“There is another thing which shows very clearly how these little matters can be used. One need only read the report of M. D’Ormescheville to see how the massing ofinsignificant things may lead to grave accusations. Never in my life did I have any intention of getting a postal stamp placed upon this document.
“In the Ravary report there is another important thing. It is said that Major Henry, entering my office, found meen tête-à-têtewith M. Leblois, having between us a collection of secret documents, from which we had taken a photograph document upon which was written: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ Already General de Pellieux had spoken to me of that, but he had said that it was Gribelin who had seen me. He said nothing to me of Major Henry. I said to him: ‘Never did I have that collection of documents in my hands while Leblois was in my office.’ Moreover, I thought that it was at the time of M. Leblois’s vacation, but I did not know at what time he returned. I went to M. Leblois to get these two dates, and I reported them to General de Pellieux. If I am not mistaken, Gribelin placed this interview in the month of October. At the council of war, when this charge was brought against me, I asked to be confronted with Colonel Henry, and he maintained that he had seen us together, with these secret documents between us. I asked him to fix the date. He said: ‘That must have been on my return from leave, in the beginning of October.’ Major Henry certainly did not know that M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and returned November 7. Nor did he know that I had asked M. Gribelin for this collection of documents the latter part of August, and handed it to General Gonse personally early in November. Unfortunately I do not know the exact date, but it was one of the first days of November. Gribelin, too, showed a rather short memory, for he has pretended under other circumstances that this collection of documents was found in my closet after my departure. Now, General Gonse has very frankly stated that I gave him this collection of documents several days before my departure. My departure took place on November 16. I left my service November 14, M. Leblois came back to Paris November 7, which was a Saturday, and the 8th was a Sunday; then this discovery must have been made between the 9th and the 14th, and yet during that time I had not the documents in my possession, having given them to General Gonse.
“Another thing has occurred to me. General de Pellieux showed me the photograph bearing the words: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ This photograph is anything but clear; one is obliged to look very closely into it to see anything at all. Now, I ask if a person entering a room can identifysuch a document at once, and see on it the words: ‘That scoundrel D——?’ Finally, if I had any interest in showing this document to M. Leblois, it seems to me extraordinary that, considering the limited dimensions of this file of papers, and considering the fact that I had it at my disposal for two months, I did not pass it to M. Leblois. But it seems that, having these documents before me, I left the door open while I was with M. Leblois, and chose that moment for the very serious act of communicating a document to a person not qualified to have knowledge of it. At any rate, I testify absolutely that never did I show a file of secret papers to M. Leblois, absolutely never, and that I never spoke to him of any such file.
“Now there are other matters to which I must refer. I read the testimony given yesterday by General de Pellieux, and in it I found things that astonished me. In my second interview with the general he said to me: ‘You have caused Esterhazy’s premises to be searched.’ I did wrong in accepting his statement. I did not cause Major Esterhazy’s premises to be searched, and I wish now to explain very clearly what actually took place. After the publication of the article that appeared in ‘L’Eclair,’ which had given Esterhazy warning that thebordereauwas known, one of my superiors suggested a search. I confess that I did not think it an opportune moment for a search, it seeming to me that the search should have been made previously. Esterhazy having been warned, he had undoubtedly removed all evidence from his premises. Yet, desirous of doing what was asked of me, I spoke of the matter to the officer who was watching Esterhazy. I said to him: ‘This is what they ask me to do, but I believe that a search would prove fruitless.’ He answered: ‘He has gone to Rouen, but I do not know whether he has moved his effects.’ I think the officer told me that there was a sign indicating that the apartment was to let. He went to see the apartment, and brought back as proof a visiting-card, on which a few words were written. He told me that much paper had been burned in the chimney, and that was all. I returned the card to him, and told him to put it back in the place from which he took it. When General de Pellieux questioned me concerning this matter, he told me that the house had been ransacked, and false keys had been made, and that this was proved by the discovery of a key in excess of the usual number. I did not know then where he had obtained this information, but at the hearing before the council of war I found out. Theinformation was given by Esterhazy; so that the statements made yesterday by General de Pellieux are almost exactly the statements of Esterhazy. He says that the search was continued at intervals during eight months. Before the council of war Esterhazy said that it lasted I know not how much longer. If it lasted, it was not my fault, because I was not in Paris. The event of which I have just spoken occurred toward the end of October. If anything happened afterward, I am not responsible for it. As to the correspondence, General Pellieux said that for eight months I intercepted Esterhazy’s letters in the mails. The card-telegram was written in May. I did not begin my investigations until early in July. Esterhazy left Paris the latter part of August to attend the military manœuvres, and did not return until late in October or early in November. I do not find eight months between July and the middle of August.”
At this point, Colonel Picquart having finished his deposition, the court interrupted the proceedings to render a decree granting M. Clemenceau’s motion that a magistrate be sent to examine Mme. de Boulancy, and appointing for that duty M. Bertulus, who was General de Pellieux’s consulting magistrate during his investigation. The examination of Colonel Picquart was then resumed.
M. Labori.—“Was not Colonel Picquart present as a delegate from the minister of war at the trial of a case of spying, or, to be precise, at the Dreyfus trial? For this is a question of fact that does not touch the thing judged.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I prefer not to answer.”
M. Labori.—“Is there in the war department a file of documents that makes Major Esterhazy’s guilt inadmissible?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know, but I do not think so.”
M. Labori.—“When Colonel Picquart was thinking of inquiring whether M. Esterhazy was not the author of thebordereau, did any of his superiors at any time say to him: ‘Stop; there are certain proofs that Major Esterhazy cannot be the author of thebordereau?’”
Colonel Picquart.—“No, that was never said to me.”
M. Labori.—“To what does M. Picquart attribute the numerous and complex machinations of which he has been the victim?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I shall be able to answer that more definitely, when M. Bertulus’s examination has been finished. At present I believe that the purpose of these machinations was to prevent Esterhazy’s guilt from being shown.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness think that Major Esterhazy took part in these machinations, directly or indirectly?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“You simply think so?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness think that these machinations were the work of Major Esterhazy alone, or does he think that Major Esterhazy had accomplices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I believe that he had accomplices.”
M. Labori.—“Accomplices in the war offices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There was certainly an accomplice who was familiar with what was going on in the war offices. First, there is the card-telegram signed ‘Blanche.’ Then there is the letter signed ‘Speranza,’ which could have been written only by a person familiar with the letter that had been opened and copied, the original of which had then been forwarded to me in November, 1896. I asked Major Ravary, on several occasions, to make an investigation, and to hear Souffrain, who, according to information given to me by General de Pellieux, was the author of the ‘Speranza’ telegrams. Major Ravary always refused, on the ground that there was no reason for such an investigation.”
M. Labori.—“Was the mission on which Colonel Picquart was sent an important one?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I will not permit myself to judge my superiors on that matter, but it does not seem to me that it was indispensable to send someone on it.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart always clearly understand the purpose of his mission?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I tried very hard to understand it.”
M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Picquart explain what he meant by saying that his mission was to end at Gabès?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I said this,—that at the beginning of the Dreyfus matter I received an order to go to the frontier of Tripoli. General Leclerc told me that he would not allow me to go farther than Gabès.”
M. Labori.—“Is the place to which Colonel Picquart was sent a dangerous place?”
Colonel Picquart.—“It is not one of the safest.”
M. Labori.—“Is not the police agent with whom Colonel Picquart was in relations concerning the Esterhazy dispatch the one through whom thebordereau, reached the minister of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Consequently, when occasion arose for discussionof the origin of thebordereau, did not this origin seem more than suspicious from the very fact that it came through this police agent?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“How happens it, then, that the serious character of this origin is now disputed?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The serious character of the origin is not disputed; the origin itself is denied.”
M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart declare, on his soul and conscience, that the document really originated as he has said?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“If, then, Colonel Picquart were not telling the truth, he would be guilty of falsehood, and even of perjury?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Exactly.”
M. Labori.—“It follows,Monsieur le Président, that, if Colonel Picquart is not prosecuted on this charge, it is because the question is not disputed. Has Colonel Picquart so far been the object of any prosecution on this charge?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Not that I know of.”
M. Labori.—“Colonel Picquart has told us that he gathered information unfavorable to Esterhazy. Will he go a little more into details?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The facts gathered were various in character. First, there were facts relating to his pecuniary situation. Major Esterhazy was concerned in money transactions that were rather shady. I cannot go into details; the examination must show all that. Then there was a matter of unpaid house-rent at Courbevoie, which was not very clear either.”
The Judge.—“That has no relation” ...
M. Labori.—“I insist on the smallest details.”
Colonel Picquart.—“He was one of the directors of an English financial company,—a thing utterly forbidden to French officers. I called Major Ravary’s attention to this, and he said to me: ‘Oh! in England that matter is not attended by the same inconveniences, because in France one may be thrown into bankruptcy, whereas in England one cannot be.’ I did not very clearly understand.”
M. Labori.—“I do not know whether the witness will be able to reply to the question that I shall now put. Is Colonel Picquart aware that Major Esterhazy was the subject of favorable notes that were read to the council of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I saw certain of these notes in thenewspapers. I read them even prior to the council of war, and I was greatly astonished, because all documents relating to thepersonnelare essentially confidential. There is another thing that astonished me. There has been reference here to citations. Well, I know that General Guerrier, Major Esterhazy’s superior at Rouen, struck from that officer’s record of services a citation that appeared there unwarrantably. General Guerrier is ready to testify to it.”
M. Labori.—“Among Colonel Picquart’s charges against Major Esterhazy was there one that a document belonging to the secret files applied to Esterhazy more than to anybody else, or, rather, than to a certain other person?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“What is this secret file?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Oh! those matters are entirely secret. I should very much like to answer, but I consider that I cannot do so without being released from the obligation of professional secrecy by the minister of war. If he will release me, I will speak; otherwise, not.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart ever see the original of thebordereau?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so. I certainly have seen the photographic reproductions which were in circulation.”
M. Labori.—“In circulation where? In the war offices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Then there were official reproductions?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“Were these photographs placed in the hands of experts?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so, but cannot say so positively. I was not then connected with the service.”
M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart consider that thebordereaupublished by ‘Le Matin’ November 10, 1896, differs essentially from the authentic original?”
Colonel Picquart.—“It differs so little from it that it was asked who could have committed the indiscretion.”
M. Labori.—“Into how many fragments was the Esterhazy dispatch torn?”
Colonel Picquart—“I cannot say, but there were many. There were little bits no larger than one’s finger-nail.”
M. Labori.—“Was Colonel Picquart able to rearrange the pieces?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“And from what did Colonel Picquart desire to remove the traces of pasting?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Why, from the photograph.”
M. Labori.—“Would it have been possible to remove such traces from the original?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There was never any question of removing them from the original. The original has never been altered. Once pasted, it was not thereafter touched.”
M. Labori.—“In the charges made against Colonel Picquart are there any relating to events that occurred later than 1896?”
Colonel Picquart.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Were not all the doings of Colonel Picquart known to all his superiors?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“Why, then, had they not taken in 1896 the attitude that they have taken since?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know.”
M. Labori.—“In a case as serious as that of Major Esterhazy, at a time when the chief of the bureau of information was investigating a serious charge of treason, was not the arrest of Major Esterhazy almost necessary, in order to get at the truth?”
Colonel Picquart.—“That was my opinion, but it did not prevail. My superiors thought otherwise.”
M. Labori.—“But, without arresting an officer, is it not possible to watch him so that he can have no chance of doing things still more reprehensible and concealing his tracks?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly. There was enough against Esterhazy to send him to a fortress.”
M. Labori.—“In occupying yourself with the Esterhazy case, were you obeying your conscience?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“Did you feel that you were endangering your military career and your interests?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“And yet you continued?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes, but my superiors did not absolutely oppose me. I felt that I was not in entire harmony with them, but they did not tell me to stop. Otherwise I would have done my duty as an officer, and would have stopped; or, rather, I do not know exactly what I would have done at that time. But—yes, I would have stopped.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart never receive a formal order to stop?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Never.”
M. Labori.—“In Colonel Picquart’s eyes which was the more damaging evidence against Major Esterhazy, thebordereauor the dispatch?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Thebordereau.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart make it known to General Gonse?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“How, then, could General Gonse say that it was necessary to distinguish the Dreyfus case from the Esterhazy case?”
Colonel Picquart.—“That he said that is true. He said that confusion of the two cases should be avoided so far as possible; that the Esterhazy case should be continued, but that the Dreyfus case should not be mixed up with it.”
M. Labori.—“But, if Major Esterhazy had been recognized as the author of thebordereau, would not the charge against Dreyfus have fallen necessarily?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes; that is why I never understood the attempt to separate them.”
The Judge.—“Do you remember having sent for M. Leblois to call on you at your office?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“Do you remember the date?”
Colonel Picquart.—“He came in the spring of 1896 concerning two matters,—the Boulot case and a carrier-pigeon case, about which I should like to say a word.”
The Judge.—“I was going to ask you. What is this carrier-pigeon file of documents? Is it not a secret file?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There are two. One file is in a pasteboard box, which contains nothing but newspaper articles about pigeons. These matters are not secret, and it was about these that I consulted M. Leblois. There is another file which is absolutely secret, containing information with which M. Leblois had no concern, and about which M. Leblois could not have enlightened me. There has been confusion lately concerning this matter. Recently I asked for the carrier-pigeon file, and by chance the secret file was brought.”
The Judge.—“You had by the side of this carrier-pigeon file another file on which was the letter ‘H’ written with blue pencil?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Your description designates the envelope containing the secret file. That was never on my table when M. Leblois was there, and there is a very simple reason why. The file was in my possession only from thelatter part of August to the beginning of November, and M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and did not return until November 7.”
The court here recalled M. Gribelin to confront him with Colonel Picquart. M. Gribelin repeated his testimony as follows:
“One evening in October, 1896, I went into Colonel Picquart’s office to get leave of absence. He was sitting at his table with the carrier-pigeon file at his right, and at his left the file that I had handed to him between August 28 and September 5. The letter was contained in an envelope bearing the mark of Major Henry, and it was by this that I recognized it.”
The Judge.—“You saw no documents?”
M. Gribelin.—“No, the envelope was closed.”
Colonel Picquart.—“M. Gribelin is mistaken. I do not believe that he intends to make a false statement, but either his memory fails him or he has confused the files. I know that M. Gribelin is a perfectly honest man.”
The Judge.—“I asked General Gonse concerning him just now, and he spoke of him in the highest terms.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not believe him capable of an infamy, but I believe him capable of an error.”
M. Gribelin.—“You can believe what I say; I saw it.”
Colonel Picquart.—“But I say that you did not see it.”
The Judge.—“M. Picquart, did you ask M. Gribelin at a certain time if he could not get the post-office to stamp a letter, which letter you did not otherwise indicate?”
Colonel Picquart.—“To stamp a letter?”
The Judge.—“To stamp a letter; not with the date of its arrival, but with an earlier date.”
M. Gribelin.—“My colonel, let me refresh your memory. You re-entered your office at two o’clock. You sent for me and, as you were taking off your overcoat, you said: ‘Gribelin, could you get the post-office to stamp a letter?’ You did not add a word. You never spoke of the matter afterward. But, on my honor as a soldier, that is the truth, and you know that I never lie.”
Colonel Picquart.—“That I know, but I answer as follows. It has very often happened that Gribelin and I have talked of the way in which letters could be sent to spies. Well, it is possible that one of these recollections is in his mind. But I say that I have no recollection of it at all.”
The Judge.—“But did you not ask this information of Major Lauth almost in the same terms?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I? Oh, never, never, never!”
The court recalled M. Lauth, who repeated his accusation as follows:
“On the very day when Colonel Picquart spoke to me on the subject of removing the traces of tear, he said to me: ‘Do you think that they would stamp this document at the post-office?’ I answered him that they would not be very obliging in such a matter, and that I did not think they would do it.”
The Judge.—“You see, it is almost the same thing.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Does Major Lauth remember that, in his written deposition regarding the proposition which he declares that I made to him that he should say that the handwriting of the dispatch was that of such or such a person, he said: ‘This document has no authentic character; it must have the stamp of the post-office.’”
M. Lauth.—“‘In order that it may have an authentic character, it must have a stamp’; and I added: ‘It is a handwriting that I do not know.’ Colonel Picquart never asked me to certify to my recognition of the dispatch. He said: ‘You will be there to verify that it is the handwriting of such or such a person.’ That is what he said to me, and I answered: ‘I never saw this handwriting, and cannot certify that it is the handwriting of such or such a person.’”
General de Pellieux was recalled.
The Judge.—“Can General de Pellieux tell us anything of the search of which he spoke yesterday?”
General de Pellieux.—“Colonel Picquart admitted to me that an agent sent by him had entered the premises. Well, I ask why he went into the apartment. I suppose that he will say that he went there to rent it.”
Colonel Picquart.—“It seems to me that I have explained that matter. The agent brought me only a card containing a few words. I had him carry it back. I never got anything else.”
The Judge.—“General, did you enter the apartment?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
The Judge.—“Then you do not know what state it was in?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
The Judge.—“But yesterday you gave us details.”
General de Pellieux.—“Major Esterhazy says that a piece of furniture was forced, and that traces of this still remain.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then what General de Pellieux told us he got from Major Esterhazy.”
Colonel Picquart admitted that one of his agents had entered Esterhazy’s premises, which were to let.
The Judge.—“This agent had no legal warrant.”
Colonel Picquart.—“No, but he entered the apartment by lawful means.”
M. Clemenceau.—“He did not enter as a robber.”
M. Labori.—“No equivocations. I ask General de Pellieux whether he thinks it possible to ask the chief of the bureau of information belonging to the French war department to keep a watch on spies in the interest of the national defence without giving him the right, if he is an honorable officer above suspicion, to make an investigation?”
General de Pellieux.—“I think he has the right.”
M. Labori.—“The reply is satisfactory.”
General de Pellieux.—“But I add that I do not admit his right to do so without a legal warrant.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask General de Pellieux, who knows the law, and who can explain whether a search is legal, if the search of Colonel Picquart’s premises was illegal.”
General de Pellieux.—“Show me that it is illegal.”
The Judge.—“Were you not a judicial officer of police?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes, and had the right to make a search. The military code will show it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The military code declares that the search, to be valid, must be made in the presence of the interested party. If you had found a document of any value, Colonel Picquart could have claimed that it had been brought to his apartment in his absence.”
M. Labori.—“Besides, M. Picquart was not accused. There was only one accused,—Major Esterhazy. He was accused by the chief of the bureau of information to whom this service had been entrusted because he was the most worthy of it, and it was his premises that they searched.”
General de Pellieux.—“I am evidently ignorant regarding procedure. At every step I took the advice of a magistrate, M. Bertulus.”
M. Labori.—“Was it M. Bertulus who suggested to General de Pellieux to search the house for smuggled matches?”
General de Pellieux.—“I gave a police commissioner a search-warrant. If the police commissioner offered this pretext in order to carry out his orders, he is responsible.”
M. Labori.—“Did General de Pellieux, when entrusted with the duty of investigation, order Major Esterhazy to observe absolute discretion, and stay at home instead of exercising his liberty,—a liberty which he used in goingdaily to the offices of ‘Le Jour,’ ‘La Libre Parole,’ and other newspapers?”
General de Pellieux.—“I did, and in writing.”
M. Labori.—“How well, in the opinion of General de Pellieux, were his orders obeyed by Major Esterhazy?”
General de Pellieux.—“I do not say that Major Esterhazy fully obeyed my orders, but from the moment that he received them the communications to the press became, I observed, less numerous.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Can these gentlemen say that they have seen a single letter on which I have caused a post-office stamp to be placed?”
The Judge.—“It is not claimed that you have done that. The claim simply is that you asked if it were possible to have such a thing done.”
The court then recalled Major Ravary.
M. Labori.—“Why did M. Ravary, in his report, in which he accumulated all arguments tending to depreciate Colonel Picquart’s merit, omit the incident relating to the question attributed to Colonel Picquart concerning the placing of stamps on a letter or a dispatch?”
M. Ravary.—“There were an abundance of matters that I could have cited in proof of irregularities on Colonel Picquart’s part. I did not need to put all of them in my report.”
M. Labori.—“Tell us what these irregularities were.”
M. Ravary.—“If I had desired to invoke Article 378, I need not have said anything. I could have pleaded professional secrecy.”
M. Clemenceau.—“But, since you did not invoke it, you are at liberty to speak.”
M. Labori.—“I say that Major Ravary must either observe professional secrecy, or not observe it. In saying that there are many other charges, he does not observe professional secrecy. I am not in favor of closed doors or professional secrecy, but, since Major Ravary has already violated professional secrecy, he may well tell us of the other charges against Colonel Picquart.”
M. Ravary.—“Military justice does not proceed as yours does.”
M. Clemenceau.—“There are not two justices. There is only one—the true justice.”
M. Ravary.—“Our code is not the same.”
The Judge.—“Answer the question, if you see fit,”
M. Ravary.—“I refuse to answer.”
M. Labori.—“Under these circumstances there is nothing left of all that M. Ravary has said.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot allow this charge to rest upon me. I ask M. Ravary to declare frankly what other irregularities are laid at my door.”
M. Ravary.—“There are the two already referred to,—that of which M. Gribelin has spoken, and which I did not put in my report, and that which M. Lauth has described.”
Colonel Picquart.—“And, covering all that with an insinuation, you were allowing it to be supposed that there were many other things.”
M. Labori.—“M. Ravary covered that with professional secrecy, and, when he no longer dared to appeal to professional secrecy, he had nothing left to say.”
Colonel Picquart.—“And for three months that has been going on.”
The court then adjourned for the day.
At the beginning of the sixth day’s proceedings Colonel Picquart resumed the witness-stand, and asked permission to make a declaration that would make clearer the spirit of his testimony of the day before. This being granted, he said:
“I believe that the expression used by M. Zola when he declared that the military judges had condemned in obedience to orders went a little farther than he thought. What happened, at least, as I believe, was this. General de Pellieux, out of respect for the thing judged, thought it his duty to keep the matter of thebordereauout of his investigation. Major Ravary, whose investigation followed that of General de Pellieux, was certainly influenced—perhaps unconsciously—by the view of his superior. He even gave me proof of this,—I can say it here, where many things have been said already,—when, after I had said to him: ‘The witnesses will not be unearthed, until you have caused Major Esterhazy to be arrested,’ he answered: ‘I cannot have him arrested. My superiors have not thought it proper to do so, and I do not see that anything has come into my hands which should change their decision.’ The judges belonging to the council of war found themselves confronted with an examination which was, in my opinion, incomplete. In view of the proofs laid before them, they decided the matter according to their conscience, and to show you the liberty of mind that presided over their deliberations I declare here that one of them, toward the end ofthe session, said this (and I admire his courage): ‘I see that the person really accused here is Colonel Picquart. Therefore I ask that he be called, in order that he may say to us whatever he may deem necessary in addition to his deposition.’”
M. Lauth was recalled, to be again confronted with Colonel Picquart.
M. Labori.—“Supposing that a post-office stamp had been placed upon the card-telegram, what, in Major Lauth’s view, would have been the use of it?”
Major Lauth.—“It would have shown that the paper reached its destination, whereas without such a stamp it must necessarily have remained at its starting-point.”
M. Labori.—“Has not Colonel Picquart said, and has not Major Lauth confirmed the statement, that it had been shown that the origin of this dispatch was the origin of thebordereau?”
Major Lauth.—“When I received it, I could not say that the origin was not the same, for I received it at second-hand.”
M. Labori.—“Has it ever been pretended that this dispatch was seized on Major Esterhazy’s premises?”
Major Lauth.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“That is sufficient for me. Then I would like to know how the dispatch, having the same origin as thebordereau, or as the fragments of paper mingled with the dispatch, could have been considered as coming from Major Esterhazy’s premises.”
Major Lauth.—“I do not understand you.”
M. Labori.—“I will explain. I asked Major Lauth what would have been the use, in any point of view, of placing a stamp on the dispatch. Major Lauth answered that the stamp would have shown that the dispatch reached its destination. Now, it is necessary that the jury should know that it has never been said that the dispatch was written in Major Esterhazy’s hand, and to know also that the writing to the origin of which Major Lauth was asked to certify was not the handwriting of Major Esterhazy. The dispatch was addressed to Major Esterhazy. Now I am inquiring as to the origin. Major Lauth says that the utility of the stamp was to show that the dispatch reached Major Esterhazy’s residence. Thereupon I ask: Was thebordereau, or the papers contained in the package that contained the dispatch, or the papers proceeding from the same source,—were any of these considered as coming from Major Esterhazy’s premises?”
Major Lauth.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Then how does Major Lauth reconcile the affirmation that the dispatch originated as Colonel Picquart had said, with the declaration that it had been placed in the cornucopia in which torn documents of this sort were placed?”
Major Lauth.—“It is not for me to explain what Colonel Picquart may have believed.”
M. Labori.—“All right. I take note of this declaration. What, now, was the use of strips placed upon the photograph to conceal traces of tear?”
Major Lauth.—“I did not say that I had placed strips in such a way as to remove traces of writing. Whenever I have had to make a photograph, Colonel Picquart has asked me to cover up certain lines, or certain words with a line in the middle. On each occasion I have made plates concealing a part. He did not explain to me his purpose.”
M. Labori.—“I am much pleased with the answer, for it brings out a point that had escaped me,—that M. Lauth did not intend to say that there was anything singular in this photographic treatment of the dispatch.”
Major Lauth.—“Pardon me, I say that I did not conceal the text. I had to remove traces of tear, in order to give the dispatch the appearance of a document absolutely new and intact.”
M. Labori.—“Was Major Lauth ever asked to remove the appearance of tear from the original?”
Major Lauth.—“Oh! that would not have been possible.”
M. Labori.—“The reply satisfies me. Was not thebordereaualso in bits?”
Major Lauth.—“Yes.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Into how many pieces was the dispatch torn?”
Major Lauth.—“Perhaps sixty.”
M. Clemenceau.—“How large was the largest piece?”
Major Lauth.—“Perhaps one-twentieth of a square inch.”
M. Clemenceau.—“How were these pieces reassembled?”
Major Lauth.—“I have no explanations to furnish concerning that matter.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Probably you misunderstand me. It is a material fact that cannot concern the national defence. I asked by what method the pieces of a document are reassembled when they are found, as these were, in a cornucopia.”
Major Lauth.—“The dispatch was pasted after I had hadthe pieces arranged in their proper places. When Colonel Picquart gave it to me, it was in the form of fragments of paper mingled with many others.”
M. Clemenceau.—“When Colonel Picquart asked M. Lauth, according to the latter’s testimony, if he could not cause a post-office stamp to be put upon the dispatch, in what condition was the dispatch?”
Major Lauth.—“The pieces had been reassembled.”
M. Clemenceau.—“By what process?”
Major Lauth.—“By the use of a transparent paper, cut in very narrow strips that followed almost exactly the traces of the tearing.”
M. Clemenceau.—“On which side of the dispatch were these strips pasted?”
Major Lauth.—“On the addressed side.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then will Major Lauth explain to us, accepting the improbable supposition that he had complied with Colonel Picquart’s desire, where he would have had the post-office stamp placed?”
Major Lauth.—“In the first place, he did not ask me to have the paper stamped. He said to me: ‘Do you think that they would stamp it?’ It is not for me to inquire what his purpose was.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I wanted to know how M. Lauth could explain the alleged fact that Colonel Picquart asked to have a post-office stamp placed upon this document by any third party whomsoever, to give it authenticity, when, according to M. Lauth’s testimony, there was no place on it where a stamp could be put without putting it in part on the strips of gummed paper?”
Major Lauth.—“I have no explanation to give.”
M. Clemenceau.—“If the dispatch comes from the cornucopia, it is torn and not stamped. If it comes from the post-office, it is stamped and not torn. When the chief of staff shall call for the original, if it is shown to him torn and stamped, because coming from the post, he will ask: ‘Why is it torn?’ Another hypothesis: Assuming the dispatch to be torn and stamped, it can have but one origin. It must come from Major Esterhazy’s premises, because, stamped, it had been in the mails, and, torn, Major Esterhazy must have torn it. Now, Major Lauth has just said that it has never been pretended that the dispatch came from Major Esterhazy’s premises.”
M. Labori.—“When you compared Major Esterhazy’s handwriting with thebordereau, was the original of thebordereaubefore you, or the photographs only?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Photographs only. The original of thebordereauwas in the Dreyfus file, sealed. That file has been unsealed only twice, when General Gonse had occasion to withdraw some papers from it.”
The Judge.—“Did the photographs conform absolutely to the original?”
Colonel Picquart.—“They were used for the experts.”
Colonel Henry was then recalled, and re-examined as to the interview which he claims to have surprised between M. Leblois and Colonel Picquart in the latter’s office. Being asked whether he saw the secret file and the document beginning with the words: “That scoundrel D——,” he answered:
“It was in October, I think. I have never been able to fix the date precisely. All that I know is that there was an open file in the room. The colonel was sitting on his left leg, and at his left sat M. Leblois, and before them on the desk were several files, among others the secret file which I had so labelled, and on the back of which I had placed my signature, or rather my initial, with blue pencil. I saw the words: ‘secret file.’ The envelope was open, and the document in question was outside of it. A few days later I met General Gonse, who said to me: ‘How are things going? What progress is Colonel Picquart making?’ I answered: ‘Things are going rather slowly. Colonel Picquart is still absorbed in his Esterhazy matter.’ ‘Ah! that is bad, because the business of the office is suffering a little.’ ‘And do the indiscretions continue?’ ‘Oh! the indiscretions do not concern me.’ Whereupon I said: ‘In view of the indiscretions, perhaps you would do well to take possession of the secret file,—there was then only one in the department,—for I saw it a few days ago on his desk, in the presence of a third person.’ I did not name the person. I believe that two or three days later the general took possession of it. Whether he took it himself, or asked Colonel Picquart to send it to him, I do not know.”
The court then recalled General Gonse, and asked him whether the file was in disorder when it was returned to him.
General Gonse.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“Colonel Picquart, what have you to say?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I repeat that I never had the file on my table in the presence of M. Leblois, either open or closed. Moreover, it seems a material impossibility that the thing should have occurred as Colonel Henry says, if M. Leblois proves that he returned to Paris November 7. ColonelHenry has just told you that, a few days after witnessing this scene, he spoke of it to General Gonse and advised him to call for the file, and that General Gonse did so call a few days later. Now, General Gonse has testified on previous occasions that he asked me for the file a few days before my departure.”
The Judge.—“You hear, Colonel Henry. Had you the secret file?”
Colonel Henry.—“M. Leblois admitted it before the council of war. He said: ‘In view of the precise declarations of Colonel Henry, I certainly cannot contradict him.’ You can appeal to the members of the council of war.”
M. Leblois, being recalled, said:
“No, I did not admit it. This is what happened before the council of war. Colonel Henry said simply that there was a file on Colonel Picquart’s table. He said nothing of a photograph, and specified no date, and I said to him: ‘Colonel, I believe that you are mistaken, but, as it is not my habit to make a minute inventory of the documents that are lying on the desks of people when I go to see them, I consider that it is not for me, but rather for Colonel Picquart, to say whether at any time whatsoever there was on his desk an envelope bearing the words “secret file.”’ I said very firmly to Colonel Henry: ‘I do not wish to contradict you, not simply out of politeness, but because I consider that it is for Colonel Picquart to contradict this statement, if it is incorrect.’ But, if he had made a more precise statement, and had said what he has just said,—that the file included a photograph,—I would have contradicted him absolutely.”
Colonel Henry.—“I contradict M. Leblois absolutely. This is what I said before the council of war: ‘Before these gentlemen lay a secret file and a photographed document, the document half out of the envelope and beginning with these words, “That scoundrel D——”’”
The Judge.—“Did you see the document?”
Colonel Henry.—“Yes.”
M. Leblois.—“But the colonel has just admitted that he said that the photograph was not out of the envelope. Could Colonel Henry explain to us how he reconciles his present evidence, M. Leblois and Colonel Picquart turning their backs to the desk, with his evidence given at the investigation and thus stated in Major Ravary’s report: ‘When Colonel Henry, on his return to Paris, entered Colonel Picquart’s office, he saw M. Leblois, from whom the colonel received long and frequent visits, sitting near the desk and searching with him a secret file.’”
Colonel Henry.—“Searching ... searching?”
M. Labori.—“Either Colonel Henry does not tell the truth, or else the truth is not told in Major Ravary’s report.”
Colonel Henry [walking toward Labori].—“I will not permit you to call my words in question. I will not permit it.”
M. Labori.—“I say that there is a formal contradiction between Major Ravary’s report and your evidence.”
Colonel Henry.—“That is not my affair.”
M. Labori.—“Possibly not, but it is mine.”
Colonel Henry.—“Ask an explanation of Major Ravary.”
M. Labori.—“At present I can seek an explanation only from you, who are here.”
Colonel Henry.—“The expression ‘searching,’ if it is not real, is at least figurative.”
M. Labori.—“What was the date of this visit?”
Colonel Henry.—“I said that it was in October. At any rate, on my return from leave. I have always said October, I think, and I cannot say anything else.”
M. Leblois.—“Variations as to facts, variations as to dates. It is very difficult for a witness, with the best will in the world, to follow his adversaries over ground so shifting.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Did Colonel Henry enter my office by the door opposite the desk, or by the little side door?”
Colonel Henry.—“By the main door.”
Colonel Picquart.—“About how far into the office did he come?”
Colonel Henry.—“I could not say whether it was four inches or a step.”
Colonel Picquart.—“But Colonel Henry was on the other side of my desk; that is, on the side opposite to that where I was sitting.”
Colonel Henry.—“Opposite you, and I perfectly saw the document, for it was the place in which I stood that enabled me to see the document and the file.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I shall ask to be shown the document. General de Pellieux showed it to me in his office, and at a distance. It is a very obscure photograph. I had to put my nose into it in order to recognize this document, which does not readCette canaille de D ..., butCe canaille de D....”
Colonel Henry.—“I would know it at a distance of ten steps. This is not to be disputed, especially when one is inthe habit of seeing a document, and I have seen this more than once. I formally maintain my assertion, and I say again: Colonel Picquart has lied.”
The Judge.—“You are in disaccord.”
M. Labori.—“Permit me. What,Monsieur le Président, do I rightly understand? You say ‘in disaccord’! For the second time an offence has been committed in this court. A witness has been insulted by another witness, and the only thing that you have to say is: ‘These witnesses are not in accord.’ I take note of it.”
The Judge.—“You will take note of what you like.”
M. Labori.—“Since Colonel Picquart, being addressed as he has just been addressed by Colonel Henry, hears no comment but this: ‘You are in disaccord,’ I ask that he explain himself unreservedly.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Gentlemen of the jury, you have seen here men like Colonel Henry, Major Lauth, and the keeper of the archives, Gribelin, make odious accusations against me. You have heard the colonel tell me that I have lied. You have heard Major Lauth make without proofs an allegation as serious as that which he made yesterday, saying that it was I, though he had not the proof, but that it must have been I who placed the dispatch in the cornucopia. Well, gentlemen of the jury, do you know why all this is done? You will understand it when you learn that the artisans of the previous affair, which is so intimately connected with the Esterhazy affair,—those who acted conscientiously, I think, believing that they had the truth on their side,—when you learn that Colonel Henry and M. Gribelin, aided by Colonel du Paty de Clam, under the direction of General Gonse, received from the regretted Colonel Sandherr (who was already afflicted with the serious disease of which he afterward died), as a sort of testament, at the time when he left the service, the duty of defending against all attacks this affair which involved the honor of the bureau, and which the bureau had pursued conscientiously, believing that it was acting in accordance with the truth. But I thought otherwise when I was at the head of this service, and considered that there was a better way of defending a cause than that of acting in blind faith. Consequently, for months, insults have been heaped upon me by newspapers paid for the spreading of slander and error.”
M. Zola.—“Exactly.”
Colonel Picquart.—“For months I have been in the most horrible situation that an officer can occupy,—assailed inmy honor, and unable to defend myself. Tomorrow perhaps I shall be driven from this army that I love, and to which I have given twenty-five years of my life. That has not deterred me, remembering, as I did, that it was my duty to seek truth and justice. I have done it, thinking thereby to render a greater service to the army. I considered that I must do my duty as an honest man. That was what I had to say.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did I understand Colonel Henry to say that, a few days after he saw the file on Colonel Picquart’s desk, he spoke of the matter to General Gonse?”
Colonel Henry.—“Perhaps two or three days after; I do not remember exactly.”
M. Clemenceau.—“How long after this conversation with General Gonse did Colonel Picquart leave the bureau?”
Colonel Henry.—“A week, I think.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Summing up the matter, we shall have the truth. The presence of M. Leblois at the war department” ...
The Judge.—“You are not asking questions now.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I wish to bring out the truth.”
The Judge.—“You can bring it out in your argument.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I wish to bring it out now. If you do not wish it, deprive me of the floor. I declare that I can bring out the truth by the testimony of witnesses.”
The Judge.—“Ask questions.”
M. Clemenceau.—“No.”
The Judge.—“You will do what you like in your argument.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then take the floor away from me, and I will be silent.”
The Judge.—“I take the floor away from you so far as summing up is concerned. You can ask questions, if you like.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I wish, by the testimony of two witnesses who are in disaccord, to bring out the proof of the truth.”
The Judge.—“Not now.”
M. Clemenceau.—“But” ...
The Judge.—“When you sum up.”
M. Clemenceau.—“My claim is that, in two words, I can show which of these two officers has committed an involuntary error.”
The Judge.—“Ask questions. You have not the floor for arguing the matter.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Have I the floor for proving the truth?”
The Judge.—“I deprive you of the floor for argument.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask you this question,Monsieur le Président. A point is in doubt between two officers of the French army” ...
The Judge.—“You have not the floor for argument. You can offer a motion; that is all.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Two officers have contradicted each other. If you will accord me the floor, I will, in two words” ...
The Judge.—“No. Offer a motion. I do not accord you the floor.”
M. Clemenceau.—“And Article 319?”
The Judge.—“I know it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Gentlemen of the jury, permit me to read to you Article 319.”
The Judge.—“I know it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It is to the jurors that I wish to read it.”
The Judge.—“Read if you like, but you will read it to the jurors, who have nothing to do with it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The jurors have everything to do with it. I take note of these words. I will not allow it to be said in presence of the jury that it has nothing to do with this matter. IfMonsieur le Présidentadheres to those words, I ask him to repeat them.”
The Judge.—“The jurors have nothing to do with the direction of the trial.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I read Article 319, second part. ‘The witness must not be interrupted. The accused or his counsel may question him through the president after his disposition, and say, as well against him as against his testimony, anything that may be useful to the defence of the accused.’Monsieur le Président, in conformity with the terms of this article, I ask the floor to point out which of these two officers is right.”
The Judge.—“But you will point it out in your argument.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Monsieur le Président, I need to point it out in the presence of these two officers, because, if I am mistaken, one of the two will correct me.”
The Judge.—“Explain, then, the question that you are going to put. I will put it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Colonel Henry says: ‘I spoke to General Gonse of what I saw in Colonel Picquart’s office,three days after having seen M. Leblois in Colonel Picquart’s office.’ Colonel Henry says also: ‘Colonel Picquart left the service about a week after I spoke to General Gonse.’ I point out to the witness—and this is the purpose of my question—that in good arithmetic eight and three make eleven, and that the visit of M. Leblois, as is established undeniably, must have occurred between November 9, the date of M. Leblois’s return to Paris, and November 14, the date of Colonel Picquart’s departure from the service,—a period of five days. Between five and eleven days there is a difference of six days. I call Colonel Henry’s attention to the error of six days, and I ask him what he has to say about it.”
Colonel Henry.—“You understand that I do not specify dates to a day. I have not spoken of dates.”
This finishing the confrontation of Colonel Picquart with those who had contradicted him, the witness-stand was taken by M. Demange, the counsel of Captain Dreyfus before the council of war.
M. Labori.—“Will M. Demange tell us what he knows of the Esterhazy case, and of any matters connected with it that may be useful as throwing light upon M. Zola’s good faith?”
The Judge.—“Speak only of the Esterhazy case; nothing else.”
M. Demange.—“Exactly,Monsieur le Président. In the latter part of October I learned through the newspapers that M. Scheurer-Kestner had become convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus, and was at work to secure his rehabilitation. I wrote to M. Scheurer-Kestner, asking him to make known publicly at the tribune or elsewhere his reasons for affirming the innocence of Dreyfus. He did not answer, the reason of his silence being, as I found out later, that my letter came during the fortnight in which he had promised General Billot to say nothing. Therefore I was much agitated in mind until November 13 or 14, the day before M. Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Captain Esterhazy as the author of thebordereaubefore the minister of war. On that day M. Mathieu Dreyfus came to my house in a state of great agitation, bringing with him a sample of handwriting astonishingly like that of thebordereau, and said to me: ‘M. Scheurer-Kestner says that it is my duty to denounce as the author of thebordereauM. Esterhazy, whose writing this is.’ Obeying afeeling of prudence, I said to M. Mathieu Dreyfus; ‘Do what M. Scheurer-Kestner has told you to do; but, first, I advise you to ask him to declare publicly that he has designated to the minister of war as the author of thebordereauthe person whom you are about to denounce; thus no one will be able to question your good faith. And, since you have only the handwriting, confine yourself to denouncing M. Esterhazy as the author of thebordereau, and go no farther.’ I was much excited, for I saw a chance for a revision of the Dreyfus case. I had already resolved, moreover, to address myself to the minister of justice, since I had learned from M. Salle that there had been a violation of the law. But I had not yet done so, for a reason that I may point out. Before employing the legal course, and especially that belonging to me by virtue of Article 441 of the code of criminal examination,—that is, the nullification of the sentence on the ground of violation of law,—I desired the assistance of those who, wearing the robe as I do, are anxious concerning the rights of defence. I awaited very impatiently the Esterhazy trial. I was present at that portion of it which was held in public, and even asked permission to intervene that there might be a contradictor. The permission was refused. But what especially interested me was the testimony of the experts. It was here that I expected to find the new fact necessary to the obtaining of a revision in case of Esterhazy’s acquittal. Dreyfus having been convicted only on thebordereauand on handwriting, the expert testimony in the case of M. Esterhazy might bring out elements that would permit me to say to the minister of justice: ‘Here is the new fact.’ I knew from M. Ravary’s report that the experts had concluded that the writing was not M Esterhazy’s, but I did not know their reasons. I got no satisfaction, because of the closing of the doors, and thus this method of revision was cut off. There remained then the method of nullification. But I could not apply to the minister of justice, unless I was certain that the door would open, should I knock. Now, the conditions under which the Esterhazy trial took place had convinced me that the government did not desire to throw light on the Dreyfus case.
“What could I do? I could say to the minister of justice: ‘I am morally certain that there has been a violation of the law,’ but I could not give him legal proof. I had to do, then, what is done in cases of this sort,—call on the minister of justice for an investigation, in order to have myassertion verified. I did not wish to take the step alone, and at that moment I had not found the desired assistance, either among lawyers or among those in political life. They said to me: ‘Have a care: do not stir up this Dreyfus matter now. It is too soon; we must wait.’ And I was waiting at the time when M. Scheurer-Kestner brought his facts to the knowledge of the public. It was necessary to my purpose to have a government desirous of throwing full light upon the matter, because, if there was to be a revision, it should not take place behind closed doors. When seven officers who are honesty itself have condemned a man erroneously, public opinion cannot be convinced, unless their error can be precisely pointed out. Well, I was convinced that the government did not want the light, and so I asked myself what I should do. Then were unchained the passions which today are making such riot, preventing men from giving further thought to the fate of my unfortunate client. It is no longer a question of the Dreyfus case; it is a question of the honor of the army; it is the struggle between the Semites and the anti-Semites. But I, alas! am concerned only with the interests of my client. Consequently, I said to myself, we must await more peaceful times, and I said the same to M. Mathieu Dreyfus and to Mme. Dreyfus. The attorney-general has told you that recourse had been had to revolutionary methods; but this reproach cannot be addressed to M. Zola, because he had not the power to use the legal methods. Only the Dreyfus family could use those, and consequently it is the Dreyfus family that is to be reproached, and, indirectly, myself. And I might even tell you that, for a long time, and especially since the speech of the attorney-general, I have been receiving every morning letters signed and unsigned, the former polite, the latter anything but polite, in which I am reproached with having failed in my duty. I consider that I have not failed. My duty has always been before my eyes, and you may be certain that my conscience will never allow me to shrink from it. But I believe that I acted very prudently in advising M. Dreyfus to wait. And so it is that the Esterhazy case, which had given me hope that I could resort to the legal methods of securing a revision, has made it impossible for me to use these methods, because it has convinced me that the government does not want the light.”
M. Labori.—“Will M. Demange tell us what he thinks of this passage from Major Ravary’s report? ‘To sum up whatis left, a painful impression which will have an echo in all hearts truly French. Of the actors in the cast some have acted in the presence of the public, others have remained behind the scenes; but all the methods employed had the same end in view,—the revision of a judgment legally and justly rendered.’”
M. Demange.—“Since I desired to apply to the minister of justice for a nullification of the judgment, I could not have considered it legally rendered.”
M. Labori.—“Why not?”
The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”
M. Labori.—“But it concerns the Esterhazy case.”
M. Demange.—“I told you a moment ago. I had learned from M. Salle that there had been a violation of the law. That is why I wanted to apply to the minister.”
M. Labori.—“What violation?”
The Judge.—“No, no, M. Demange; do not answer that.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Permit me to ask a question.Monsieur le Président, I point out to you, in the first place, that an incident which lasted a very long time, and in which Colonel Henry figured, bore exclusively on the Dreyfus case; taking advantage of this observation, I ask you to put to M. Demange the following question. M. Demange has just told us, and is forbidden further explanation by the court, that he was certain that the verdict had not been legally rendered. I ask him if he cannot tell us on what he bases this certainty, and especially if he does not base it on the fact that a member of the council of war so declared to M. Salle, who has so declared to him.”
M. Demange.—“Why, yes, of course.”
The Judge.—“M. Demange, do not answer.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask you,Monsieur le Président, to put the question.”
The Judge.—“No, no, I will not put the question.”
M. Labori.—“I have another question to ask M. Demange. There appeared in ‘Le Matin’ a few days ago a three-column interview, containing most interesting things, most of which, to my personal knowledge, are perfectly true. Without asking M. Demange if the interview took place at his house, I ask him to say if the statements of the interview are true.”
M. Demange.—“In the first place, there was no interview. I had received a letter from a professor of the university, and a letter from two young licentiates who spoke in the name of the students more than a month ago. These two letters, which were signed, were very polite, and theyaccused me of failing in my duty, saying: ‘You know, M. Demange, that an illegality has been committed; why do you not apply to the minister of justice?’ These letters said that I was the cause of the appearance of M. Zola’s article. They said that, if I had applied to the minister of justice, none of this hubbub would have occurred. It is not a question, then, of an interview. I answered the professor and the young people, inviting them to come to see me. They came, and I had a confidential talk with them. The professor has respected my confidence, but the young people have not followed his example.”
M. Labori.—“Does M. Demange know the reasons why M. Leblois never entered into relations with the Dreyfus family or with M. Demange?”
M. Demange.—“He never told me the reasons. I have even reproached him for it. I told him that then we should have been able to apply to the minister of justice.”
M. Labori.—“Did M. Demange see thebordereauthat was produced in the Esterhazy case?”
M. Demange.—“I believe I did.”
M. Labori.—“Did he see it in the original?”
M. Demange.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“Has he seen the photographs of it?”
M. Demange.—“I have seen the original on file, and I had in my possession, in the court-room, a photograph, which I restored at the end of the trial.”
M. Labori.—“Is M. Demange familiar with thefac-similethat was published in ‘Le Matin’?”
M. Demange.—“I should say so. As soon as I saw it, forgetting that I had no longer the photograph in my hands, I said to myself: ‘Very likely it will be charged that I gave this to “Le Matin”.’”
M. Labori.—“Then there was a resemblance between thisfac-simileand thebordereau?”
M. Demange.—“A striking resemblance. You have not the original, then?”
M. Labori.—“No, but we should very much like to have it. Is M. Demange aware that General de Pellieux has declared that between thefac-simileand the original there is no resemblance? What does M. Demange think of that?”
M. Demange.—“I think that two honest men can differ in opinion.”