The Judge.—“This has no relation to your motion. I am going to deprive you of the floor.”
M. Labori.—“If you deprive me of the floor,Monsieur le Président, it will be said that General de Pellieux was allowed to speak here for half an hour, and that I was not permitted to answer him. I await your decision.”
The Judge.—“You have the floor, but in support of your motion. Let us have done with it.”
M. Labori.—“If this expression, ‘Let us have done with it,’ indicates that I am disagreeable to the court, I am very much grieved; but I have no desire to have done with it. I want the light. Entrusted with the defence of Emile Zola, I will go to the last extremity to get it. I assure you that you do not excite me at all. I ask only for a moment’s rest, and will then speak to the end with tranquillity.”
The Judge.—“You speak of all sorts of things. That is why we shall come to no end, and you have not said a word regarding your motion.”
M. Labori.—“I am saying something now of greater consequence than my motion.”
The Judge.—“But we are not here to hear all these things. This is the first time that I witness such a struggle.”
M. Labori.—“Because it is the first time that there has been maintained, in the name of the law, a judicial error which must come to light,—which will come to light in a few days, if it does not today. General de Pellieux has said: ‘Innocent or guilty.’”
The Judge.—“According to Article 311 of the code of examination, I tell you that you must explain yourself with moderation.”
M. Labori.—“Will you tell me,Monsieur le Président, what expression has fallen from my lips that was lacking in moderation?”
The Judge.—“Everything that you say.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I do not accept your warning, unless it is made more precise.”
The Judge.—“I repeat that this incident has now taken up ten minutes. Develop your motion simply.”
M. Labori.—“If you ask me to be moderate, and ask me in terms that resemble a warning or a censure, and if you do not tell me why you inflict this censure upon me” ...
The Judge.—“Will you speak in support of your motion?”
M. Labori.—“But,Monsieur le Président, do you hold to what you just said?”
The Judge.—“I have no account to render to you.”
M. Labori.—“Very well. This observation made, it is agreed that not one of my words can be reprimanded or blamed, and I continue. Article 319 declares that the witness, no matter how many stripes he may wear, cannot have the upper hand of the defence. M. de Pellieux is not the accused party here. If he were, he would have the same right that we have, and, if he were the complainant against the accused on behalf of the public, he could take the floor. But he is not. The staff has said to itself that it has in General de Pellieux a distinguished orator, and so it sends him here every day to begin the hearing with an argument against such portions of the demonstrations and evidence of the day before as seem overwhelming. Well, I say that, if ever Article 319 is to be applied, this is the time for it.”
The court retired for five minutes, and then rendered a decree refusing the floor to the counsel for the defence for the purpose for which he asked it, on the ground that it was the duty of the court, according to Article 270 of the code ofcriminal examination, to exclude everything that would needlessly prolong the trial.
M. Labori.—“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard.”
The Judge.—“He is not here.”
M. Labori.—“I know it, but his place is here. I ask that he be sent for, and confronted with General de Pellieux.”
The Judge.—“He will come when he is free.”
M. Labori.—“Yes, at five o’clock tonight, when the hearing is over.”
The Judge.—“We will send for him soon.”
M. Labori.—“At once. I will ask no other question until he is summoned.”
But, in spite of this, Colonel Picquart was not heard, the witnesses that were called to the bar in the meantime occupying the rest of the session. The first was M. Scheurer-Kestner, who appeared in order to contradict some points in the testimony of the expert, Teyssonnière.
“M. Teyssonnière,” said M. Scheurer-Kestner, “made an incredible blunder when he said that I showed him on Sunday, July 11, specimens of Esterhazy’s handwriting. It is a monstrous error, for on July 11, when M. Teyssonnière came to see me,—and we have not met since,—I had never heard the name of Esterhazy.”
M. Teyssonnière.—“I thought that Esterhazy’s name was mentioned. At least I found it on my notes.”
M. Labori.—“What notes?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“The notes that I take daily.”
M. Labori.—“How could you have found the name of Esterhazy on your notes at a time when nobody was thinking about it? Your conversation with M. Scheurer-Kestner was in July, and it was on November 17 that M. Mathieu Dreyfus pronounced Esterhazy’s name for the first time in denouncing him to the minister of war. Now, M. Teyssonnière, ‘La Libre Parole’ publishes this morning an article in which it is said that M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux tried to get you to modify your opinions. Are you in any way connected with the publication of this article?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“The article contains a letter written to you by M. Trarieux. Who gave the letter to that newspaper?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“I did.”
M. Labori.—“M. Trarieux, keeper of the seals, secured your restoration to the list of experts, after your name had been stricken from it. You have a way of showing gratitude that is peculiar to yourself.”
M. Teyssonnière.—“M. Trarieux in his testimony committed errors concerning me which I will qualify as lies. I did not go in search of him. I was sent to him.”
M. Labori.—“Have M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux brought any pressure to bear upon your conscience?”
M. Teyssonnière.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Well, then, be off.”
M. Trarieux.—“Pardon me. I should like to know on what point M. Teyssonnière pretends that I lied. He cannot say. He admits that I took an interest in him at the time when his name was stricken from the list of experts, and now he covers me with odious slander, and pretends that I drew him into some trap to get him to modify his conclusions as an expert.”
M. Teyssonnière.—“I have not said that.”
M. Trarieux.—“Then why do you carry a letter to ‘La Libre Parole,’ if not to permit that journal to publish it with venomous insinuations? I will not rest quiet under these calumnies. Never did I ask anything of you. It was you who wanted to force your opinions upon me.”
M. Trarieux then produced a letter from M. Teyssonnière in which he insisted on coming to show him his report in the Dreyfus case, and to scientifically prove the guilt of the condemned man.
M. Labori.—“Why did General de Pellieux declare that we reject the official experts, while appealing to foreigners and dentists? Why! when the staff experts are questioned by us, they preserve an obstinate silence. Could not General de Pellieux loosen their tongues? It is not words that we want, but reasons. What answer, indeed, can be made to men like M. Louis Havet, M. Molinier, or the director of the Ecole des Chartes? I fancy that you will not disdain these men as dentists. You think that you have said all when you have cried: ‘Good jurors, we shall have war.’ War? Who here is afraid of it? Not you or I, General de Pellieux. But we are entitled to know whether our chiefs are worthy of us. Then let them fear neither discussion or light. I ask that General de Pellieux be confronted with M. Meyer.”
The court gave its consent, and M. Labori put this question to General de Pellieux: “Will you explain your statement that thefac-simile‘Matin’ was a forgery?”
General de Pellieux.—“I maintain that among thefac-similesreproduced by the journals there are some that singularly resemble forgeries.”
M. Paul Meyer.—“But what interest had ‘Le Matin’ in committing a forgery in 1896, when nobody was thinking of Major Esterhazy?”
General de Pellieux.—“I have always said that the reproduction made by ‘Le Matin’ was the least imperfect of all. It is not the same with thefac-similesthat have appeared in certain pamphlets.”
M. Meyer.—“I have made no use of those. But the resemblance, according to ‘Le Matin’s’fac-simile, between Major Esterhazy’s writing and the writing of thebordereauis undeniable.”
General de Pellieux.—“You have never seen the original of thebordereau.”
M. Meyer.—“I have seen the ‘Matin’fac-simile, the fidelity of which has been admitted by M. Bertillon. That is sufficient for me. No one called your word in question, my general, but you are lacking in the power of observation. As for your experts, you perhaps will permit me to say that I do not consider myself beneath them in point of intelligence. The president of the civil court asks me to select most of them. Do you think that, if I had selected myself, he would have blackballed me? I prefer an expert examination made by myself from afac-simile, to an expert examination made from an original by people whom I do not know.”
M. Meyer then asked General de Pellieux to procure for him at least the original photographs of thebordereau.
General de Pellieux.—“Oh! I would like nothing better, and I regret that the reports of the Esterhazy experts cannot be brought here and discussed. I was absolutely opposed to closed doors. They were declared in spite of me, but I have no right to violate them.”
M. Labori.—“But certainly somebody has a right to authorize this production. Let the order be given, and the light will stream forth. Oh! we have made some progress in the last week. Here we are, almost in agreement. If this trial goes on, we shall all walk out of here like honest people, arm in arm. It will be admitted that there has been only an immense misunderstanding between us, and that nothing is easier than to honestly repair a judicial error involuntarily committed. Well, my general, do what we ask. Get the minister of war to produce thebordereau. Pray him to show us this bit of transparent paper which is so securely locked up in his department, and let everybody see it. If it were not that certain minds are anchored in a blind obstinacy, we should soon see that in this whole matterthere is not wherewith to whip a cat. It is a great pity that M. Couard is not here. It would be a pleasure to witness a discussion between him and M. Meyer, his former professor in the Ecole des Chartes.”
“I ask nothing better,” cried a stentorian voice, from the middle of the auditorium, and through the crowd pushed M. Couard, carrying a large package.
“I do not wish it to be said,” he shouted, “that I have not the profoundest respect for my old teacher. But what is the Ecole des Chartes? The Ecole des Chartes, I know it. I have been through it. Do they teach anything there about the handwriting of the nineteenth century? The fifteenth, the sixteenth, I even grant you the seventeenth and eighteenth, if you please; but contemporary handwriting? Why, there is not a single chair of modern handwriting there. I revere M. Meyer as a professor of Roman philology, but as an expert in handwriting he is like a child just born. Why, I was present at the development of a thesis on the famous flag of Jeanne Hachette, which is preserved at Beauvais. The candidate had deciphered upon it all sorts of interesting fifteenth-century inscriptions. I twisted with laughter. His description was based upon a flag manufactured in 1840 to replace the true one, which is worm-eaten, and of which nothing is left but shreds, upon which it is impossible to read anything. ‘Each one to his trade, then the cows will be well kept.’”
M. Meyer.—“If there is no instruction in writings at the Ecole des Chartes, where did you get your instruction, Monsieur Expert?”
M. Couard.—“By practice, my dear master,—practice for eight years.”
M. Meyer.—“Pardon me, I do not defend myself. Pupils are always the best judges of their professors.”
M. Labori.—“What is the package, so preciously wrapped, that you have there under the table? Does it contain, perchance, photographs of thebordereau?”
M. Couard.—“No, it is the famous dissertation upon the flag of Jeanne Hachette. I see what you are after. You wish to turn the course of my testimony. But it is established, nevertheless, that my old teacher is only an expert on occasion.”
The next witness was M. Paul Moriaud, professor in the Geneva law school. He desired to use a blackboard for hisdemonstrations, as M. Franck had done the day before, but the court refused to permit him to do so. After declaring that there were never two handwritings so nearly identical as that of Esterhazy and that of thebordereau, he discussed the question whether thebordereauwas produced by tracing.
“Tracing,” said the witness, “can be done in two ways. There is first the tracing of entire words separately. Suppose you desired to produce this phrase: ‘You are right, Monsieur,’ signed ‘So and So.’ You procure a specimen of the writing of M. So and So, and you look for the word ‘are,’ the word ‘right,’ etc. You paste them side by side, you cut out the signature and paste it beneath, and you photograph the whole; or else you trace them. In this case we may suppose tracing, for thebordereauis on tracing-paper. Here you have 181 words, almost all different. There are rare words among them,—Madagascar, check, hydraulic, indicating, etc. Well, if you should collect Major Esterhazy’s letters for ten years, and try to find in them all the words that are in thisbordereau, you would not succeed. The process is an utter impossibility.
“You have been told by previous witnesses of the style and punctuation of thebordereau. I wish to say something of the way in which the words are placed. M. Esterhazy begins his paragraphs without indention. The lines that begin paragraphs are as long as their predecessors. Furthermore, he never divides a word at the end of a line. If there is not room for it, he runs it over to the next line. Now, you find that in thebordereau. Another thing. Thebordereauis not in the same handwriting throughout. Now, M. Esterhazy’s handwriting is very variable. He writes coarse or fine, according to circumstances. Now, these two handwritings of Major Esterhazy are to be seen in thebordereau. The first fourteen lines are written in a more compact, more calm, more legible, finer handwriting, the last sixteen in a larger, looser hand. Now, if thebordereauhad been traced, what would have been the result? All the words would have been in the same handwriting, either one or the other; or else there would have been a mixture, one word in one handwriting and the next in the other. But in thebordereauall the first part is in one handwriting, and all the second part in the other, which clearly shows that M. Esterhazy wrote thebordereauat two sittings, in two different states of mind.
“Some words are repeated in thebordereau. The wordne, for instance, occurs four times; the worddeseven times. It is very evident that, if these words had been hunted for inM. Esterhazy’s letters, in order to trace them, on finding the wordnethey would have copied it four times. But such is not the case. If we had time, I would propose a little experiment. I would ask you to cut from thebordereauone of the four wordsne, and give it to me; whereupon I would immediately tell you which one of the four it was. Or you might do the same thing with the wordvous, which occurs six times. If you will cut it out and show it to me, I will tell you whether it is the fourth, the fifth, or the sixth. They are so different that, from memory, in spite of the inevitable confusion that takes possession of a man when he speaks in public and among strangers, I should be able to recognize them, which proves that each of these words was written individually by M. Esterhazy. No two persons ever write the same word exactly like, and no person ever writes a word twice in exactly the same way. And so in thebordereauthere is this variety of form which life always gives.
“The last argument. As I said, M. Esterhazy never divides his words, but, if the end of the word is far from the end of the line, he makes a long final stroke, often immoderately long; and a curious thing, that I have never seen in the handwriting of anybody else, is this: if the word at the end of a line is a little word, and if M. Esterhazy has much room, he writes the word in a larger hand. You will find, for instance, at the end of a line an immoderately largene, which seems almost in another handwriting. Now, that is precisely what you will find in M. Esterhazy’s letters, the elongation of the final strokes to fill out the blank space at the end of a line; which proves clearly that these words were not taken here and there from Esterhazy’s letters. I consider this demonstration irresistible, and, whether its truth be admitted or not today, the day will come whensavantswill take these documents and say that M. Esterhazy wrote thebordereau, and there will be no doubt about it whatever. There may have been an original corresponding as a whole to thebordereau, but in that case M. Esterhazy wrote the original. If it be insisted that somebody has imitated M. Esterhazy’s handwriting, the imitator was M. Esterhazy himself.”
At the end of this demonstration the court adjourned.
After a renewed demand on the part of the defence for the production of the original of thebordereau, and a refusal ofthe court to order its production, M. Paul Moriaud again took the stand to testify concerning the Uhlan letter. In this letter he pointed out various peculiarities tending to identify M. Esterhazy as the writer, especially thexform given to the lettern, giving the word “Uhlan” the appearance of “Uhlax,”—a peculiarity which had been pointed out in thebordereaua year previously by an expert to whom M. Esterhazy’s writing was unknown.
M. Moriaud was confronted with M. Varinard, who persisted that the Uhlan letter is a forgery, though saying that he could not give his reasons without having the original before him. The defence then asked for the production of the letter.
M. Clemenceau.—“Does not General de Pellieux think that it is of interest to the honor of the army to know whether a French officer wrote such a letter?”
General de Pellieux [advancing to the bar].—“Of the highest interest. On this point I agree with the defence, and there is not a single officer who does not share my sentiment. Major Esterhazy’s letters were written in 1882. I myself ask for their production.”
It was agreed that the letter should be produced the following day, and publicly examined by experts. Before the closing of the incident M. Clemenceau asked General de Pellieux whether any alterations to which the letter had been subjected must not have occurred while it was in Mme. de Boulancy’s possession.
General de Pellieux.—“Surely; it was placed under seal by me.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Under open seal (by sealing a thread passed through the corner of the document). Does not that sort of seal leave the document uncovered?”
Testimony was then given by M. Giry, professor in the Ecole des Chartes, and by Dr. Hericourt, editor of the “Revue Scientifique,” to the effect that the similarity between the writing of thebordereauand that of Major Esterhazy amounts to identity, after which Colonel Picquart was called to the stand.
M. Labori.—“Yesterday General de Pellieux declared that Major Esterhazy could not have procured in 1894 the documents enumerated in thebordereau. What has Colonel Picquart to say in answer to that?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I should not have approached this question, if it had not been brought up here yesterday; but now my duty to tell the truth obliges me to give myopinions in regard to thisbordereau. I beg that my words may not be misinterpreted. Some things that I shall say perhaps will contradict what General de Pellieux has said, but I believe it my duty to say what I think. Permit me to view this question of thebordereauin a general way. I am accustomed to deal with these questions, having been occupied with them on other staffs, prior to my service of a year and a half as chief of the bureau of information. Well, thebordereauenumerates documents of much less importance, in my opinion, than that which has been attributed to them. I note in the first place this passage:
I address you meantime:(1) A note on the hydraulic check;(2) A note on thetroupes de couverture;(3) A note on the firing manual;(4) A note relating to Madagascar.
I address you meantime:
(1) A note on the hydraulic check;(2) A note on thetroupes de couverture;(3) A note on the firing manual;(4) A note relating to Madagascar.
“Well, these are only notes. Anyone who had had anything serious to furnish, and not simply what he had picked up in conversation, or seen in passing, would have said: ‘I send you a copy of such and such a document.’ When one wishes to give value to his merchandise, he points out its origin. Now, a note indicates simply a personal observation, or perhaps a little copy of something or other drawn from memory, or from the newspapers, or from some other source. I note also this,—that, in the case of the only authentic document, which is not of capital importance, the firing manual, the author of thebordereausaid: ‘Project of a firing manual,’ adding: ‘This last document is extremely difficult to procure,’ thus showing the difficulty that he had in procuring it. Now, could Major Esterhazy have obtained these points of information?”
The Judge.—“That is the question.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I say: ‘Yes.’ When the famous dispatch brought Major Esterhazy’s name to my attention, I, in search of information, applied first to a person belonging to his regiment, who said to me: ‘This man has singular ways. He has been twice to the artillery firing schools, and he asked permission to go a third time at his own expense.’ I know that he explains these frequent visits by saying that he had a country house not far from the Châlons camp. But I would like to know whether on each occasion he went to the Châlons camp. The last time, yes; but the other times I do not think that he did. I cannot assert it,—because I never assert anything of which I am not sure,—but it seems to me that one of the firing schools was at Mans.
“Another thing. An agent informed us that a majorwearing decorations, and about fifty years old, was furnishing documents to a foreign power, especially documents concerning artillery and firing. This points to the conclusion that Esterhazy could give information concerning artillery.
“A third thing. The member of Esterhazy’s regiment to whom I applied told me that Esterhazy had asked him whether he knew anything about the mobilization of artillery. Why did he desire to know that? Consequently I believe that Esterhazy could furnish a personal note as to what he had seen of the hydraulic check and the modifications in artillery formations. The newspapers have said that this matter of a modification in artillery formation was the subject of a legislative bill, and was known, before its introduction, to not a few senators, deputies, and journalists. Now, Esterhazy knew not a few deputies, and was a frequent visitor at newspaper offices.
“Concerning the statement of thebordereau, in relation to thetroupes de couverture, that some modifications will be made by the new plan, I maintain that this expression evidently came from someone not connected with the department, and, if desired, I will go into detail on that matter, but behind closed doors.
“Now I pass to the note concerning Madagascar. It has been said that it could not have been known at the beginning of 1894 that there would be a Madagascar expedition. In the first place, this is simply a note relating to Madagascar. It has nothing at all to do with a project for the participation of land forces in a Madagascar expedition. It may have been copied from a geographical document. There is nothing to indicate that it was of a military character. If it should be said that it must have been of a military character, I would answer that, since the first Madagascar expedition, there has been every year a question of sending somebody there; and I have received letters from many of my comrades, who, knowing that I had served in the colonies, asked me if I could not give them some information, in view of the widespread report that there was to be a Madagascar expedition. I mention this to show that in the beginning of 1894 there was already much talk about Madagascar, though it was not then known that there would be an expedition in which the land forces would take part.
“Now as to this passage from thebordereau:
(5) The project of the manual of artillery campaign practice. This last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite numberto the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.
(5) The project of the manual of artillery campaign practice. This last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite numberto the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.
“Are those the words of an artillery officer connected with the war department? ‘The minister of war has sent a definite number to the corps.’ Why does he talk of the corps? That seems to me to indicate an officer not connected with the department.
“Now I must speak of two very serious matters in thebordereau. It contains this phrase: ‘Unless you wish me to have it copiedin extenso.’ Now, one who wishes to have a document copiedin extensomust have someone at his disposition to make the copy. The writer does not say: ‘Unless I copy for you,’ but ‘Unless you wish me to have it copied.’ When my attention was called to Esterhazy, I said to myself: How, in 1894, could he have had at his disposition secretaries, persons who could copy? The person to whom I applied for information said to me: ‘Esterhazy has always had documents copied for him at home by secretaries, and he is even now having some copied.’ Furthermore, this party said: ‘Esterhazy in 1894 was a major,’—that is, he had a secretary under him. The information that Esterhazy was then a major astonished me, for thebordereausays: ‘I am about to start for the manœuvres,’ and majors generally do not take part in the spring manœuvres. But, on consulting the reports of the 74th of the line, I found there the statement that Major Esterhazy will take part in the manœuvres. Thus I found all the evidence in harmony.
“General de Pellieux spoke yesterday of a secretary named Mulot whom I had questioned. It is perfectly true, and General de Pellieux got the information from me. I ask the jurors to remember the letters written to me by General Gonse, and the testimony given here by General Gonse on February 9. General Gonse, in his letter, told me not to continue with the experts, but to try to find out how the documents were obtained and copied. In his testimony General Gonse said that it was necessary at that moment for me to question the artillery officers with whom Major Esterhazy might have been at the manœuvres and the firing school, and find out what they perhaps had copied. Well, gentlemen, I am astonished that I am now reproached at having sent for Mulot, who was one of the two secretaries employed by Esterhazy. I thought that, if I could be reproached with anything, it was with having questioned only him; and I will tell you why. I had been advised to question the sub-officers, but very discreetly, so that the matterwould not be noised abroad. Well, the difficulties that I met convinced me that it was impossible to get this information without asking for it. So I sent for Mulot, and said to him: ‘There have been indiscretions in the press. The minister desires to know if any documents have been copied in the offices that should not have been.’ He answered: ‘I was the secretary of Major Esterhazy, and copied such and such documents,’ which he enumerated. I could not press him without putting him on the track that I was following. He told me that Esterhazy delivered many lectures, and that he had to copy for him passages from books. I remember only one thing. He spoke to me of a manual. I believe that I showed him the manual of artillery practice, and asked him if that was it. He said: ‘No.’ Then I allowed him to go, and I did not follow up the matter, because it was not possible to do so without compromising Esterhazy and giving rise to rumors. But I am astonished that under these circumstances, it being known that I had questioned Mulot unsuccessfully, Mulot should have been the only one cited before the council of war. I am astonished that they did not summon the other secretaries whom Esterhazy had employed, and especially the secretary that he employed in the spring of 1896 to copy sundry documents for him. One fact is patent,—that at that time the colonel of the 74th gave to Major Esterhazy a confidential document. Its delivery is proved either by a receipt or by a note in that report. Well, at that time Major Esterhazy was employing someone to copy documents or plans for him at home. It would have been interesting to know whether he employed some one to copy the document that his colonel gave him.
“There is another thing, which has deeply saddened me. I hardly think it was General de Pellieux’s intention, but it seems to me that he insinuated yesterday that it was my desire to engage in a corrupt conspiracy against this man. Possibly I spoke to the general of his military situation. Possibly, on the other hand, he first spoke to me of it. But I cannot suffer such a charge to be made against me. There had never been any mention of Mulot’s deposition. I had seen him in the witnesses’ room, but I simply said ‘Good day’ to him, adding: ‘You did not think that you would come here, did you?’ And it was only yesterday that I learned through General de Pellieux’s testimony what was thought of me in the matter.”
General de Pellieux, recalled, declared that he could answer concerning two points only.
“I said yesterday,” he testified, “that the writer of thebordereauwas an officer, an officer in the war department, and a licentiate. I said that he was a licentiate, because in the war offices the officers are somewhat confined by their services, and an officer in one bureau would find difficulty in furnishing information from another bureau, whereas a licentiate goes from one bureau to another, and consequently is in a position to furnish information from many. It is true that Major Esterhazy was at the manœuvres and at the firing schools, but the note on Madagascar, since it was not until August that the matter was elaborated in the war department, could not have been furnished by Esterhazy, because at that time he had been to the firing schools and the manœuvres, and did not go again after August 16, while all the licentiates were at the manœuvres until the end of August. I care nothing for the importance of the documents enumerated; what I wish to prove is that they were not furnished by Esterhazy. One word more. Colonel Picquart says that Mulot’s deposition was made behind closed doors. True, but the investigation was not behind closed doors, and in the investigation he made the declaration that I spoke of yesterday. He made it in presence of Major Ravary, and Major Ravary’s report was not read behind closed doors. Send for Mulot; he will corroborate me.”
M. Labori.—“We shall be glad to send for any witnesses that are desired. We wish to do nothing to increase the darkness. I ask that each of the documents be examined individually. Let Colonel Picquart give his explanations, and let such of them as may be contested be discussed, one by one.”
General Gonse then came to the stand.
“The documents enumerated in thebordereauare, first, the note on cannon 120, and the way in which its hydraulic check works. Well, the piece 120 is a piece which at the time of which we speak was still new. Its check was new. Knowledge of it was confidential and extremely technical. I am not acquainted with the check, and I never saw the piece fired. It is fired only under special conditions. It may be that infantry officers have seen it fired, but only from a distance, and certainly they are not in a position to furnish any serious information regarding it, which indicates that this note is a technical note that could have come only from an artillery officer.”
The Judge.—“What is the second point in thebordereau?”
General Gonse.—“Thetroupes de couverture. There is nothing confidential here. These are troops that go to the frontier when war is declared, to cover the mobilization of a certain region and to prevent incursions of the enemy. They come from points not far from the frontier, either on foot or by rail. Well, in the month of April, or early in 1894, the staff reconstituted the plans for the transportation of thetroupes de couverture. These new plans could not have been known outside of the staff. At this time was made also a plan for the general concentration of the army. But that plan it took a long time to finish, and the plan regarding thetroupes de couverturewent into force in the spring, while the plan of concentration was not completed and put in force until the end of 1894, or the beginning of 1895. Meantime there were some modifications, some changes of garrison among thetroupes de couverture, some modifications in the organization of artillery; consequently thebordereaustates the truth when it adds to the note concerning thetroupes de couverturethat there have been some modifications in the plan. Only an officer of the general staff could have known these modifications and furnished the note regarding them. No officer of troops, not even an officer of a division staff, could have given this information.
“It is certain that anybody may make notes about Madagascar, but in 1894 a note on Madagascar was made, destined for the minister of war,—a secret note indicating measures to be taken, measures that concerned the expedition, a whole series of secret and confidential matters. When thebordereauannounced this note, we were extremely surprised. It did not occur to anyone that the reference might be to a note taken from a newspaper or magazine. As to the firing manual, we never give the manual of artillery practice to infantry regiments; so it seems, too, that only an artillery officer could have furnished that.
“Colonel Picquart said just now that I prescribed the course that he should follow in his investigations, telling him to question artillery officers, which he did. But he fails to say that the result was negative. He went to an artillery regiment in garrison at Versailles, and questioned the officers. But the information given him was negative. Colonel Picquart told me so himself.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I questioned an artillery officer of a regiment in garrison at Versailles, having previously obtained the authorization of the colonel; but I did not go farther for the same reasons that kept me from furtherquestioning the secretary, as I have already stated. Now I come to the question of thebordereau. Dates must not be confused. There were manœuvres in the autumn of 1894, but thebordereauwas written in April. What struck me were the words: ‘I am about to start for the manœuvres.’ It was not the autumn manœuvres that were then approaching.”
General de Pellieux.—“One word. Thebordereauwas not written in April. I appeal to General Gonse.”
M. Labori.—“It has always been said at the war department that it was written in April.”
General de Pellieux.—“Not at all.”
M. Labori.—“This is an interesting point. Will you ask whichever of these gentlemen it is who knows, at what date thebordereauwas written, and at what date it was seized; and, when I say seized, I mean at what date it fell into the hands of the minister?”
General Gonse.—“It reached the department toward the end of September, 1894.”
M. Labori.—“And at what date was it written?”
General Gonse.—“There is no date. It must have been written toward the month of August, since there is a question in it of a note about Madagascar.”
M. Labori.—“Just now General Gonse made use of the phrase: ‘A note on Madagascar,’ as a basis for saying it was certainly very serious, since in the month of August a very serious note on Madagascar was made; and now he makes use of this date, August 10, to fix the date of thebordereau. This is a begging of the question.”
General Gonse.—“Permit me. I do not give the date with absolute certainty. I know only that thebordereaureached the department at the end of September. We suppose that it must have been written toward August.”
M. Labori.—“At what date was the important note on Madagascar drawn up in the department?”
General Gonse.—“In the course of the month of August.”
M. Labori.—“I read from the Dreyfus indictment:
Regarding the note on Madagascar, which offered great interest for a foreign power, an expedition had been sent there toward the beginning of 1894. Captain Dreyfus could easily have procured it. In fact, in the month of May last Corporal Bermelin, then Colonel Sandherr’s secretary, copied its twenty-two pages in the ante-room next to the office of this superior officer. The making of the copy took about five days, and in the meantime original and copy were left in a blotting-case.
Regarding the note on Madagascar, which offered great interest for a foreign power, an expedition had been sent there toward the beginning of 1894. Captain Dreyfus could easily have procured it. In fact, in the month of May last Corporal Bermelin, then Colonel Sandherr’s secretary, copied its twenty-two pages in the ante-room next to the office of this superior officer. The making of the copy took about five days, and in the meantime original and copy were left in a blotting-case.
“I ask General Gonse how he reconciles the date August, which he has given, with the report of M. d’Ormescheville,which gives the date February, 1894; and how he explains the copying of notes so serious by a corporal, during five days, in an ante-room?”
General Gonse.—“There was a note in August. I do not know whether there was a note in February.”
M. Labori.—“You see, gentlemen, how important it is to be exact. This matter is being continually befogged by equivocation. They say it is a note on Madagascar which was written in August, 1894, and, when we consult M. d’Ormescheville’s report relating to the Dreyfus case, and consequently to thebordereau, we find mention of a note written in February, 1894. So that matter is settled.”
General Gonse.—“I have nothing to say. I maintain all that I have said.”
M. Labori.—“I ask that Colonel Picquart be heard on these points.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I have another word to say concerning thetroupes de couverture. I said just now that I did not believe that the author of thebordereauwas connected with the department. Otherwise he would not have written: ‘A note on thetroupes de couverture; there will be some modification in the new plan.’ If, as I had always believed hitherto, thebordereauwas written in April, the writer alluded to modifications just made. Now, the modifications that had just then been made were then considered definitive, although later they were slightly changed. I know something about this, because I drew them up.”
M. Labori.—“Why have you always supposed that thebordereauwas written in April?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I have always heard it so said at the war offices.”
The Judge.—“You do not know of your own knowledge?”
Colonel Picquart.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Now I am going to ask Colonel Picquart—for I imagine that at the point at which things have now arrived he will not refuse to answer—whether he was not delegated by the minister of war to attend the Dreyfus trial.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I maintain my first declaration.”
M. Labori.—“You refuse to answer?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does General de Pellieux think that Colonel Picquart may answer?”
General de Pellieux—“I cannot speak of the Dreyfus trial. I had nothing to do with it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“That is not my question. I ask: Does General de Pellieux think that Colonel Picquart may answer the question put to him?”
General de Pellieux.—“Colonel Picquart is judge of his own answers. I have no advice or command to give him.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It is not advice or command that I ask, but an opinion.”
General de Pellieux.—“I have no opinion to offer to Colonel Picquart.”
M. Labori.—“Then,Monsieur le President, will you ask General Gonse if Colonel Picquart was not delegated by the minister of war to attend the Dreyfus trial?”
General Gonse.—“I have not to answer that question.”
M. Labori.—“Then I say to the jury that it is the truth, and, if it is not true, let one or the other of these gentlemen contradict me. Now I ask General Gonse how he knows that the notes enumerated in thebordereaufurnished any serious revelations regarding the important subjects mentioned.”
General Gonse.—“From the titles themselves. I cannot suppose that these notes contained trifles.”
M. Labori.—“Then I ask General Gonse this question: A traitor is a man who delivers documents for money. When he delivers a serious document, does he not show its importance, and, when he says ‘a note,’ can it be taken to be a document instead of a personal note?”
General Gonse.—“I have no answer to make on that matter.”
M. Labori.—“Come back now to this passage of thebordereau: