visit took place in the autumn. It is very convenient to change dates. Major Henry made the same inexact assertion.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Where are these declarations?”
M. Leblois.—“They are in the file of the council of inquiry which met to judge Colonel Picquart.”
M. Labori.—“I ask that they be sent for.”
Attorney-General Van Cassel.—“That is not possible. The file does not belong to me. I can no more bring it here than I could bring the Dreyfus file. It is for the accused to gather their proofs before making their charges.”
M. Labori.—“You know very well that the minister of war abuses the right of silence, in order to put the light under a bushel. If it were easy to get at the light, we should have gotten at it long ago.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Here are two witnesses who contradict each other. Then one of the two lies. Perjury has been committed on this witness-stand. Justice is entitled to know which of the two is guilty. If it refuses to aid us, it will be clear that it is afraid of the light.”
M. Labori offered a motion that the court order the production of the file. The motion was opposed by the attorney-general, and the court suspended its decision. Whereupon General Mercier, former minister of war, and now in command of the fourth army corps, at Mans, was called to the witness-chair.
Being asked by M. Labori if he was acquainted with the document known as the liberating document, he answered in the negative.
M. Labori.—“That document contains a postscript beginning with the words: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ Are you familiar with this document?”
General Mercier.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Was a secret document communicated to the council of war in the Dreyfus case in 1894, outside of the trial?”
The Judge.—“Can you answer the question?”
General Mercier.—“I believe that the Dreyfus case is not in question here, and that there is a decree of the court forbidding us to call it in question.”
M. Labori.—“Does General Mercier know of the publication in September, 1896, of certain confidential informationbelonging to the war department?”
General Mercier.—“I read in a newspaper at that time—I believe it was ‘L’Eclair’—the communication of pretended documents. I absolutely do not know whence this information came. At any rate, I had nothing to do with it.”
M. Labori.—“General Mercier had then ceased to be minister of war, so I cannot ask him if an inquiry was instituted. I would have asked General Billot, if he had come. But can General Mercier tell us whether in 1894 he made an inquiry in regard to the indiscretions committed for the benefit of certain newspapers, notably ‘La Libre Parole’ and ‘L’Eclair’?”
General Mercier.—“What was the date of the indiscretion to which you refer?”
M. Labori.—“The arrest of Captain Dreyfus was announced in ‘La Libre Parole’ of October 29, then in ‘L’Eclair’ on October 30 and 31. Then ‘La Libre Parole’ printed an article, declaring that, other newspapers, and notably ‘L’Eclair,’ having spoken, there was no further reason for keeping back the truth; and so this newspaper told a long story. Many of its statements having been shown to be true, I desire to know whether the minister of war made an investigation as to the manner in which these newspapers became possessed of them.”
General Mercier.—“I made no inquiry. These publications were made outside of the war department, and, if you ask my opinion, they were made against the wishes of the war department.”
M. Labori.—“Could General Mercier tell me to whom he attributes the publication?”
General Mercier.—“On October 29, 1894, Dreyfus had already been arrested and imprisoned. Consequently his family might know many things, and, since you ask me my opinion, though it is based on no proof, I believe that the information then given to the newspapers could have come from the Dreyfus family.”
M. Labori.—“I asked General Mercier just now if a secret document was communicated to the council of war in 1894.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The question was put by the court, and the answer was made that there was a decree of the court that prevented General Mercier from speaking. Consequently, if General Mercier had not been moved by these legal scruples, he would have spoken.”
The Judge.—“But I should have stopped him. We arenot a court of revision, but an assize court. Remember that.”
M. Labori.—“Agreed,Monsieur le Président. Let us note the reply already made by General Mercier, and let us note that the court would not put the question, if General Mercier had not answered spontaneously. M. Zola is prosecuted for three paragraphs, in one of which he accuses the second council of war of having covered an illegality in obedience to orders. I say that we are entitled to prove this illegality, unless the prosecution will admit that it has been committed.”
The Judge.—“I point out to you that we are not a court of revision, but an assize court.”
M. Labori.—“I answer: If in 1894 they had boasted, as they have boasted since, of having communicated a secret document, then that fact could have been used to secure a revision. But this fact was not then known. It is only since then that it has been openly repeated. General Mercier himself will not say that this is not true, but he will say that he cannot answer.”
General Mercier.—“Pardon me, I say that that is not true.”
M. Labori.—“Does General Mercier say that it is not true that a secret document was communicated, or does he say that he has not repeated the fact to anyone whomsoever? I ask him to leave no ambiguity in his reply.”
General Mercier.—“I have not to answer the first question, but, as to the second, I say that it is not true.”
M. Labori.—“I desire to say to General Mercier that, whatever I may have to express in my summing-up, I have absolute confidence in his word.”
General Mercier.—“I thank you.”
M. Labori.—“If General Mercier were to say here a word contrary to my thought on a point as serious as that of which we have been speaking, I should be filled with frightful anguish, because I should no longer understand anything of what I have seen going on for months; and so I shall keep silent, because I am confronted with a soldier whose tact I may pass upon in my argument, but whose honesty I respect.”
The Judge.—“Have you anything to add, General?”
General Mercier.—“I have not to come back to the Dreyfus case, but, if I had to come back to it, it would be to say, on my word as a soldier, that Dreyfus was a traitor who was justly and legally condemned.”
The Judge.—“M. Labori, you have heard the declarations of M. Mercier, the former minister of war. He has given you all the explanations desired. He has even gone farther than I desired.”
M. Labori.—“You are mistaken,Monsieur le Président.”
The Judge.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“You are mistaken so far as I am concerned. General Mercier has not gone far enough. I will not sit down until a certain matter has been cleared up. The statement of General Mercier must be made clear, for here I am in the centre of my case.”
The Judge.—“No, you are not in the centre of your case. You are away from it. You are the lawyer of your client, and you fill therôleof the presiding judge. I point out to you that you are encroaching on the Dreyfus case.”
M. Labori.—“The question is whether General Mercier, who has uttered certain words, answered one question or another. It is regrettable that General Mercier should come here to say that a man has been legally condemned. It is regrettable, because he cannot be examined as to the reasons for his belief. As to his belief, I knew what it was, and I knew very well that, if I were to ask him for it, he would proclaim it loudly. So I am not surprised. But, when I asked General Mercier: ‘Is it true that a secret document was introduced into the Dreyfus case in 1894?’ he replied: ‘I will not answer’.”
The Judge.—“And he did well.”
M. Labori.—“Then I asked General Mercier: ‘Have you anywhere said so?’ He interrupted me not to answer my first question, but to say: ‘It is not true that I have so stated.’ That does not interest me. It is the first point that interests me, and on that, in spite of all incidents and all emotions, General Mercier is dumb.”
The former minister of war then stepped down, and the former minister of justice, M. Trarieux, took the stand.
His deposition was as follows:
“I did not follow the details of the Dreyfus trial of 1894. But in 1895 and 1896 serious matters leaked out that much disturbed my mind. The first concerned the existence of secret documents that were said to have played a part. Much more light has been thrown upon that matter since, but I was profoundly agitated by what was said even then. If other documents than those communicated to the accusedand his counsel had indeed been submitted to the judges and had influenced their decisions, there was, at least in my opinion, no State reason that could justify it. The first principle and the essential basis of our penal law is that an accused person cannot appear before justice without knowing of what he is accused and concerning what he is to be called upon for an explanation. Nevertheless, gentlemen, I was not certain of the fact, and so I kept the secret to myself. Afterward my trouble was increased by the reading of the testimony of one of the experts in the Dreyfus case, which chance had placed in my hands. Thus I became acquainted with the document that determined the condemnation, and thebordereauof which so much has been said. Resemblances in the details of certain letters were pointed out; but a serious observation was made, which I found later in the indictment when the indictment was made public. It was admitted that thebordereaushowed important differences from the documents with which it was compared. To explain these differences, it was said that undoubtedly they were intentional on the part of Dreyfus. I was much struck by this remark. It was the observation of a moralist rather than the affirmation of an expert; so I could reason with these gentlemen. I asked myself if their explanations were not in a certain measure—let us say in a large measure—shockingly against the probabilities. I asked myself if it was possible that a person, fearing that he might be compromised by his handwriting, and wishing to disguise it, had been so stupid as not to make it absolutely unrecognizable; if it was possible, in short, that this condemned man would have been so stupid, in spite of his intention to disarm suspicion, as to leave apparent traces of similarity in the document. I confess, gentlemen, I was infinitely more struck by the dissimilarities that could not be explained than by certain resemblances that are to be found in documents of this sort. I kept my secret, gentlemen, but my agitation increased. Serene persons about me asked: ‘Why do you concern yourself with the matter?’ I could not help it. It is the honor of a land of liberty to concern itself with questions of justice, for, if a people wishes to be free, it must first of all be just. It is justice that guarantees liberty to all.
“But, after M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation, I asked him to relieve my conscience, and to tell me all that he knew. His statements tore the veil from my eyes. He enabled me to properly compare Esterhazy’s writing with that of thebordereau. It was no longer a matter of dissimilarities to explain; it was evidence itself; and I found no difference that was astonishing. Since then I have repeated the comparison many times, not for myself and alone, but with the aid of friends. Never have I found a dissenting voice. All who have been willing to examine have been impressed by the same evidence, and I may say now, anticipating the chronological order of facts, that later the experts themselves who contributed to the preparation of the Esterhazy case had to recognize in it a large measure, although they concluded that thebordereauis not the material work of Major Esterhazy. As everybody knows, they have affirmed that thebordereaubears a striking resemblance to Major Esterhazy’s writing. Only they set up the hypothesis that this writing must be the work of a skilful forger. At any rate, these conclusions, made by the experts as well as by myself, absolutely overturned the conclusions of 1894. M. Scheurer-Kestner placed in my hands the correspondence between Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart and his superior, General Gonse, adding a series of other letters—thirteen, if I am not mistaken—that passed between the same persons after the departure of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart from the war department. I have read them and reread them, and have often reviewed them since in my mind. They left me in no doubt, but I must declare in what measure they enlightened me. I did not find in them certain proof that General Gonse had arrived at a fixed decision to open a revision of the Dreyfus case at a certain date, but I did find in them indisputable proof that this officer admitted the possibility of revision, and gave instructions for its preparation, covering all the acts of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart with his entire approbation. General Gonse did not say to his subordinate: ‘You are mistaken; you know it well; you have a secret file in your hands.’ He did not say to him: ‘Calm yourself; this is madness.’ No. He said: ‘Act with prudence. No irreparable steps. Do not proceed recklessly. The question is one of the highest gravity. You must conduct all your negotiations with the greatest circumspection.’ Then, on the question of expert examination, he added. ‘To submit the question to experts at this moment is to mix up third parties with the examination of the affair, under unfavorable conditions. I advise other steps.’ And he indicated these. He called attention notably to the necessity of ascertaining under what conditions the documents enumerated in thebordereaucould have been communicatedby the man who was suspected of being its author, and then the letter finished with recommendations of prudence and the expression of affectionate sentiments.
“M. Picquart’s reply laid down the question of revision in terms as express as possible. It was not possible, indeed, to speak in clearer and more prudent language. What did General Gonse reply? His reply was formal. He said that, in spite of the disturbing information contained in the letter, he still advised most careful procedure. But he added a declaration which to me is absolutely decisive concerning his state of mind: ‘It is not a question, of course, of stopping the light. It is a question of preparing the conditions under which the truth may be manifested.’ That was the language of a man who had not in his hands certain proof of the treason of Dreyfus. It was the language of a man whose conscience and heart were disturbed by the fears that had already invaded the mind of Colonel Picquart, and that with the latter had become absolute convictions.
“That settled the matter for me, and, when they talk of proof of judicial error, I say that it is almost absolutely acquired. Similarity of handwritings; proof that there was no certain demonstration of the guilt of Dreyfus; demonstration that our military officers were familiar with the facts, and had given their approval to investigations,—all these circumstances removed from my mind the last vestige of doubt.
“General Gonse returned from Cormeilles-en-Parisis on September 15, the day after the letter of the 14th written to him by Colonel Picquart. The same day ‘L’Eclair’ published an article in which it was said, I believe, that all veils must be torn off. ‘L’Eclair’ published a document which until then had remained a secret, and which, it said, had been produced at the deliberations of the council of war without the knowledge of Dreyfus or his counsel. This document, said ‘L’Eclair,’ had determined the condemnation. It was a letter exchanged between the militaryattachésof two embassies, at the foot of which were these words: ‘That animal D—— is really becoming too exacting.’ But ‘L’Eclair’ published it as follows: ‘That animal Dreyfus is really becoming too exacting.’ This, M. Scheurer-Kestner told me, was like a train of powder through the whole press. A formidable movement of opinion rose against the few persons who could still speak of what had happened in 1894. The clear proof of guilt had been found. At last timid consciences could hope; there was no longer anything to fear.Dreyfus was really a traitor, since his relations withattachésof a foreign embassy were confessed by a foreignattachéhimself.
“Gentlemen, who could have communicated this document? A few days later another article was published in ‘Le Matin,’ which reproduced thebordereauand some bits of the writing of Dreyfus. Violent discussions ensued. There was a renewal of the report of attempts at escape. The government was called on to keep careful guard, and an interpellation was announced by deputy Castelin, who had collected these various rumors and intended to ask the government for an explanation as soon as the chamber should reconvene. Then, gentlemen, came a radical change in the dispositions of the minister of war. Not only was Colonel Picquart requested to cool his ardor, but it was deemed necessary to send him away from the war department. It was announced that there would be no resistance to M. Castelin’s interpellation. It was deemed impossible to make head against such a storm. And so, on the 14th, two days before the interpellation, Colonel Picquart was sent away from the department on a mission, in the course of which he finally reached Tunis. That is the explanation of this sudden about-face.
“But who had communicated the document? Not Colonel Picquart. That was impossible, for he was after a revision of the Dreyfus case, and this communication was clearly made by some one opposed to such revision. The communication to ‘L’Eclair’ was not made out of kindness for Dreyfus; it was a final blow at the condemned man, the last word that was to arch his tomb. It could not have been Dreyfus’s counsel, for his counsel did not know the document. It could not have been the experts, for they had never had it in their hands. No journalist could have obtained it, except from some one in a position to be acquainted with it. The persons in such a position were not numerous. There were six, or eight, or ten, in the department who had it at their disposal. There was certainly one of these, perhaps several, whose interest it was to thwart Colonel Picquart, and who, to this end committed this indiscretion, this criminal indiscretion, for a crime had to be committed in order to communicate the document under the circumstances in which it was reproduced by the newspaper. This newspaper, in fact, had printed the passage in the terms that I have just stated, but it is now known that the document did not say ‘That animal Dreyfus.’ It said ‘That animal D....’ It hadbeen necessary to alter the document in order to make it more decisive. Evidently some one was bent on laying a trap for Colonel Picquart, bent on threatening him in order to make the production of his testimony impossible; some one wanted to close his mouth, and threatened to ruin him if he dared to speak. Colonel Picquart desired an investigation to determine the author, or authors, of the plots against him, and, indeed, if they had succeeded in discovering the guilty party, the whole case might have been cleared up. On December 18, 1897, I went to the minister of justice to lay the facts before him, finding, moreover, that he was not at all familiar with the situation. He promised to consult the prime minister. On December 23 he notified me that the prime minister had had an interview with the minister of war, who had promised to send to Colonel Picquart for the text of the dispatches, and compare them with the writing of an officer whom Colonel Picquart suspected. He told me that the minister of war had promised to examine these writings himself, and that later he would let me know the result. This he did on the 28th. The answer of the minister of war was that he did not consider Colonel Picquart’s suspicions well founded, and that he did not see sufficient similarity in the handwritings to warrant suspicion. I have not to inquire, gentlemen, whether he was mistaken; it is too delicate a question to be examined by me. But it is certain that, though the author of these documents could not be designated with certainty, a crime had been three times repeated in the Speranza letter of 1896 and in the two dispatches of 1897. So I expected that a supplementary investigation would be undertaken. But nothing of the kind. There was silence for several days, and then in despair Colonel Picquart decided to lodge with the public prosecutor on January 4, 1898, a formal complaint that these four documents were forged. Another week went by, and nothing was done. Major Ravary continued to think that these facts did not call for the examination solicited. Undoubtedly they had not, in his eyes, the importance that Colonel Picquart attached to them, and so on January 10, six days later, the council of war met, and, before it, was read the indictment with which you are familiar,—an indictment, astounding to say, which made not the slightest allusion to the facts which Colonel Picquart considered so serious.
“It is certain—Major Esterhazy confesses it—that a document was withdrawn from the war department,—the documentwhich he says was delivered to him by a veiled lady. Who took away that document? What was done in the course of investigation to find out who took it away? Nothing. I pointed out to the minister of war that letters and dispatches had been sent to Colonel Picquart in order to close his mouth, telling him not to come back from Tunis, and that his future would be destroyed, if he should come back. Who sent these letters and dispatches? No attempt has been made to find out.
“In conclusion, I have but a single word to say. After my participation in this affair I desired to attend the hearing before the council of war to see what would take place there. I mingled with the public, and, not as former minister of justice or as a senator, but as a simple citizen, I was present at the trial. I was conscious from the first moment that I was not witnessing an ordinary trial, but a trial like no other. In the first place I heard read a declaration from General Saussier that he had ordered this matter carried before the council of war in order to clear up obscurities which, in his opinion, could be cleared up only by an open debate. By this I was somewhat reassured, for to have an open debate was in itself a great deal. Now, gentlemen, there immediately appeared a lawyer for Mme. Dreyfus and her children, and another for the complainant. They asked to be accepted as participants in the trial. I knew that there were precedents for this, notably in the Kraemer case at Lyons; Dalloz and other authors say that councils of war can admit such participation. But in this case it was denied. Then came the reading of the indictment. This indictment was a plea for the accused, and a fierce attack upon his accusers. As soon as the reporter opened his mouth, it was apparent that he was not present as an accuser, but as the foremost defender of the accused. Then I asked myself: ‘Where, then, is the open debate called for by General Saussier?’ Up to the moment when the closing of the doors made it impossible for me to hear more of the trial, I saw nothing but a semblance of an open debate. And now, gentlemen, I have told you all that I know, all that I have seen, all that I can say.”
At this point an adjournment was taken for the day.
The first witness at the fourth day’s hearing was to have been Mme. Dreyfus, whom at first the court had refused to hear on the question of Zola’s good faith, but whom, after further reflection, it had decided to hear. Nevertheless Mme. Dreyfus did not appear, M. Labori consenting to excuse her in view of a letter which he had received from her, and which read as follows:
Dear Master:I answered to the call of my name at Tuesday’s hearing, in spite of my great agitation. I made the effort because I hoped to express to the court and the jury my deep gratitude to, and my admiration for, M. Zola, who, obeying the voice of his conscience, has sacrificed himself for justice and truth with a sublime disdain of the insults and threats which he has drawn upon himself. I hoped also to declare my absolute faith in my husband’s innocence,—an innocence which, I am convinced, will be established before long,—and also my sincere gratitude to you, dear master, who display so much courage and talent to secure the triumph of the truth. The anguish of these three days, added to all that I have suffered for three years, has put me in a condition in which I could not endure a fresh trial. Permit me, then, to absent myself from the court and accept, I beg of you, the expression of my most distinguished sentiments.L. Dreyfus.February 10, 1898.
Dear Master:
I answered to the call of my name at Tuesday’s hearing, in spite of my great agitation. I made the effort because I hoped to express to the court and the jury my deep gratitude to, and my admiration for, M. Zola, who, obeying the voice of his conscience, has sacrificed himself for justice and truth with a sublime disdain of the insults and threats which he has drawn upon himself. I hoped also to declare my absolute faith in my husband’s innocence,—an innocence which, I am convinced, will be established before long,—and also my sincere gratitude to you, dear master, who display so much courage and talent to secure the triumph of the truth. The anguish of these three days, added to all that I have suffered for three years, has put me in a condition in which I could not endure a fresh trial. Permit me, then, to absent myself from the court and accept, I beg of you, the expression of my most distinguished sentiments.
L. Dreyfus.
February 10, 1898.
M. Trarieux was recalled to the witness-stand.
M. Labori.—“Will M. Trarieux tell us what he knows about the way in which Colonel Picquart’s mission was executed?”
The Judge.—“In other words, you ask M. Trarieux if he is familiar with the mission entrusted to Colonel Picquart.”
M. Labori.—“I do not ask the object of the mission. I simply wish to know if the circumstances surrounding it are familiar to the witness, in which case I should like to have him tell us what they were.”
The Judge.—“General de Boisdeffre told us yesterday that it was a secret mission.”
M. Labori.—“I do not ask the witness the object of the mission. It is secret, like everything else in this case, but those in a position to know the details of the mission know that their declarations would compromise no higher interest. It is a secret, because it is a secret; there is no other reason.”
The Judge.—“It may involve secrets concerning the national defence. That is why I will put no question on the point.”
M. Labori.—“It is so said, I know, but I should like tofind out whether M. Trarieux is familiar with the circumstances under which Colonel Picquart was asked to undertake his mission, and whether there was anything extraordinary about these circumstances.”
The Judge.—“Witness, you understand the question. I will ask you to say what you think it is your duty to say.”
M. Trarieux.—“I saw nothing in General Gonse’s letters in the nature of a secret concerning the national defence. All that I can say is that I got an impression from the letters that Colonel Picquart was in most affectionate and cordial relations with his superiors, and seemed to command their entire confidence. The reading of this correspondence gave me the idea—though this is but an interpretation—that Colonel Picquart was sent away from Paris for a certain reason. At first he was sent to the east; then to the south. Frequently new orders came to him, taking him ever a little farther from Paris, and finally he had to cross the Mediterranean and go to Algeria and Tunis. These letters gave me the impression that, after having sent him away from Paris on the eve of the Castelin interpellation, they were determined that he should not come back.”
M. Labori.—“Could M. Trarieux tell us whether, while he was minister of justice, he received a visit from a lawyer especially interested in the matters in question here?”
M. Trarieux.—“I suppose you refer to the visit of M. Demange?”
M. Labori.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“Is this in relation to the Dreyfus case?”
M. Labori.—“It is in relation to a document involved in the Dreyfus trial.”
The Judge.—“I ask you to say nothing about it.”
M. Labori.—“Yesterday General Mercier thought it his duty to refer to the Dreyfus case in words which, like all those that come from a certain direction here, are incomplete. They were received with very violent manifestations, but I have not been able to obtain anything additional, because it is an understood thing here that in this matter anyone can say anything that will injure us, but no one has a right to say anything that can help us.”
The Judge.—“Pardon me, M. Labori, I believe that I preside here with all the independence desirable. If I prevent M. Trarieux from speaking of the Dreyfus case, it is because there has been a decree of the court. You remind me of what General Mercier said yesterday. Permit me to add that, if the general said it, it was because I did not havetime to stop him. He spoke too quickly; otherwise I would have prevented him. You ask questions that violate the decree which we have rendered.”
M. Labori.—“I shall ask all the questions that I think useful to my offence, whatever your opinion of them may be. You will pass upon them,Monsieur le Président,—and the court with you, for you are not the sole master,—as you see fit.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I think that the court misunderstands. None of us intend to violate its decrees. What we wish to point out is that, in spite of you,Monsieur le Président,—you yourself have said it,—General Mercier made a certain declaration yesterday. We desired to bring out today either a contradiction or a confirmation of the words uttered by General Mercier, and, by virtue of a decree of the court, you say to us: ‘That is not possible.’ The jurors will observe that for a court of justice this is a singular situation. The charge may be made, but it may not be contradicted.”
M. Trarieux.—“The charge, whether against M. Scheurer-Kestner or against M. Mathieu Dreyfus, that they are responsible for the existing agitation and disorder is quite erroneous and ill-founded. In fact, there are two ways of obtaining the revision of a judicial error, and Article 443 of the code of criminal examination defines them. The first is this: once a condemnation has been pronounced, if it be discovered that the facts on which this condemnation rest were committed by some other person than the person condemned, this other person may be prosecuted, and, if a condemnation is secured, this condemnation being contradictory of the previous condemnation of an innocent man, a revision of the judicial error becomes imperative. Thus these two condemnations necessarily bring about,ipso facto, a revision of the trial. The second method is provided by a law passed by the present legislature on June 6, 1895, under the government to which I had the honor to belong. It provides that, if, after a condemnation, a new fact be discovered which was unknown at the time of the condemnation, and which is of a nature to establish the innocence of the party condemned, the matter may be laid before the minister of justice to induce him to procure a revision of the case. The minister of justice is asked to lay the matter before the court of appeals, which is judge in such a matter. Now, it is indisputable that M. Mathieu Dreyfus took the first method, for, by preferring a formal complaint against Major Esterhazy, he hoped to secure a condemnation of him, the immediateconsequence of which would have been a revision of his brother’s case. The question is whether he would not have done better to take the second method. It seems to be the opinion that he should have applied to the minister of justice and asked him to lay the matter before the court. I think that this is a mistaken opinion. Suppose, instead of making the complaint against Major Esterhazy, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had applied to the minister of justice for a revision, what new fact could he have pointed out to induce the minister of justice to lay the matter before the court of appeals? There was only one,—the similarity of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting to that of thebordereauattributed by the verdict of 1894 to Captain Dreyfus. If this had been pointed out to the minister of justice, it would have been necessary to draw the immediate conclusion that the author of this handwriting, M. Esterhazy, was the guilty party. It would have been impossible to lay the demand for revision before the court of appeals prior to a decision upon this question after a confrontation with M. Esterhazy. No revision of the judicial error of which Dreyfus was the victim could have been ordered, until it had been established in the presence of the party directly interested, M. Esterhazy, that this error was committed by him, or that it was the result of his crime, and that he was the author of thebordereauunjustly attributed to Dreyfus. Therefore the minister of justice would have had to prosecute M. Esterhazy. But this he could not have done himself, for the simple reason that M. Esterhazy, being a soldier, is responsible only to the military courts, and consequently the minister of justice would have had to hand the matter over to the minister of war, who would have been charged with the prosecution. If, then, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had chosen the method of appealing to the minister of justice, not only would nothing have been gained, but time would have been lost, for the same result would have been reached by a circuitous route.”
A group of witnesses was then called, consisting of M. Forzinetti, M. Lebrun-Renault, and others who had heard M. Lebrun-Renault declare that Dreyfus had never made a confession to him. But, the court declining to hear any of them, on the ground that their testimony concerned the Dreyfus case, they were all obliged to retire.
Dr. Socquet was then recalled to the stand.
M. Clemenceau.—“I forgot to ask Dr. Socquet whether he found Mme. de Boulancy at No. 22, Boulevard des Batignolles.”
Dr. Socquet.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Will he tell the court how he succeeded in finding her, since that was the only address that he knew?”
Dr. Socquet.—“Through the letter handed to me byMonsieur le Président. He gave me a doctor’s certificate establishing her sickness, which was accompanied by a letter that gave the address.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I remind the court of an incident that occurred at the last hearing. I informed the court that Mme. de Boulancy did not live in the Boulevard des Batignolles, and the court answered: ‘She does live there, for the doctor’s certificate designates that address.’ Therefore I am at a loss to understand. DoesMonsieur le Présidentrecall the incident?”
The Judge.—“Perfectly. I am looking for the address in the letter.”
Dr. Socquet.—“It is on the third page.”
M. Zola.—“From whom is this letter?”
The judge then read the letter from Mme. de Boulancy which he had read at a previous hearing, but including this time the following sentence, which before he had omitted: “I am with my family, at No. 54, Avenue de Neuilly.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The court will remember that this information had not been previously furnished me. Therefore I have no further occasion to ask the doctor how he found Mme. de Boulancy, but I should like to ask him another question.”
M. Zola.—“Reference to the stenographic report will show that Mme. de Boulancy’s present address was not given at the hearing.”
The Judge.—“That is a matter of no importance.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I make a reservation, and pass on. In the course of Dr. Socquet’s visit to Mme. de Boulancy was there any conversation between them about matters other than his sickness?”
Dr. Socquet [after some hesitation].—“Yes, we talked of something else.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Something that did not concern her health?”
Dr. Socquet.—“Yes.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did Dr. Socquet ask Mme. de Boulancythe following question: ‘Is it true that you have other letters from Major Esterhazy than those that have been published?’”
Dr. Socquet.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did the witness say to Mme. de Boulancy: ‘Is it true that you have three telegrams from Major Esterhazy?’”
Dr. Socquet.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did Mme. de Boulancy declare spontaneously: ‘I have letters from Major Esterhazy which are much more serious than those that have been published?’ And did she also declare, of her own initiative: ‘It has been incorrectly stated that I had three telegrams from Major Esterhazy; I have only two’?”
Dr. Socquet.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Was the name Esterhazy uttered at all in the course of the conversation?”
Dr. Socquet [after reflection].—“Yes.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Under what circumstances was this name uttered, and by whom?”
Dr. Socquet.—“By Mme. de Boulancy.”
M. Clemenceau.—“As Mme. de Boulancy would not have uttered this word singly, will the witness tell us what other words she added?”
The Judge.—“I call M. Clemenceau’s attention to the fact that he is entering into the domain of a private conversation.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The defence attaches the greatest importance to the testimony of Mme. de Boulancy and to the production of the letters which are still in her possession, as well as of the two telegrams which she also possesses. Under these circumstances we shall do all that we possibly can, and shall talk as long as the court does not prevent us, to secure the appearance of Mme. de Boulancy that she may enlighten this court and this jury regarding Major Esterhazy’s letters. I ask the witness what other words Mme. de Boulancy added to the word Esterhazy.”
Dr. Socquet.—“I am entirely ready to answer, but it is a matter outside of the mission that the court entrusted to me. Still, if it be not inappropriate, I will say that, when I examined Mme. de Boulancy, she talked to me of sundry matters,—among others of the way in which she had reached her present condition, and the annoyance that she felt. I let her talk, for I wanted to form an opinion as to the state of her health. She spoke of Major Esterhazy’s letters, and told me that she had complained at the office of the public prosecutor,who was looking into her charge, that a person had abused her letters. She said that she had entrusted these letters to a person who had found them interesting, and who had used them in a way of which she did not learn until later. She told me especially that this person had entrusted them to ‘Le Figaro,’ and that, an hour after he brought them back, M. Hadamard, sub-chief of police, came to seize them. She added that all these letters were from Major Esterhazy. That is all that she said to me on that subject.”
M. Clemenceau.—“By ‘all these letters’ did she mean those published by ‘Le Figaro,’ or the other letters that she had in her possession, or had deposited with one of her lawyers?”
Dr. Socquet.—“She said: ‘All his letters.’ Six letters, plus a seventh, which contains the word ‘Uhlans.’”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did she say that they were genuine?”
Dr. Socquet.—“That is what she said. I did not question her. I allowed her to talk, seeing no objection to it.”
M. Socquet then stepped down, and M. du Paty de Clam took his place.
“Monsieur le Président,” said he, “I am called here to testify concerning the Esterhazy case. I am ready to answer all questions, except those that involve professional secrecy. But it is with deep sadness that I call attention to the fact that matters of my private life have been raised here. It does not embarrass me personally, for I have always behaved as a gallant man should. I have the esteem of my superiors, and that is enough for me. But I can not admit that it is allowable to reflect upon the honor of a young girl who has always been respected. I ask the court, in the name of French honor, to eliminate such questions from the discussion, and I will answer all others.”
The Judge.—“But here there has been no question” ...
M. Labori.—“I have referred here to but one woman, Mlle. Blanche de Comminges. It seems to be the opinion of the newspapers that I insinuated, or meant to say, that there had been between Mlle. de Comminges and Colonel du Paty de Clam private relations susceptible of an annoying interpretation. Nothing of the kind has been in my thoughts. Mlle. Blanche de Comminges is a young girl of fifty-five years; she is a friend of Colonel Picquart; her name has been used in telegrams which Colonel Picquart considers forgeries, and in regard to which he has complained. It is only ofthis that I have spoken. Now I come to different questions. In the first place, was M. du Paty de Clam ever acquainted with the father of Mlle. de Comminges?”
M. du Paty de Clam.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Did he have a correspondence with one or more members of his family?”
M. du Paty de Clam.—“It is on this point,Monsieur le Président, that I ask permission to keep silent. I can reveal nothing. This concerns the honor of a family, the memory of a dead person, and I will not do it. It is private ground. It is my domain, and no one has a right to infringe upon it. It has no relation with the Esterhazy case, and I will say nothing about it.”
The Judge.—“You understand the answer?”
M. Labori.—“Yes,Monsieur le Président, I understand the answer, and I understand also that, though you consider it good, I do not.”
The Judge.—“Exactly.”
M. Labori.—“I do not, and I will tell you why, if you will permit me.”
The Judge.—“Go ahead.”
M. Labori.—“I never before saw an assize court like this. All means are sought here to prevent the light from being thrown on any point.”
The Judge.—“These areyourwitnesses.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, these are notourwitnesses; they are witnesses. M. du Paty de Clam is called because we wanted a complete investigation, and, whenever we put a question, in the absence of a good reason why it should not be answered, we are offered two bad ones. When there has been a consideration of the matter behind closed doors, they say: ‘We will not answer, because this occurred behind closed doors.’ I say this to the jurors: Are you not as worthy to keep a secret as French military officers? If closed doors are necessary, let the doors be closed. We do not distrust you. Then they appeal to professional secrecy. When that will not do, they invoke secrets of State. And when they can invoke neither professional secrecy or secrets of State or closed doors, they invoke private secrets. Consequently I have no further questions to put to M. du Paty de Clam.”
The next witness was Colonel Henry.
M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Henry tell us how far the factsrelated in Major Ravary’s report are correct, and what documents Colonel Picquart took from the files? Will Colonel Henry tell us whether that report described correctly the scene that took place in his presence in Colonel Picquart’s private office between M. Leblois and Colonel Picquart, and what that scene really was?”
Colonel Henry.—“I was absent when the file was taken by Colonel Picquart. I was on leave of absence, in August or September, 1896. Colonel Picquart asked M. Gribelin for the file, and he gave it to him.”
The Judge.—“M. Gribelin made the same answer.”
Colonel Henry.—“M. Gribelin, the keeper of the archives, to whom I had given the key of my closet,” ...
M. Labori.—“Thus it results from the testimony of the witness” ...
The Judge.—“M. Gribelin was under Colonel Picquart’s orders.”
M. Labori.—“But what was Colonel Henry’s position?”
Colonel Henry.—“Major.”
M. Labori.—“Under whose orders?”
Colonel Henry.—“Under the orders of Colonel Picquart.”
M. Labori.—“The chief of the service was M. Picquart. Consequently, if I rightly understand, Colonel Picquart, who was at the head of the service, asked M. Gribelin, who was under his orders, like Major Henry himself, to give him, by opening the closet with the key,—that is, under the most natural conditions,—a file that was a part of Colonel Picquart’s service. Is that it?”
Colonel Henry.—“Exactly. If I had been present, I would have pointed out to Colonel Picquart that my instructions, given me by Colonel Sandherr, were to give this file to nobody, except in the presence of the sub-chief of staff, the chief of staff, and myself.”
The Judge.—“It was Colonel Sandherr who gave those orders. He is dead, I believe.”
Colonel Henry.—“He was sick and unconscious.”
M. Labori.—“Under these circumstances Colonel Sandherr had been replaced by Colonel Picquart. Does Colonel Henry invoke against Colonel Picquart, then his chief, instructions given him by a previous chief? Will Colonel Henry tell us who succeeded Colonel Picquart in the war offices?”
Colonel Henry.—“Colonel Picquart’s successor is General Gonse, sub-chief of staff, for it was to General Gonse that Colonel Picquart handed over his service when in November, 1897, he started on a mission.”
M. Labori.—“Who is now in the service under General Gonse’s orders?”
Colonel Henry.—“I am.”
M. Labori.—“Thank you.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did not Colonel Henry confer concerning a certain matter directly with M. Leblois? I ask no details.”
Colonel Henry.—“You refer to the Bouleau affair? One day there was,—that is to say, I talked to Colonel Picquart in presence of M. Leblois. Colonel Picquart said: ‘When we are embarrassed concerning any question of spying, you can refer to M. Leblois, who is a lawyer, and will be able’” ...
M. Clemenceau.—“When you wanted to send an envelope containing no matter what to another office, and did not want this envelope to be opened, had you not a method of assuring yourself that it would not be opened? Was it not your habit to place your signature on envelopes that you did not wish to be opened?”
Colonel Henry.—“No.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Was it not the habit of the witness to do that?”
Colonel Henry.—“No.”
The Judge.—“But one of the witnesses yesterday said that it was?”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me. Permit me to interrupt to ask that the question be put as we frame it. I protest; there has been already too much said. I ask that the question be thus put: Did Colonel Henry once do this?”
Colonel Henry then admitted that he placed his signature on the secret file. The witness was then confronted with M. Leblois, whom Colonel Henry said that he had never seen, except in Colonel Picquart’s presence.
M. Leblois.—“I had a long discussion with Colonel Henry concerning a matter that had been under examination in the office of the public prosecutor at Nancy.”
The Judge.—“In the absence of Colonel Picquart?”
Colonel Henry.—“We talked once in the presence of Colonel Picquart. The latter said to me: ‘When we shall have need of additional information concerning some matter of spying, here is M. Leblois, who will be able to lend us his aid.’ Well, I have never conferred with M. Leblois.”
M. Leblois.—“This conference lasted several hours in your own private office. You admitted it before the council of war.”
The next witness was M. de la Batut, who testified as follows:
“At the time of which I speak Lieutenant du Paty de Clam was giving a course of instruction to the conditional volunteers of a year. When the conditional volunteers came to the regiment, they were given, as a subject of historical composition, ‘The Wars of the First Empire.’ I wrote such a composition as I was able to from my recollections of the matter, and I finished by saying that it was to be hoped that henceforth intelligence, and not cannons, would govern the world. The next day the lieutenant-colonel sent for me, and said: ‘You are from the south; you shall have a fortnight in prison.’ I answered: ‘My colonel, I am not exactly from the south, I am from Dordogne.’ ‘Yes, yes, you are from the south. You shall have a fortnight in prison for your composition.’ And I was taken to prison. The colonel, who was absent, returned the next morning, and, probably finding my punishment excessive, hastened to relieve me of it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“After he had thus relieved you, was the punishment replaced by another of a more general character?”
M. de la Batut.—“Yes; the colonel said to me: ‘I relieve you of your punishment, because it was a little too severe, and you have not yet the military spirit. But you and all your comrades will get no leave of absence for a month.’”
Then the following witnesses were successively called and dismissed, because their testimony was to relate to the Dreyfus case: Major Besson d’Ormescheville, M. Maurel, M. Vallecalle, M. Eichmann, M. Gallet, and M. Roche. Then came Major Ravary.
M. Labori.—“I find the following in Major Ravary’s report: ‘One evening, when Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, on returning to Paris, suddenly entered M. Picquart’s office, he found M. Leblois, the lawyer, who paid the colonel long and frequent visits, sitting near the desk and searching with him the secret file. A photograph bearing the words, “That scoundrel D...” had been taken from the file and spread upon the desk.’”
M. Ravary.—“There is an error. It isasecret file, notthesecret file.”