(1) What do you think of M. Zola’s good faith?(2) What are the reasons that have led you to believe in his good faith?(3) Do you consider from what you know that the measures taken against your husband were legal or illegal?(4) Will you describe the first visit of Major du Paty de Clam at your house? Who were present?(5) Did not M. du Paty de Clam utter the grossest insults against your husband?(6) Did he not pretend to demonstrate his guilt geometrically and by drawing concentric circles?(7) Did he not speak of the Iron Mask?(8) Did he not expressly forbid you to speak of the arrest to anyone whomsoever, even to his family?(9) After how long a time were you allowed the right to write to your husband?(10) After how long a time did you again see your husband?(11) Did not M. du Paty de Clam say to you: “He denies, but I shall succeed in making him spit out all that he has in his body”?(12) Did not M. du Paty de Clam nevertheless lead you to hope that perhaps there had been an error, and that up to November?(13) Did not M. du Paty de Clam try, by the most irregular means, and even by insidious means, to tear confessions from you throughout the trial and after the verdict?(14) What do you think of your husband’s character and morals? What was the nature of your life with him after your marriage?(15) Did not your husband steadily declare, during the trial and after, that this whole matter was incomprehensible, and that he was the victim of a conspiracy?
(1) What do you think of M. Zola’s good faith?
(2) What are the reasons that have led you to believe in his good faith?
(3) Do you consider from what you know that the measures taken against your husband were legal or illegal?
(4) Will you describe the first visit of Major du Paty de Clam at your house? Who were present?
(5) Did not M. du Paty de Clam utter the grossest insults against your husband?
(6) Did he not pretend to demonstrate his guilt geometrically and by drawing concentric circles?
(7) Did he not speak of the Iron Mask?
(8) Did he not expressly forbid you to speak of the arrest to anyone whomsoever, even to his family?
(9) After how long a time were you allowed the right to write to your husband?
(10) After how long a time did you again see your husband?
(11) Did not M. du Paty de Clam say to you: “He denies, but I shall succeed in making him spit out all that he has in his body”?
(12) Did not M. du Paty de Clam nevertheless lead you to hope that perhaps there had been an error, and that up to November?
(13) Did not M. du Paty de Clam try, by the most irregular means, and even by insidious means, to tear confessions from you throughout the trial and after the verdict?
(14) What do you think of your husband’s character and morals? What was the nature of your life with him after your marriage?
(15) Did not your husband steadily declare, during the trial and after, that this whole matter was incomprehensible, and that he was the victim of a conspiracy?
The reading of these questions being received with a hostile manifestation from those present in the court-room, M. Labori turned to the audience, and shouted: “If you think you can prevent me from doing my duty, you are mistaken. I am embarrassed only when I am applauded. Let them howl! It is all one to me.”
The Attorney-General.—“I simply call attention to this,—that these incidents are rehearsed before the audience, but they are always the same, and that the jurors whom you have just addressed will remember that you have for the thing judged yesterday the same respect that you have for the thing judged on a previous occasion. I said at the beginning that a plan had been fixed upon; it is being carried out, and you have just given us the formula: ‘I do not know the law, and I do not want to know it.’ Well, we know it, and we will see that it is respected, with the aid of the jurors, in whom I have absolute confidence.”
M. Labori.—“M. Zola will answer in a moment, and it is to assure him the means of doing so that I take the floor.”
The Judge.—“Take it once for all, and do not renew this scene with each witness.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I am much grieved if the line of conduct which I follow is in any way inconvenient or disagreeable to anyone whomsoever. But I know very well that it is dictated to me by a conviction so profound and a resolution so fixed that nothing, nothing, shall force me to deviate from it by a line. That said, I answer the attorney-general in a word. The attorney-general, who, after a firm and energetic beginning, preserved a profound silence throughout the last part of yesterday’s hearing” ...
The Attorney-General.—“To the point of self-denial.”
M. Labori.—“To the point of self-denial, ... rises today to tell us that we are confronted with a fixed plan, and that the same incidents, starting from the same preconceived idea, are being rehearsed. Very well, but the plan that we have fixed is the plan that leads to the light. There is another plan which is being rehearsed at the other side of the bar,—the plan which leads to obscurity and darkness. Reference has been made to the thing judged. We respect it. We respect the thing judged yesterday, but between that and the other the difference is that the thing judged yesterday was legally judged, and that the other was judged illegally.”
M. Zola.—“Gentlemen of the jury, to you will I address myself. I am not an orator, I am a writer; but unfortunately” ...
The Judge.—“You should address the court.”
M. Zola.—“I ask your pardon. I thought that I had permission to address the jurors. But I will address myself to you. What I have to say will be as well said. I am a writer; I am not accustomed to public speaking; moreover,I am an extremely nervous being, and am liable to use words that ill express my thought. Undoubtedly I have expressed it ill, since I have been misunderstood. I am quoted as saying that I have placed myself above the law. Did I say that?”
M. Labori.—“You said: ‘I have not to know the law at this moment.’”
M. Zola.—“I meant to say, at any rate, that I do not revolt against this grand idea of the law. I submit to it completely, and from it I expect justice. I meant to say that my revolt was against the processes that find expression in all these quibbles raised against me, against the way in which I am prosecuted, against the limitation of the complaint to fifteen lines from my long letter of accusation; and these things I declare unworthy of justice. I say that these few lines are not to be taken and passed upon without regard to all that I have said. A writing is consecutive; phrases lead to phrases, ideas lead to ideas; and to fix upon a single thing therein because it brings me under the law is, I say, unworthy. That is what I say, and that is what I meant. I do not place myself above the law, but I am above hypocritical methods.”
M. Labori.—“Bravo!”
The Attorney-General.—“So, M. Labori, you give the signal for these bravos?”
M. Labori.—“It is true, I said ‘Bravo;’ but frankly, it was the cry of my conscience.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“There is one point beyond dispute,—that we are authorized to prove that M. Zola has accused the council of war of having committed an illegality. Well, I ask you how it is possible for us to prove this, if we do not begin by establishing that an illegality has been committed.”
The court denied the motion of M. Labori, and the second witness was called,—M. Leblois, a lawyer of the appellate court.
The Judge.—“M. Labori, what question do you desire me to put to the witness?”
M. Labori.—“Will you ask M. Leblois at what date and under what circumstances he came into possession of the facts now within his knowledge concerning the Esterhazy case?”
The court interposing no objection, M. Leblois made the following statement:
“I have been for many years the friend of Colonel Picquart. We made all our studies together, and we have remained faithful to this friendship. In 1890 Colonel Picquart was made professor in the School of War, and since then I have seen him more or less frequently. Then he entered the war department, to which he had already been attached for several years, and finally, about the middle of 1895, if I am not mistaken, he was appointed chief of the bureau of information. It would have been natural at that time for him to consult me occasionally upon the legal difficulties that he met, since I was his intimate friend and had belonged to the magistracy for ten years. Nevertheless he spoke to me of only two cases,—a case of criminal procedure that was under way at Nancy, and a batch of documents relating to carrier pigeons, which was nothing but a collection of ministerial decrees upon that question. When, on November 16, 1896, Colonel Picquart was suddenly obliged to quit the war department, he had never said a word to me, either of the Dreyfus case or of the Esterhazy case, and I was absolutely unaware that he was concerning himself with either of them. All who know Colonel Picquart will not be astonished at this reserve.
“In June, 1897, I received a visit from Colonel Picquart, who had come to pass a fortnight’s leave of absence in Paris. On June 3, he had received at Sousse a threatening letter, which had been written to him by one of his former subordinates, and thus he found himself under the necessity of consulting a lawyer. For purposes of his defence he made known to me some of the facts in the cases of Dreyfus and Esterhazy. I say, gentlemen, some of the facts, for Colonel Picquart never revealed to me any military secret, in that sense of the term secret in which it is employed in military language. Colonel Picquart had become convinced of the innocence of Captain Dreyfus, and he explained to me the facts upon which his conviction rested. I had too much confidence in his intelligence and honesty not to admit the materiality of the facts that he made known to me, and from them I came to the same conclusion that he had arrived at. I was profoundly disturbed by what I had just learned, for I not only deplored the possibility of so grave an error, and the submission to undeserved torture of a man who seemed to be innocent, but I was anxious lest such revelations might agitate the country; and so I determined to exercise the greatest prudence.
“First, I collected all the information that I could procure. I consulted certain persons who had been familiar with other facts, making my study more precise by reading documents published in 1896. I gathered information as to the Dreyfus family, and as to Captain Dreyfus, whom I did not know, and finally I studied the various questions of law to which the case might give rise. In the course of these inquiries I learned that M. Scheurer-Kestner had been concerning himself with the Dreyfus case for a year, and had collected facts of some interest. About the same time I met M. Scheurer-Kestner at a dinner, and an interview was arranged between us for a subsequent day. When he found that I was in possession of important information, he urged me strongly to tell him more. He was so insistent, and showed so keen anxiety, that I could not refrain from enlightening him more completely. My original plan, the only one that seemed possible to me, was to promptly put the government in possession of the facts that I had learned through Colonel Picquart. M. Scheurer-Kestner, vice-president of the senate, seemed to me the best person that I could find through whom to approach the government. For these reasons I thought it my duty to yield to M. Scheurer-Kestner’s solicitations, and I gave him the desired enlightenment. Especially I spoke to him of letters that General Gonse had written to Colonel Picquart. M. Scheurer-Kestner begged me to show him these letters immediately, and he accompanied me to my house to get them. From that moment he was convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus, and his conviction has never since been shaken. He will never abandon the cause that he has undertaken.
“Meanwhile, the vacation season was approaching, and it seemed very difficult to institute proceedings at that time. It seemed to me that an affair of this sort should not be entered upon, unless there was a possibility of pursuing it to the end. Furthermore, M. Scheurer-Kestner deemed it necessary to have in his hands certain material proofs which both he and I lacked,—proofs in the shape of examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, which was supposed to be identical with that of thebordereau. Nevertheless, I thought it my duty to submit to M. Scheurer-Kestner at that moment the idea of presenting to the keeper of the seals a petition for the cancellation of the verdict of 1894, because it seemed to me a settled fact that a secret document had been communicated to the judges, and that consequently the judgment was void. M. Scheurer-Kestnerthought that it was too early to take such a step in the absence of material proofs. He made arrangements to get examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting as soon as possible, and toward the end of July started on his vacation. In the course of the following months he succeeded in procuring examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, on returning to Paris, he entered into communication with the government. Concerning that, he will testify himself. For my part, I have nothing more to say upon this point. Nevertheless I add that, when M. Scheurer-Kestner made his interpellation in the senate on November 7, 1897, it seemed to him that this should be the end of his personal participation in the matter. In fact, the declarations of the government pointed to an honest and full investigation, and it did not seem to M. Scheurer-Kestner that there was any occasion for him to interfere in the working-up of a criminal case. So about Christmas time he thought himself entitled to take a few days’ rest, of which he was in great need.
“At that moment I had been informed by Colonel Picquart of the conspiracies against him,—conspiracies of extreme gravity, the most serious and important point of which is found in two telegrams addressed to him from Paris on November 10, 1897, and reaching him at Sousse, the first on November 11, the second on November 12 in the morning. These telegrams were forgeries. It seemed plain that they could not have been drawn up, except upon information emanating from the bureau of information, and this it would be easy to demonstrate; but Colonel Picquart will demonstrate it better than I. As the jury and the court will see, this was a new incident in an extremely serious matter, since these telegrams were dated November 10, 1897. Nevertheless it was a conspiracy which had long been in preparation, for in December, 1896, false letters had been addressed to the minister of war signed with the same name, ‘Speranza,’ that appeared at the foot of the two telegrams of November 10, 1897. It seemed to me it was my first duty to inform the government of this situation. But, having with the government no easy and direct means of communication, I asked M. Trarieux, senator and former keeper of the seals, whom I had met several times at the house of a friend, and who, moreover, had taken part in the senate discussion of M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation, to give me the benefit of his sanction by acting as an intermediary between myself and the government. He will tell youwhat steps he took. For my part I could do but one thing,—lodge, on behalf of my client, a complaint with the government attorney, which complaint is under examination by M. Bertulus, who has already taken the deposition of Mlle. Blanche de Comminges.
“I said just now that Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart suddenly left the war department on November 16, 1896, on the eve of the Castelin interpellation in the chamber of deputies. His friends were unaware of his departure, and I in particular went several times, and during several weeks, to see him, and failed to find him. One of his friends wrote to the minister of war a letter which should be among the documents in the hands of M. Bertulus, and which, at any rate, constitutes one of the papers in the investigations made by General de Pellieux and Major Ravary. This letter was insignificant, but in it there was a brief allusion to a personage who, in thesalonof Mlle. de Comminges, had been nicknamed the ‘demigod.’ The letter contained this sentence: ‘Every day the demigod asks Mme. the Countess [that is Mlle. de Comminges] when he will be able to see the good God.’ In this circle, where Colonel Picquart was very popular, he was known as ‘the good God,’ and the name ‘demigod’ had been given to a certain Captain Lallement, who was the orderly of General des Garet, commanding the sixteenth army corps at Montpellier. This letter was intended for Colonel Picquart, but reached him only after it had been secretly opened and copied at the war department. The following month there came to the bureau of information a letter which was intercepted entirely, and of which no knowledge came to Colonel Picquart. This letter is surely the work of a forger. It is signed ‘Speranza.’ That was the beginning, in December, 1896, of the attempt to compromise Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The existence of the second letter was concealed for more than a year, and he learned of it for the first time in the course of General de Pellieux’s investigation. But it was made the basis of all the conspiracies for the ruin of this officer. Be not astonished, then, that last November, when this matter came to public attention and enlisted the interest of parliament, new conspiracies came to light. In the evening of November 10, 1897, two telegrams started from Paris together. The first read thus: ‘Stop, demigod. Affair very serious. Speranza.’ From this telegram it seemed that the demigod must be a very important personage, probably a political personality, perhaps M. Scheurer-Kestner. Thesecond telegram read: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche.’ This second telegram, which was evidently a part of the same conspiracy to which the first belonged, tended to destroy the authenticity, and consequently the force as evidence, of a certain dispatch on which rested the investigation opened by Colonel Picquart in the spring of 1896 concerning Major Esterhazy. Thus they endeavored to represent Colonel Picquart as the tool of a politician and the author of a forgery. I should add that it is certain that Colonel Picquart was not acquainted with M. Scheurer-Kestner, and that he had no communication with him, direct or indirect. As for the charge of forgery brought against Colonel Picquart, it has been completely abandoned, for, although there were some insinuations to that effect in Major Ravary’s report, Colonel Picquart recently appeared before a council of inquiry, and among the things with which he was reproached there was not the slightest allusion to the possibility of a forgery in the case of the document in question.”
The Judge.—“What do you know about it?”
M. Leblois.—“Monsieur le Président, I know it in the most certain and natural way, because I was myself a witness before the council of inquiry.”
The Judge.—“Were you there throughout the hearing?”
M. Leblois.—“No, but I have knowledge of the facts with which the colonel was reproached.”
The Judge.—“You say that you have knowledge of them, but you do not know them of your own knowledge, since you were not there.”
M. Labori.—“Permit me to observe,Monsieur le Président, that the witnesses should have the advantage of the right to give their testimony without being interrupted, according to the terms of Article 315 of the code of criminal examination. I claim this right for M. Leblois. As to the fact which he affirms, the question is not how he knows it, but whether it is true.”
The Judge.—“Permit me, Maître Labori; I suppose that the court is entitled to question witnesses.”
M. Labori.—“It is not entitled to interrupt them.”
The Judge.—“I did not interrupt M. Leblois. I asked him for indications on a point which it is necessary to throw light upon. I will continue to do so, rest assured.”
M. Labori.—“I do not pretend to discuss with you the duties of the judge of the assize court. You know them better than I do. I add that I am ready to render homageto the great impartiality with which you endeavor to direct the debate. But, on the other hand, this is a matter in which it is impossible for us to part with the smallest particle of our rights. They deprive us here of all the faculties that they can deprive us of. We are here face to face with testimony which is entitled to be heard; we ask that it shall be heard freely and independently. Now, Article 315 of the code of criminal examination authorizes witnesses to give their testimony without interruption, without prejudice to the right of the court to ask them, after their deposition, whatsoever questions it sees fit.”
The Judge.—“That is what I have just done.”
M. Labori.—“The deposition of M. Leblois is not finished. He was in the course of it when you interrupted him.”
The Judge.—“Pardon, M. Leblois had finished. I asked him a question to throw light upon his deposition.”
M. Leblois.—“I will answer you in the clearest fashion. In the first place, I declare that I know that Colonel Picquart was asked but four questions. As to the source of this knowledge, I do not think that I am bound to give it, and for a good reason; I am Colonel Picquart’s lawyer.”
The Judge.—“You should have said so at the beginning.”
M. Leblois.—“I did say so.”
The Judge.—“I did not hear it.”
M. Leblois.—“I said just now that I was first introduced to this affair in June, 1897, when Colonel Picquart came to ask my aid and protection against written threats that he had received on June 3 from one of his former subordinates. It was for purposes of his defence that Colonel Picquart related to me a portion of the facts, but not those concerning military secrets, and it was for purposes of his defence that he gave me General Gonse’s letters. I consider that you are now reassured as to the source of my information.
“I add that nothing is easier than to establish materially the proof of what I have just said, for information telegraphed by a provincial agency on February 2, and not contradicted since by any newspaper or otherwise, specifies the points raised in the debate before the council of inquiry. Furthermore, Colonel Picquart has received, in conformity with military regulations, a clear notification of the questions concerning which he was examined. In fact, if a single question is to be put in a council of inquiry, the law requires that the person to be questioned shall receive a notice of the points on which the discussion will turn. Then Colonel Picquart, being in possession of such notice, emanating fromthe reporter in the case, is clearly in a position to prove what I have just said.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“Permit me to ask a question. Just now the witness said this second letter, which was a forgery, was so drawn up as to prove that it emanated from a personage familiar with the documents of the war offices. But the witness did not explain this declaration. I should like to ask him what there was in this letter that enables him to make this declaration, and to say that it came from the war offices.”
M. Leblois.—“I prefer not to give any explanations in regard to this letter, for I should run a risk of altering the version that you will soon hear from Colonel Picquart. [Laughter.] I think there is some misunderstanding. I said that the text of the two telegrams was a certain proof that they emanated from a man familiar with all the secrets of the war department, but I can say that only of the telegrams, because I have seen them and am in possession of their text. I cannot speak so certainly of a letter which I have not seen, and concerning which I have only information.”
M. Labori.—“From the standpoint of the conspiracies to which M. Leblois has referred, what was the bearing of the false letter intercepted in the war offices?”
M. Leblois.—“I said just now that I considered this false letter signed ‘Speranza’ another stone on which to erect, little by little, the edifice of the conspiracies against Colonel Picquart. Regarding the two telegrams, must I give details?”
The Judge [hastily].—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, we are very desirous that he should.”
The Judge [sadly].—“Since the defence demands it, speak.”
M. Leblois.—“The following telegram: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche,’ suggests to me this reflection: Who, outside of the war department, could then know that an inquiry was in progress concerning Major Esterhazy, and especially that the basis of this inquiry was a dispatch? That was an absolute secret. The two telegrams of which I have spoken were not the only elements of this complicated plot against Colonel Picquart. There were many other telegrams sent by third parties. For instance, an individual sent from Paris a telegram signed ‘Baron Keller’ and addressed to a pretended Baroness Keller at Sousse. All these telegrams wereintended to compromise Colonel Picquart. The two which I have cited are the only ones that reached him, but they are only the centre of a very complicated network. He referred to all of this in an article in ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 16, 1897.”
M. Labori.—“M. Leblois has told us that Colonel Picquart left the war department November 16, 1896. Could he tell us what was the attitude of his superiors, and especially of General Gonse, toward him at that time? Did Colonel Picquart go in disgrace, and how has he been treated since, up to the time of his recall to Paris, under circumstances with which the jurors must be familiar, at the beginning of the Esterhazy inquiry?”
M. Leblois.—“Colonel Picquart’s superiors behaved toward him in the most kindly manner throughout his inquiry concerning Major Esterhazy,—an inquiry which began toward the end of spring and continued until September. According to Colonel Picquart, it was not until the moment had come for a decision in this matter that a difference of opinion was revealed between his superiors and himself. This difference did not assume an acute form at first. In the beginning it was simply an exchange of opposite views, such as often takes place between inferiors and superiors. The solution of the matter, clearly stated in a letter from Colonel Picquart bearing date of September 5, 1896, remained in suspense until November, 1896. At that moment things were growing worse under influences which I do not exactly know myself. Perhaps the government, upon the question being laid before it, decided that there was no occasion to review the Dreyfus case. I know nothing about it; I can only form hypotheses. Answering M. Labori’s question, I will say this: when Colonel Picquart left the war department, they gave him not the slightest hint that he was sent away in disgrace. On the contrary, they represented to him as a favor the rather vague mission with which he was entrusted. They said to him: ‘You are to go away for a few days. You will go to Nancy, to do certain things.’ When once he was at Nancy, they said to him: ‘Go elsewhere.’ Thus from day to day they gave him new orders, continually prolonging his mission; and the colonel, who had left Paris without extra clothing, was told, when he asked permission to return to get his linen, that his mission was too important to warrant a diversion of even a few hours; and they sent him to Besançon. Thus, without suspecting the fate that was in store for him, he was sent along the frontier,and then to Algeria and Tunis, where, in March, 1897, he was made lieutenant-colonel of the Fourth Sharpshooters. They pretended that he was given this appointment as a favor. General Gonse told him positively, in a letter, that the regiment was a very select one, and that he should consider himself fortunate in belonging to it. The general’s letters are full of expressions of sympathy.”
M. Labori.—“M. Leblois referred just now to a threatening letter which intervened at a certain moment, and which apparently modified the state of mind prevailing in the office of the minister of war. Could he tell us when this letter was addressed to Colonel Picquart, from whom it came, and in what spirit it was conceived?”
M. Leblois.—“I have already said that this letter was dated June 3, 1897. It came from Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, who had been Colonel Picquart’s subordinate, and it was couched in terms almost insulting.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“The witness has said that at the same time when Colonel Picquart’s letters were being seized in the war department he was suffered to receive forged telegrams, and that at the same time also General Gonse, sub-chief of the general staff, acted in a very kindly manner toward him. I ask him if these three matters were really contemporaneous.”
M. Leblois.—“The reply is simple enough. You must distinguish between two utterly distinct orders of events,—the events at the end of 1896, which was the time of Colonel Picquart’s departure, and the events at the end of 1897. I know of only one letter intercepted at the bureau of information in 1896,—namely, the letter signed ‘Speranza.’ It was at that time that General Gonse showed the greatest sympathy for Colonel Picquart. Coming to the conspiracy of 1897, it is my opinion that letters were then intercepted, but I prefer that the testimony on this point should come from Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Yet the witness said just now that they sent a letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart after having opened it.”
M. Leblois.—“That was in 1896. It was in December of that year that the Speranza letter was sent.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then my question was appropriate. All these things happened at the same time.”
M. Labori.—“Does M. Leblois know of certain facts in the relations that prevailed in 1892 between M. du Paty de Clam and the de Comminges family that offer a singularanalogy with the participation of the veiled lady in the Esterhazy case?”
M. Leblois.—“The comte de Comminges received in 1892 a certain number of very serious anonymous letters. He had reason to suspect that they were written by Colonel du Paty de Clam, who was then only a major. He consulted the prefect of police, M. Lozé, who, if I have been correctly informed, answered: ‘It is du Paty de Clam.’”
The Judge.—“But you know nothing about it; this information is second-hand.”
M. Labori.—“But the sequel is interesting.”
M. Leblois.—“Thereupon the comte de Comminges went to General Davout, and asked him to insist that these conspiracies should cease. General Davout sent for Major du Paty de Clam, and, as a result, the anonymous letters stopped entirely. But there remained a letter in the hands of Major du Paty de Clam, and the comte de Comminges insisted upon its restitution. General Davout helped him to bring this about, if I am correctly informed. But, however that may be, Major du Paty de Clam restored the letter under the following circumstances. He said that this letter had fallen into the hands of a woman, and that she would not part with it unless the sum of 500 francs was paid to her. So he convoked certain members of the family on the bank of the Seine, near the Jardin de Paris, at ten o’clock in the evening. There came a woman, carrying an umbrella, whom Major du Paty de Clam approached. After conversing with her a few minutes, he came back, saying: ‘I have just handed this woman an envelope containing a 500-franc bill. In exchange, she has given me the letter that you desire, in another envelope. Here it is.’ They opened the envelope, and, to be sure, found the letter. It is evident that there was something very strange about all this,—something useless, to say the least.”
The Judge.—“But what relation has all this to the charge against the defendants?”
M. Labori.—“I am ready to explain at once. It is our contention that the veiled lady, far from being in relations with, or in the circle of, Colonel Picquart, as has been insinuated, was in relations with certain members of the war department, and that those who have aided Major Esterhazy in his campaign may well have been in relation with certain members of the war department. That is the bearing of the question.”
The Judge.—“At what time did the events in connection with this letter occur?”
M. Leblois.—“In the spring of 1892, and, if I am not mistaken, the restitution took place on Good Friday of that year.”
The next witness was M. Scheurer-Kestner.
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, will you ask M. Scheurer-Kestner under what circumstances he was led to concern himself with the facts which revealed to him that the authorship of thebordereau, attributed in 1894 to Captain Dreyfus, was really to be attributed to Major Esterhazy, and what steps he took in the matter afterwards?”
The Judge.—“Monsieur Attorney-General!”
The Attorney-General.—“It is always the same question.”
M. Labori.—“Itisalways the same question, and I understand why you are always ready to welcome it in the same manner.”
The Judge.—“M. Scheurer-Kestner, you are to tell us of Major Esterhazy, but I beg you not to say anything of the Dreyfus case, concerning which we will not hear a word. Tell us of the Esterhazy case, but not of the Dreyfus case.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“I note what you say,Monsieur le Président. Last July I learned that, at the office of the general staff, in the bureau of information, in September, 1896, Colonel Picquart, who was then a major and the chief of this bureau, had discovered, in the course of investigations undertakenà proposof other matters, but relating to Major Esterhazy, that there had been a mistake in 1894 in attributing thebordereauto M. Alfred Dreyfus. I learned at the same time that, as soon as Colonel Picquart had made his discovery, he made haste to consult M. Bertillon, who had been one of the experts consulted in 1894, and who, without any hesitation, had attributed thebordereauto Alfred Dreyfus. Colonel Picquart, showing him thebordereauand Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, but without telling him whose handwriting it was, asked him what he thought of it, and M. Bertillon said to him: ‘Ah! the forgers have succeeded. It is no similarity; it is identity.’ Colonel Picquart came back with this reply, and asked his chief to continue an investigation in this direction. He proposed to General Gonse, among others, to submit the documents to a new expert examination, and General Gonse dissuaded him. There is in existence a correspondence which was then exchanged between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart. I took pains to become acquainted with this correspondence,for it was of great value to me, being of a nature to settle my opinion. The correspondence being communicated to me, I was convinced by reading it that General Gonse accepted the opinion of Colonel Picquart, who was paving the way for a revision of the trial. It seems to me indispensable, in order to enlighten the jurors, that I should read this correspondence to them.”
The Judge.—“No, that is not possible.”
M. Labori.—“We must have the light, and I consider it indispensable that these letters should be put in evidence.”
The Judge.—“The law requires that witnesses shall testify without the aid of any document. However, if the attorney-general is not opposed to it, I shall not oppose it.”
The Attorney-General.—“General Gonse and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart have been summoned. They will testify concerning the letters, if they see fit.”
M. Labori.—“I suggest that M. Scheurer-Kestner be authorized to hand the letters to the court.”
The Attorney-General.—“It is not possible. The government should have been notified of them at the proper time.”
M. Labori.—“M. Zola could not do so, as he did not then have the letters in his possession; but he called upon the attorney-general, as the representative of the complainant, to put these letters in evidence, thereby complying as far as possible with Article 52 of the law of 1881; therefore I have the honor to offer a motion” ...
The Judge.—“Oh!”
M. Labori.—“Oh!Monsieur le Président, if you knew how much pain it gives me, as a man of the world, to thus make you suffer.”
The Judge.—“Permit me to tell you, before you offer your motion, that it is impossible. Article 52 of the law concerning the press does not permit the production of documents not previously announced.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“The law obliges us to announce documents. We ought to have announced the letters of General Gonse. Why did we not do so? It is well that the jurors should know. We did not do so, because these letters have already been produced at one hearing,—the hearing of the council of war,—and under the following circumstances. Colonel Picquart was asked: ‘Have you General Gonse’s letters?’ He answered: ‘They are in my pocket.’ The president of the council of war then asked: ‘Will you give them to me?’ Colonel Picquart handed him the letters. The president of the council of war took them and placedthem with the documents of the case, without having them read. So that, in order to conform to the law, we had to give notice of letters which had been confiscated, as it were, by a president of the council of war,—letters which were not at our disposal, and which only the attorney-general could produce.”
The Judge.—“Offer your motion. But, after all, if M. Schemer-Kestner, instead of reading them, wishes to say what they contain, he may do so.”
M. Labori.—“Very well; so be it.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“I greatly regret that I cannot read these letters. I regret it from the standpoint of the manifestation of truth. I considered this reading indispensable, but I see that it is forbidden. Since, however, I am authorized to say what they contain, I will do so in a manner necessarily incomplete, but sufficient perhaps to enlighten the jurors.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner then repeated the substance of the letters, but, as the full text of the letters was printed in “L’Aurore” of the following day, February 9, they are given here in place of the description of them made to the jury by M. Scheurer-Kestner, although legally the full text of the letters forms no part of the evidence placed before the jury.
Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),September 7, 1896.My dear Picquart:I have received your letter of the 5th, and, after reflecting upon all that you say. I hasten to tell you that it seems to me useful to proceed in this matter with great prudence, distrusting first impressions. The thing necessary now is to determine the nature of the documents.[1]How could they have been copied? What requests for information have been preferred by third parties? You may say that in this order of ideas it is rather difficult to reach a result without making some stir. I admit it. But in my opinion it is the best way of making sure progress. To the continuation of the inquiry from the standpoint of the handwritings[2]there is the grave objection that it compels us to take new people into our confidence under bad conditions, and it seems to me better to wait until we are more firmly settled in our opinions before going further in this rather delicate path. I return September 15, and we can better discuss an affair of this nature in conversation. But my feeling is that it is necessary to proceed with extreme prudence. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Devotedly yours,A. Gonse.
Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),September 7, 1896.
My dear Picquart:
I have received your letter of the 5th, and, after reflecting upon all that you say. I hasten to tell you that it seems to me useful to proceed in this matter with great prudence, distrusting first impressions. The thing necessary now is to determine the nature of the documents.[1]How could they have been copied? What requests for information have been preferred by third parties? You may say that in this order of ideas it is rather difficult to reach a result without making some stir. I admit it. But in my opinion it is the best way of making sure progress. To the continuation of the inquiry from the standpoint of the handwritings[2]there is the grave objection that it compels us to take new people into our confidence under bad conditions, and it seems to me better to wait until we are more firmly settled in our opinions before going further in this rather delicate path. I return September 15, and we can better discuss an affair of this nature in conversation. But my feeling is that it is necessary to proceed with extreme prudence. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Devotedly yours,
A. Gonse.
[1]The reference here is to the documents that accompanied thebordereauattributed to Dreyfus.
[1]The reference here is to the documents that accompanied thebordereauattributed to Dreyfus.
[2]The reference here is to the comparison of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting with that of the bordereau.
[2]The reference here is to the comparison of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting with that of the bordereau.
Paris, September 8, 1896.My General:I have read your letter carefully, and I shall scrupulously follow your instructions, but I believe it my duty to say this to you. Numerous indications, and a serious fact of which I shall speak to you on your return, show me that the time is near at hand when people who have the conviction that there has been an error in this matter are going to make a great effort and create a great scandal. I believe that I have done all that was necessary to give ourselves the opportunity of initiative. If too much time is lost, that initiative will be taken by others, which, to say nothing of higher considerations, will not leave us in a pleasant position. I must add that the people to whom I refer do not seem to be as well informed as we are,[3]and that in my opinion they will make a mess of it, creating a scandal and a great uproar without furnishing light. There will be a sad and useless crisis, which we could avoid by doing justice in season. Be good enough, etc.,Picquart.
Paris, September 8, 1896.
My General:
I have read your letter carefully, and I shall scrupulously follow your instructions, but I believe it my duty to say this to you. Numerous indications, and a serious fact of which I shall speak to you on your return, show me that the time is near at hand when people who have the conviction that there has been an error in this matter are going to make a great effort and create a great scandal. I believe that I have done all that was necessary to give ourselves the opportunity of initiative. If too much time is lost, that initiative will be taken by others, which, to say nothing of higher considerations, will not leave us in a pleasant position. I must add that the people to whom I refer do not seem to be as well informed as we are,[3]and that in my opinion they will make a mess of it, creating a scandal and a great uproar without furnishing light. There will be a sad and useless crisis, which we could avoid by doing justice in season. Be good enough, etc.,
Picquart.
[3]The reference here is to the relatives of Dreyfus.
[3]The reference here is to the relatives of Dreyfus.
Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),September 10, 1896.My dear Picquart:I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th, after having given it careful consideration. In spite of the disturbing fact stated therein, I persist in my first feeling. I believe that it is necessary to act in the most circumspect manner. At the point at which you have arrived in your investigation there is no question, of course, of avoiding the light, but we must ascertain what course should be taken in order to arrive at a manifestation of the truth. This granted, it is necessary to avoid all false manœuvres, and especially to guard against irreparable steps. It seems to me necessary to arrive silently, and in the order of ideas that I have pointed out to you, at as complete a certainty as possible before compromising anything. I know very well that the problem is a difficult one, and may be full of unexpected elements. But it is precisely for this reason that it is necessary to proceed with prudence. You are not lacking in that virtue; so my mind is easy. Remember that the difficulties are great, and that wise tactics, weighing in advance all possibilities, are indispensable. I have occasion to write to General de Boisdeffre; I say to him a few words of the same tenor as this letter. Prudence! Prudence! That is the word that you must keep steadily before your eyes. I return on the morning of the 15th. Come to see me at my office early, after you have been through your mail. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Yours devotedly,Gonse.
Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine-et-Oise),September 10, 1896.
My dear Picquart:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th, after having given it careful consideration. In spite of the disturbing fact stated therein, I persist in my first feeling. I believe that it is necessary to act in the most circumspect manner. At the point at which you have arrived in your investigation there is no question, of course, of avoiding the light, but we must ascertain what course should be taken in order to arrive at a manifestation of the truth. This granted, it is necessary to avoid all false manœuvres, and especially to guard against irreparable steps. It seems to me necessary to arrive silently, and in the order of ideas that I have pointed out to you, at as complete a certainty as possible before compromising anything. I know very well that the problem is a difficult one, and may be full of unexpected elements. But it is precisely for this reason that it is necessary to proceed with prudence. You are not lacking in that virtue; so my mind is easy. Remember that the difficulties are great, and that wise tactics, weighing in advance all possibilities, are indispensable. I have occasion to write to General de Boisdeffre; I say to him a few words of the same tenor as this letter. Prudence! Prudence! That is the word that you must keep steadily before your eyes. I return on the morning of the 15th. Come to see me at my office early, after you have been through your mail. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Yours devotedly,
Gonse.
Paris, September 14, 1896.My General:September 7 I had the honor to direct your attention to the scandal that certain people were threatening to precipitate, and I permitted myself to say to you that, in my opinion, if we do not take the initiative, we shall have much trouble on our hands. The article from “L’Eclair” which you will find enclosed confirms me unhappily in my opinion. I shall try to find out who has succeeded so well in preparing the bomb. But I believe it my duty to affirm once more that it is necessary to act without delay. If we wait longer, we shall be run over, and imprisoned in an inextricable situation, where it will be impossible for us to establish the real truth. Be good enough, etc.,Picquart.
Paris, September 14, 1896.
My General:
September 7 I had the honor to direct your attention to the scandal that certain people were threatening to precipitate, and I permitted myself to say to you that, in my opinion, if we do not take the initiative, we shall have much trouble on our hands. The article from “L’Eclair” which you will find enclosed confirms me unhappily in my opinion. I shall try to find out who has succeeded so well in preparing the bomb. But I believe it my duty to affirm once more that it is necessary to act without delay. If we wait longer, we shall be run over, and imprisoned in an inextricable situation, where it will be impossible for us to establish the real truth. Be good enough, etc.,
Picquart.
M. Scheurer-Kestner, after repeating the substance of the foregoing letters, continued his testimony as follows:
“Such, gentlemen, is therésuméthat I have been able to make from memory of these fine letters, which honor their author, both as a soldier and as a man. After reading them, I was convinced that there had been an error. I saw that General Gonse, Colonel Picquart’s superior, shared his ideas, and looked upon revision as a possibility. What had I to do? My first duty was to inform the minister of war, and show him the documents which proved that the handwriting of thebordereauwas the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, and not that of Captain Dreyfus. That was what I did. I had a long conversation with General Billot, and showed him the documents that I possessed, though I did not speak at that time of the correspondence between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart, thinking it better not to do so. But I was not slow in offering this correspondence to the government, and naturally I was authorized to keep a copy of it. Unhappily new events had taken place, and the government perhaps had changed its attitude; I do not know; in any case, my offer was refused. It seemed to me that the honor of the government, of the republic, of democracy, and of the army required that the initiative in such a reparation should come from above, and not from below.
“Then what happened? The day after my visit to the minister of war, in which I spoke to him of the documents and showed them to him (that was October 31),—on the day after, November 1, though it had been agreed between us that our conversation should be secret, that it should not be noised abroad, that there should be no mention of it, what did I see in the newspapers inspired, so I was told, by the minister of war,—my visit to the minister related with false comments. It was said that I had shown nothing, that I had refused to give the minister of war proof of the innocence of Dreyfus, when, in fact, I had been with him three hours, begging him to make the proof public, and offering to cry it from the house-tops. He either would not, or could not, do it. He confined himself to saying: ‘He is guilty.’ ‘Prove to me that he is guilty,’ I said. ‘I cannot prove it to you.’ That was General Billot’s answer when I had brought important documents, and when my heart was full of all that I knew through the reading of the letters of which I had just spoken. That is how I came to my present conviction, and that is the way in which I gained courage to take up a cause which is a cause of humanity, truth, and justice.”
M. Labori.—“M. Scheurer-Kestner has told us of his conversation with General Billot. Will he now be good enough to tell us if he has interviewed the prime minister?”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“I had several interviews with the prime minister in the early days of November. To him I told all that I knew, all that I had learned. I offered to him the letters that passed between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart, for to him I could speak of what had happened at the bureau of information.”
M. Labori.—“Whence and under what circumstances came M. Mathieu Dreyfus’s denunciation of Major Esterhazy? Did not M. Mathieu Dreyfus have a conversation with you in which he revealed to you the name of Major Esterhazy,—a name which had come to his knowledge by a path wholly different from that by which it had come to your ears?”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“I had not uttered the name of Major Esterhazy in the presence of a single private individual. I had mentioned it only to the government when, on November 12, I received a message from M. Mathieu Dreyfus, asking me to receive him at my house. I had no relations with him; he had never been at my house; I had never seen him; I was not acquainted with him. He came, and this is the story that he told. A certain M. de Castro, whom he did not know, was walking on the boulevards, at the time when they were selling the placards which contained the proof of treason,—placards which bore portraits on both sides, and in the middle afac-simileof thebordereau. M. de Castro, who is a foreigner, and who theretofore had not been much interested in this matter, bought one of these placards simply to pass away the time, and, as soon as he had it in his hands,—I make use of a word which he used himself when he told me the story later,—he was dazed. ‘I went home,’ he said, ‘took out the package of letters from Esterhazy that I had in my desk,—thirty or forty of them,—and made sure that I was not mistaken. Thebordereauwas really in his writing.’ M. de Castro hurried to the house of M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and it was after this visit that M. Mathieu Dreyfus came to me in the evening to say this: ‘You must know the author of thebordereau. It is said that you have been occupying yourself with this matter for a long time, with an earnestness really feverish, and that you are searching for information everywhere. Then you must know whom they have substituted, or tried to substitute, for M. Alfred Dreyfus as the author of thebordereau, since I know that you are convinced, from the examination of handwritings, that Alfred Dreyfus is not the author of it.’ And, as I refused to give him the name, he said: ‘Well, if I speak the name, and if the name that I speak has come under your eyes in your investigations, will you tell me so?’ I answered: ‘In that case I shall consider myself unbound, and will say yes.’ Then M. Mathieu Dreyfus spoke the name of Major Esterhazy, and I said to him: ‘Under the circumstances in which you find yourself, it is your duty to state this immediately to the minister of war.’ For at that moment, thanks to the newspapers, a certain number of superior officers were under suspicion, and I was very glad that, under the circumstances in which this fact appeared, these superior officers would be placed out of the question. Thus it was that M. Mathieu Dreyfus pointed out Major Esterhazy to the minister of war as the author of thebordereau.”
M. Zola.—“I beg M. Scheurer-Kestner to give us further details regarding his interview with General Billot, in order to emphasize a thing which I consider of great importance. You know,Monsieur le Président, that they accuse us, and that they accuse me personally, of having been the cause of the frightful crisis that is now dividing the country. They say that we have produced this great trouble which is disturbing business and inflaming hearts. Well, I should like it to be clearly established that General Billot was warned by M. Scheurer-Kestner of what would take place. I would like M. Scheurer-Kestner to say that he is an old friend of General Billot, that he addresses him with the utmost familiarity, that he almost wept in his arms, and that he begged him, in the name of France, to take the matter up. I would like him to say that.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.—“The conversation that I had with General Billot, who has been my friend for twenty-five years, was a long one. Yes, I begged him to give his best attention to this matter, which otherwise was likely to become extremely serious. ‘It is incumbent upon you,’ I said to him, ‘to take the first steps, make a personal investigation; do not trust the matter to anyone. There are bundles of documents in certain offices. Send for them. Use no intermediary. Make an earnest investigation. If you will promise to make this earnest personal investigation. I pledge myself to maintain silence until I shall know the result.’ As I left, General Billot asked me to say nothing to anyone. I agreed, but on one condition. ‘Two hours,’ I said, ‘areall that is necessary for this investigation. I give you a fortnight, and during that fortnight I will not take a step.’ Now, during that fortnight I was dragged in the mud, pronounced a dishonest man, treated as a wretch, covered with insults, and called a German and a Prussian.”
M. Zola.—“As they call me an Italian.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner—“It was during that fortnight that I wrote to General Billot: ‘We have made a truce, but I did not think that this truce would turn against me, thanks to the people who are about you, and whom you either cause to act or suffer to act.’ I even pointed out to him the names of officers who had been indicated to me as the bearers of the articles to the newspapers. I told him that I did not guarantee the accuracy of this information, but I asked him to inquire into the matter. He pretended that he would make this inquiry, and that, after it, he would report to me. The fortnight passed, and I am still without news, without reply. That is the truth.”
M. Zola.—“Without news, with insults.”
The next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, ex-president of the republic.
The Judge.—“You are M. Casimir-Perier, former president of the republic. Of course you are neither the relative or an ally of the accused, and they are not in your service. Will you raise your right hand?”
M. Casimir-Perier.—“Monsieur le Président, before taking the oath, I ask your permission to reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday in writing.”
The Judge.—“Yes, but, before making your declaration, it is necessary to take the oath.”
M. Casimir-Perier.—“I cannot tell the whole truth; it is my duty not to tell it.”
M. Labori.—“When M. Casimir-Perier was president of the republic, did he know, prior to the arrest of a staff officer, that this officer was suspected of treason, and did he know the charges against him?”
The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”
M. Labori.—“Did M. Casimir-Perier know at any time that there was a secret document in the war department relating either to the Dreyfus case or to the Esterhazy case?”
The Judge.—“Let the Dreyfus case alone; let us havenothing to say about it. Can you answer, M. Casimir-Perier, in regard to the Esterhazy case?”
M. Casimir-Perier.—“I did not know, while I was president of the republic, that there were any Esterhazy papers.”
M. Labori.—“Was M. Casimir-Perier aware that at a certain moment a secret document was laid before the council of war in the Dreyfus case, outside of the proceedings of the trial and without the knowledge of the accused?”
The Judge.—“The question will not be put.”
M. Zola.—“Is it understood, then, that no attention is to be paid to the word ‘illegality’ contained in the sentence complained of? You do not take that into consideration? Then why was it included in the summons?”
The Judge.—“On that point the court has rendered a decree.”
M. Zola.—“As a man, I bow to that decree, but my reason does not bow. I do not comprehend your limitation of the defence to certain matters indicated in the complaint, in the light of your refusal to hear evidence regarding this word ‘illegality’ that also appears therein.”
The Judge.—“There can be no testimony against the thing judged. That was repeated in today’s decree.”
M. Labori.—“We offer no testimony against the authority of the thing judged.”
The Judge.—“It is the same thing.”
M. Labori.—“No, no.”
The Judge.—“You maintain that in the Dreyfus case there was illegality.”
M. Labori.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“Then it is the same thing. It is useless to insist.”
M. Zola.—“But the Esterhazy case is also a thing judged.”
The Judge.—“But you are prosecuted on that matter.”
M. Zola.—“But we are also prosecuted on the other.”
The Judge.—“Not the least in the world.”
M. Zola.—“Then there are differences in the thing judged?”
The Judge.—“The question will not be put. It is useless to debate it.”
M. Labori.—“No, it is not useless. Useless, perhaps, so far as obtaining a decision in our favor is concerned; but not useless from the standpoint of our cause, for everybody judges us, and the jurors follow these discussions with interest. But, as you say that discussion is useless, I shall have the honor to offer a motion, and await a decree of thecourt. I do not wish to detain M. Casimir-Perier longer, so I shall ask you,Monsieur le Président, on the ground of morality and good faith,—and I hope that no decree of the court will be needed to give us satisfaction on this point,—to ask M. Casimir-Perier the following question: If a secret document had been produced in any trial whatever, before any jurisdiction whatever, and if in this way an adverse verdict had been obtained, what would M. Casimir-Perier,—who will not, I am sure, in order to answer me, take refuge behind any sort of professional secrecy, since the question here is one of right and public morality, on which such men as Daguesseau have given an opinion before him,—what would M. Casimir-Perier think of it?”
The Judge.—“Allow me to tell you that it is useless to try to arrive by indirect questions at the same result. I will not put the question.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I think the court does not clearly understand myconfrère’squestion, which is this: If M. Casimir-Perier were to learn tomorrow that a person had been condemned on a document that had not been shown to him, what would be his opinion? It is a question of good faith. The high position that M. Casimir-Perier has occupied justifies us in asking his opinion.”
The Judge.—“It is not a fact; it is an opinion.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then the court refuses to ask this question?”
The Judge.—“It is not a proper question to ask.”
M. Labori.—“Well, on this question, as on the others, we shall offer a motion.”
M. Clemenceau.—“One word more. When M. Casimir-Perier took the stand, he began to testify before making oath, saying: ‘I believe that it is my duty not to tell the whole truth.’”
The Judge.—“That is not at all what M. Casimir-Perier said. He declared that he did not believe it his duty to speak.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I demand that the question be put to the witness.”
M. Casimir-Perier.—“I had in view the formula of the oath, which requires the telling of the whole truth, and I desired to point out that I could not tell the truth entire, having in view, in saying so, my declaration of yesterday, and, moreover, knowing no facts relating to the case before the court, besides considering that concerning other matters silence is imposed upon me by my duty and my constitutional responsibility.”
M. Labori.—“I ask pardon of M. Casimir-Perier for keeping him longer, but I cannot allow him to go until my motion has been passed upon.”
M. Casimir-Perier.—“I am a simple citizen, and at the service of the courts of my country.”
M. Labori.—“M. Casimir-Perier sets an illustrious example, when others have to be forced by legal measures to appear in the assize court.”
The Judge.—“You offer a motion, but you know what the opinion of the court is. It will be the same decree again.”
M. Labori.—“Well, it will be only the easier to render it.”
The witness-chair was then taken by M. de Castro, who testified as follows:
“At the time in question I was a banker and broker near the Paris Bourse, and I had had occasion to do some business for Major Esterhazy. He was in regular correspondence with the house, and I was very familiar with his writing,—so familiar, indeed, that in the morning, when I opened my mail, I knew the major’s writing before opening his letter. Toward the end of last October I was on the boulevard when a street-fakir passed by me, selling afac-simileof the famousbordereauattributed to Dreyfus. I was struck by the writing. It looked to me like a letter from Major Esterhazy. I returned to my house much perturbed in mind. The next day I went with my brother-in-law to find some of Major Esterhazy’s letters. I compared them with thefac-simile, and found a perfect similarity,—in fact, a striking identity. I spoke to some friends of this strange coincidence, and they advised me to carry a few letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who was concerning himself with the Dreyfus case. Meantime these friends probably spoke to M. Mathieu Dreyfus, who came one day to ask me to show him these letters. I offered him some of them, but he refused them, saying: ‘I advise you to go yourself to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and show them to him.’ So I went one morning, and said to him: ‘I come to lay before you some very curious types. You will see for yourself the similarity between the handwriting of these letters and the famousbordereau.’ M. Scheurer-Kestner took the letters, and looked at them for some time; then he went to a bureau, and came back, saying: ‘Here are some letters probablywritten by the same hand.’ and, indeed, I recognized Major Esterhazy’s writing.”
M. Labori.—“At that time had Major Esterhazy’s name been spoken as that of the possible author of thebordereau? Did M. de Castro suspect that M. Esterhazy was already under suspicion?”
M. de Castro.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Did M. de Castro receive threatening letters?”
M. de Castro.—“No; no letters. I received one day a telegram. If the court desires, I will produce it.”
The Judge.—“No, but what did it say?”
M. de Castro.—“It contained this threat: ‘If you have given in evidence the letters which “Paris” designates by the initials d. d. c., you will pay dear for this infamy.’”
The Judge.—“Did this handwriting resemble that of Major Esterhazy?”
M. de. Castro.—“No, there was nothing to indicate the origin of the dispatch. It was not signed, and the writing was quite different from that of Major Esterhazy.”
The witness was then allowed to step down, and the court adjourned for the day.
The third day’s proceedings began with a statement of the judge that, in refusing to hear Mme. Dreyfus the day before, concerning M. Zola’s good faith, he had supposed that the question to be put to her concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case. Therefore the court desired the defence to specify whether the question concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case, or his good faith in the matter of the Esterhazy case.
M. Labori.—“I do not understand. M. Zola has committed an act which is considered criminal. We maintain that it is an act of good faith, and we ask the witness what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith. As to the Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case, they are connected only indirectly with the Zola case.”
The Judge.—“There is no Zola case. I can question Mme. Dreyfus on the good faith of M. Zola only so far as the Esterhazy case is concerned.”
M. Labori.—“The court will act according to its understanding. It is the sovereign judge. But we are the sovereign judges in the matter of the questions that we wish to put, and to us the question of good faith is indivisible.A man who commits an act commits it either in good or in bad faith, and we have not to inquire whether his faith is good concerning this point or that point. I do not know what Mme. Dreyfus will answer, but I ask that she be questioned in a general way as to the good faith of M. Zola in writing his letter.”
The Judge.—“There must be no confusion here, no arriving by indirect methods at that which the decree of the court has forbidden.”
M. Labori.—“I allow no one to say that I pursue indirect methods. I have neither the face or the attitude or the voice of a man who does things indirectly, and, if there are any indirect methods used here, I leave the entire responsibility—I do not say to the attorney-general—but to the complainant, the minister of war. I insist that the question shall be put as I framed it, and, if the court refuses, I shall offer a motion.”
The Judge.—“I will question Mme. Dreyfus concerning only the second council of war that tried the Esterhazy case.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I am informed that witnesses are present in the court-room, though the trial is now in progress. It seems that General de Boisdeffre, General Mercier” ...
The Judge.—“The trial is not in progress.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It is essential that the witnesses should not be present at any part of the trial before their deposition” ...
The Judge.—“The day’s debate has not begun.”
Nevertheless the military officers, who formed a group in the middle of the room, were then excluded, and Dr. Socquet, the expert physician who had been sent to examine the health of those witnesses who had pleaded illness, took the stand.
He reported that M. Autant had been seized on the previous Sunday with an attack of renal colic, but had now recovered, and was in the witnesses’ room. As to Mme. de Boulancy, he said that her case offered all the symptoms of angina pectoris, and that, considering her condition, her appearance in court would be attended by serious danger.
M. Clemenceau.—“I gather from the doctor’s testimony that it is materially possible for Mme. de Boulancy to come to this bar, but that the doctor thinks that the excitement would be bad for her. I ask him, then, supposing that this question had been put to him; ‘Do you believe that Mme.de Boulancy could appear before the examining magistrate in the presence of Major Esterhazy?’ would he have thought that that excitement would be bad for her?”
Dr. Socquet.—“I cannot answer. It is evident that the surroundings in the assize court are different from those in the office of an examining magistrate.”
Being questioned as to Mlle. de Comminges, he said that her physician, Dr. Florent, told him that she was the victim of a nervous affection, and had heart trouble so clearly defined that she was liable to fainting-spells on entering a room the temperature of which was a little above the ordinary.
M. Clemenceau.—“The jurors will note that these two ladies, Mlle. de Comminges and Mme. de Boulancy, were at their residences, and that their own physicians were present.”
Dr. Socquet.—“No, their physicians were not present.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The expert just said that the physician of Mlle. de Comminges told him a certain thing.”
Dr. Socquet.—“That was in his certificate.”
These preliminaries over, the witness-stand was taken by General de Boisdeffre.
M. Labori.—“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us first what the document was that Major Esterhazy brought to the minister of war some time before his appearance before the council of war?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“That document relates to the Dreyfus case; consequently I cannot speak of it without violating the decree of the court and my professional secrecy.”
M. Labori.—“I am glad to learn that it relates to the Dreyfus case, but Major Esterhazy made use of it as a means of defence, and described it by an interesting phrase which General de Boisdeffre no doubt has heard,—‘the liberating document.’ Moreover, the minister of war gave Major Esterhazy a receipt for it; therefore it concerns exclusively the case of Major Esterhazy. So I ask General de Boisdeffre what the liberating document is.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“Professional secrecy does not permit me to answer.”
M. Labori.—“Professional secrecy can be invoked only by persons capable of receiving confidences because of their profession. Where there is no profession that involves suchconfidences, there is no secrecy. General de Boisdeffre has received no confidences, and, if he has, we do not ask him to betray them. As chief of staff of the army, he has acted as an official, and, if he invokes any secrecy, it can be only that which seems to have been devised in many respects especially for the necessities of this case, and which is called the secret of State. When the secret of State is invoked by a government, we are at liberty to ask if there is a reason to recognize it. That question will arise when the members of the Dupuy cabinet shall come to the stand. When it is invoked by a former president of the republic, we bow with deference, because the president of the republic is irresponsible. But General de Boisdeffre is a responsible official. Respect for the army is never shown to a person, but to a symbol or an ideal, and it is based on the confidence that we have in those who represent it, and on their ability to answer at any moment for all their acts before the justice of the country, represented here by twelve jurors who are France, and to whom everybody owes explanations. General de Boisdeffre is in the presence of justice. He can escape by no appeal to secrecy. Therefore I ask the court to put my question again.”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I have the profoundest respect for the justice of my country. Perhaps I do not know how to make the legal distinctions that have just been pointed out, but I consider the secret of State a professional secret. That is my reply.”
The Judge.—“Let us pass to another order of ideas.”
M. Labori.—“I pass not to another order of ideas, but to another order of questions. Can General de Boisdeffre tell us anything about the veiled lady?”
General de Boisdeffre.—“I know absolutely nothing about the veiled lady, and have not heard her spoken of except by the newspapers.”