THE TRIAL. (continued 6)
Reading edition
“Some words are repeated in the bordereau. The word ne, for instance, occurs four times; the word de seven times. It is very evident that, if these words had been hunted for in M. Esterhazy’s letters, in order to trace them, on finding the word ne they 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 the bordereau one of the four words ne, 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 word vous, 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 the bordereau there 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 large ne, 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 when savants will take these documents and say that M. Esterhazy wrote the bordereau, and there will be no doubt about it whatever. There may have been an original corresponding as a whole to the bordereau, 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.
Tenth Day—February 17.
After a renewed demand on the part of the defence for the production of the original of the bordereau, and a refusal of the 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 the x form given to the letter n, giving the word “Uhlan” the appearance of “Uhlax,”—a peculiarity which had been pointed out in the bordereau a 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 the bordereau and 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 the bordereau. 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 my opinions in regard to this bordereau. 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 the bordereau in 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, the bordereau enumerates 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 the troupes 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 the bordereau said: ‘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 major wearing 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 the bordereau, in relation to the troupes 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 the bordereau:
(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 number to 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 the bordereau. It contains this phrase: ‘Unless you wish me to have it copied in extenso.’ Now, one who wishes to have a document copied in extenso must 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 the bordereau says: ‘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 matter would 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 the bordereau was 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 the bordereau are, 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 the bordereau?”
General Gonse.—“The troupes 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 the troupes 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 the troupes de couverture went 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 the troupes de couverture, some modifications in the organization of artillery; consequently the bordereau states the truth when it adds to the note concerning the troupes de couverture that 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 the bordereau announced 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 further questioning the secretary, as I have already stated. Now I come to the question of the bordereau. Dates must not be confused. There were manœuvres in the autumn of 1894, but the bordereau was 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. The bordereau was 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 the bordereau was 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 the bordereau. This is a begging of the question.”
General Gonse.—“Permit me. I do not give the date with absolute certainty. I know only that the bordereau reached 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.
“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 the bordereau, 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 the troupes de couverture. I said just now that I did not believe that the author of the bordereau was connected with the department. Otherwise he would not have written: ‘A note on the troupes de couverture; there will be some modification in the new plan.’ If, as I had always believed hitherto, the bordereau was 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 the bordereau was 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 the bordereau furnished 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 the bordereau:
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 number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.”
General Gonse.—“After the firing lessons.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me; it says after the manœuvres; and that is very interesting, for here is an officer going to the manœuvres, who can use this document during the manœuvres, having not to restore it till after the manœuvres. Then I ask General Gonse: Why is this document difficult to procure, and why could the officer in question have it for a few days only?”
General Gonse.—“Regarding that, you should ask an officer of the third division,—the artillery division of the war department. I give only an opinion. I believe that, when these documents exist only as projects, the copies are numbered. They give perhaps ten to a regiment of artillery; these ten copies must be restored intact after use of them, so that, if they gave only ten, and there were thirty or forty officers, no single officer could keep his copy long. But this is only a supposition, because the distribution does not concern me. I know it only by hearsay.”
M. Labori.—“But just now it was necessarily an artilleryman. I say, at any rate, that it is necessarily a corps officer, for he would have a manual only during the time of the manœuvres. Is that General Gonse’s interpretation?”
General Gonse.—“Yes. But that does not prove that it is a regiment officer. It must be an artillery officer, and not an officer of a regiment of infantry, for this manual never goes to the infantry.”
The Judge.—“You said just now that it must be an artillery officer and a licentiate.”
General Gonse.—“It was not I who said that; it was General de Pellieux. But I corroborate him, because the enumeration of the documents in the bordereau concerns the artillery division. The hydraulic check does not concern us at the staff. It is a technical matter in the artillery domain. The matter of the troupes de couverture concerns at least three bureaus of the staff,—the first, third, and fourth. The writer of the bordereau then must have been an officer initiated in the work of these three bureaus.”
The Judge.—“My inquiry concerned the words ‘and at the same time a licentiate.’”
General Gonse.—“The licentiates remain two years with the staff, passing six months in each of the four bureaus.”
General de Pellieux.—“The bordereau says: ‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the corps.’ An infantry officer would have said: ‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the artillery corps.’”
M. Clemenceau.—“Would an artillery officer at the firing lessons have refused to lend his manual to a major of infantry?”
General Gonse.—“It is certain that it might have been done, because there is no distrust of the officers of infantry; but, if I remember rightly, the information obtained by Colonel Picquart from the artillery officers was to the effect that Major Esterhazy paid very little attention to what was going on on the firing grounds, and spent his time in smoking cigarettes.”
M. Labori.—“Then what becomes of that extraordinary zeal which was made so much of before the council of war, to explain Major Esterhazy’s strong desire to go to the manœuvres at his own expense? Why was he so zealous, if he wanted to do nothing but smoke cigarettes? If he had asked an officer to lend him the manual, he would not have done so in order to follow the firing, for it is our contention that he wanted it in order to deliver it to a foreign power.”
Colonel Picquart.—“General Gonse said that the writer of the bordereau must have been a licentiate who had passed through the first, third, and fourth bureaus. Well, this bordereau has been attributed to a person who had not reached the third bureau at the time of the appearance of the bordereau, and who was then in the second bureau, which relates to foreign armies. If, then, this person had had anything to deliver, it would have been other things,—for instance, how much we know about the status of foreign armies.”
A recess was then taken, and, when the court came in again, General de Pellieux asked to be recalled.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” said he, “I have an observation to make concerning what has just taken place. So far, we have kept strictly within the bounds of legality. We have said nothing of the Dreyfus case, and I do not wish to speak of it. But the defence has just read publicly a passage from the report of Major d’Ormescheville, which was made behind closed doors. I ask, then, to speak, not of the Dreyfus case,—I shall not speak of it,—but I say, as Colonel Henry said: ‘They want the light; they shall have it.’ At the time of the Castelin interpellation in 1896, a thing occurred which I desire to point out. There came to the war department—and notice that I do not speak of the Dreyfus trial—absolute proof of the guilt of Dreyfus. This proof I have seen. There came to the war department a paper the origin of which cannot be contested, and which contained these words: ‘There is going to be an interpellation regarding the Dreyfus case. Never tell the relations that we had with that Jew.’ Gentlemen, the note is signed. It is not signed with a known name, but attached to it is a visiting-card, and on the back of this card are a few words making an unimportant rendezvous signed with the same name that is signed to the document, and the visiting-card bears the name of the person. Well, gentlemen, a revision of the trial has been sought by indirect methods. I bring you this fact. I make the declaration on my honor, and I appeal to General de Boisdeffre in support of my testimony.”
M. Labori.—“I ask the floor for a moment, not to answer General de Pellieux, but to point out immediately the necessary consequence of his words, so far as this case is concerned. I ask the floor, Monsieur le Président, to say two words.”
The Judge.—“Two words only?”
M. Labori.—“Two words only.”
The Judge.—“Have you a question to put?”
M. Labori.—“How could I have questions to put in answer to an absolutely new matter just brought into the trial?”
General de Pellieux.—“You have brought into the trial a new matter by reading the indictment framed by Major d’Ormescheville, which was read behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“We are advancing, we are advancing.”
General Gonse.—“I ask the floor.”
The Judge.—“Presently, general.”
M. Labori.—“A matter of exceptional gravity has just arisen. There is one point on which we are all agreed here: General de Pellieux has not spoken of the Dreyfus trial. He has spoken of something that happened after the Dreyfus trial. This matter, then, must be discussed here. After such a statement, there can be no restriction of the debate. I point out to General de Pellieux that no document can have any scientific value as proof, until it has been discussed openly. We have now reached a point in this affair—an affair that is assuming the proportions of a State affair—where we are in the presence of two documents, or two files of documents, equally serious,—a secret file which was the basis of the conviction of Dreyfus in 1894 without contradiction, without discussion, without defence, and a second secret file which has been used for weeks to prevent anything but assertions from being made in this court. What ever respect I may have for the word of General de Pellieux as a soldier, I cannot grant that this document has the slightest importance. As long as we do not know it, until we have discussed it, until it shall be publicly known, it will go for nothing. And it is in the name of the eternal right of principles venerated from the beginning of civilization that I utter these words. Consequently I now arrive at a point so precise that my tranquillity, from any point of view, is increased. Only one thing has worried me—the constant obscurity, the increase of public anxiety, thanks to the daily thickening darkness, thickened I do not say by lies, but by equivocations. Whether Dreyfus be guilty or innocent, whether Esterhazy be guilty or innocent, these are questions of the highest gravity. General de Pellieux, the minister of war, General Gonse, and myself are entitled to convictions upon them, and we are capable of going on forever unless the absolute light is brought out. But it will not do to let the excitement of the country go on increasing. Now we have a means, without closed doors, and without court decrees, of arriving at the light, at least at partial light, for the revision of the Dreyfus trial is now a thing of necessity. The protests of the crowd show that it does not understand the seriousness of this trial from the eternal standpoint of civilization and humanity. If Dreyfus is guilty, and if the statements of these generals are well founded, the proof will come out in a fair trial. If they are mistaken, the contrary will be proved, and, when the light shall be absolute, and all the darkness dissipated, there will be perhaps in France one or two men really guilty and responsible, and, whether they be on the one side or the other, they will be known and marked. And then we shall go quietly back to our works of peace or war,—for nobody fears war with generals worthy to speak in the name of the army which they command; and not by threats of war, which is not approaching, whatever they may say, are the jurors to be intimidated. Let General de Pellieux explain himself without reserve, and let the document be produced.”
The Judge.—“General Gonse, what have you to say?”
General Gonse.—“I confirm the testimony of General de Pellieux. He has taken the initiative, and he has done well. I would have taken it in his place, to avoid all equivocation. The army does not fear the light. To save its honor, it does not fear at all to tell the truth. But prudence is a necessity, and I do not believe that proofs of this character, though they are real and absolute, can be brought here and made public.”
General de Pellieux.—“M. Labori spoke just now of revision on the strength of the communication of this secret document to the council of war. There has been no proof of such communication. I do not know whether Colonel Henry’s testimony of the other day was listened to with sufficient attention. He pointed out that Colonel Sandherr had delivered to him a secret file, which had been sealed before the sitting of the council of war and had never been opened. Now, for a revision of the Dreyfus trial because of this document, what is necessary? The proof.”
The Judge.—“We have not to concern ourselves with revision. That cannot be done here.”
General de Pellieux.—“There is talk of nothing else.”
The Judge.—“I know that, but it cannot be done in an assize court. General Gonse, have you anything more to say?”
General Gonse.—“No.”
General de Pellieux.—“I ask that General de Boisdeffre be sent for to confirm my words.”
The Judge.—“Will you ask him to come tomorrow?”
General de Pellieux.—“Major Delcassé, take a carriage and go for General de Boisdeffre at once. I wish to say that I have brought up this letter only because I was forced to. Major d’Ormescheville told me himself that the newspapers mutilated his report. I ask that he be called to testify.”
M. Labori.—“Since it was I who read from this report, I ask permission to answer General de Pellieux in two words.”
The Judge.—“Is it a material fact?”
M. Labori.—“This report has been published. I had nothing to do with its publication.”
General de Pellieux.—“Has it been published in full?”
M. Labori.—“I do not know.”
General de Pellieux.—“Ah! that is the question.”
M. Labori.—“No, that is not the question, for there are several questions.”
General de Pellieux.—“It is one of the questions.”
M. Labori.—“The question is whether the note to which General Gonse attributed the date of August was really written in February. Whether some pages were omitted or not does not alter this fact. If the report has not been published entire, I ask that it be published entire. And I shall have only to congratulate myself when it appears, because thus we shall arrive at that light for which we are continually asking, and which will never be made too complete to suit us. General de Pellieux sends for General de Boisdeffre. He is right, but I wish to say—and within forty-eight hours my words will be recognized as prophetic—that it will not be possible to stop the debate at the words of General de Pellieux or at those of General de Boisdeffre. Either these documents must not be spoken of, or else they must be shown. That is why I say to General de Boisdeffre: ‘Bring the documents, or say no more’.”
M. Clemenceau.—“General de Pellieux told us that at the time of the Castelin interpellation they had absolute proofs. Does that mean that, before that, they had only relative proofs? I ask General de Pellieux—and it is a question that is beginning to be asked everywhere—how it happens that it is in an assize court that so serious an assertion is made? How happens it that General Billot, in the course of the Castelin interpellation, did not speak of these secret documents to the chamber, any more than he threatened the chamber with war? It is to an assize court that they come to say these serious things, and reveal secret documents.”
General de Pellieux.—“I have not threatened the country with war. All this is to play upon words. It is none of my affair whether General Billot spoke of this document at the time of the Castelin interpellation. General Billot does as he sees fit. Surely he said to the chamber several times: ‘Dreyfus was justly and legally convicted.’”
M. Labori.—“I interrupt to say that at least one of those two words is false.”
General de Pellieux.—“Prove it.”
M. Labori.—“It is proved.”
M. Clemenceau.—“We have tried to prove it, and have been prevented, and, if General de Pellieux wishes me to explain further, I am ready to do so.”
The Judge.—“It is useless.”
M. Labori.—“It is proved by M. Salle; it is proved by M. Demange; it is proved by publications in the newspapers that have not been contradicted; it is proved by General Mercier, who did not dare to look me in the face and say the contrary, though I had sent him, through the newspapers of the day before, a challenge which he has answered by silence, which he answered by a distinction which in itself alone is a decisive proof, for, when I said: ‘General Mercier delivered a document to the council of war, and has boasted of it publicly everywhere,’ General Mercier, throwing another equivocation into the debate,—I do not say wilfully, perhaps unconsciously,—answered; ‘That is not true,’ and I said to him: ‘What is not true,—that you have not said it everywhere, or that you did not deliver the document?’ and he answered me: ‘Simply that I have not boasted of it everywhere.’ So I say that to every honest mind the proof is made, and the proof that the proof is made is that no one has risen to say what General de Pellieux will not dare to say. I defy him to say it. Well, I say that the proof is made.”
General de Pellieux.—“How do you expect me to say what happened in the Dreyfus trial? I was not there.”
M. Labori.—“It is well. I thank you, my general.”
M. Clemenceau.—“We brought here a witness who had it from the lips of one of the members of the council of war that a secret document was communicated to the judges. We were not allowed to question him.”
M. Labori.—“I have two letters that say the same thing, and I have another letter from a friend of the president of the republic, declaring that he will not come to testify, because he has been warned that, if he tells the truth, they will declare him a liar.”
M. Clemenceau.—“As to the secret document, why did not General Billot show it to M. Scheurer-Kestner when that gentleman went to see him? In that case the whole matter would have been finished by this time.”
Cutting the matter short, the court called the next witness. It was Major Esterhazy. He advanced to the bar, and rested himself upon it, facing the jury. A guard followed him, stopping a little distance away. But M. Labori insisted that the trial could not go on until the declarations of General de Pellieux had been either overthrown or confirmed, and, General de Boisdeffre not having arrived, the court postponed the hearing of Major Esterhazy to the following day, and an adjournment was declared.
Eleventh Day—February 18.
At the opening of the hearing the judge called General de Boisdeffre to the bar, and said to him:
“General, yesterday an incident occurred which we did not expect. Although it concerns a matter outside of this trial, in view of what was said, and in view of the demand for your testimony, we thought it our duty to send for you. Let me read to you the stenographic report of the declaration made here yesterday by General de Pellieux.”
When the judge had finished reading, General de Boisdeffre spoke as follows:
“I shall be brief. I confirm General de Pellieux’s deposition in all points as exact and authentic. I have not a word more to say, not having the right. And now, gentlemen, permit me, in conclusion, to say one thing to you. You are the jury; you are the nation. If the nation has no confidence in the commanders of its army, in those who are responsible for the national defence, they are ready to leave this heavy task to others; you have only to speak. I will not say a word more. Monsieur le Président, I ask your permission to withdraw.”
The Judge.—“You may withdraw, General. Bring in the next witness.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I have some questions to put.”
The Judge.—“You have not the floor. The incident is closed.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, Monsieur le Président” ...
The Judge.—“You have not the floor. [To the court officer.] Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori.—“I have some questions to put to the witness.”
The Judge.—“This was an incident outside of the trial. You have not the floor.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, I ask you for the floor.”
The Judge.—“I do not give it to you.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to make some observations, in order to indicate why I ask the floor.”
The Judge [to the court officer].—“Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori.—“I am going to offer a motion in order to obtain the floor.”
The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it later. Bring in Major Esterhazy.”
M. Labori then began to draw up his motion, and in the meantime Major Esterhazy was ushered in. As he took the stand, the judge said: “M. Labori, what questions have you to put?”
M. Labori [without rising].—“Monsieur le Président, I am drawing up my motion.”
The Judge.—“Well, I am going to question the witness. It has been declared in this trial that you were the author of the famous bordereau. What have you to say thereupon?”
Major Esterhazy.—“I ask permission to make a declaration to the jurors before answering you.”
The Judge.—“You can make such a declaration, now that you have taken the oath.”
Major Esterhazy.—“Gentlemen of the jury, I do not know whether you realize the abominable situation in which I am placed. Without the shadow of a proof, a wretch, M. Mathieu Dreyfus, has dared to accuse me of being the author of the crime for which his brother is being punished. He has accused me of the crime of high treason. For seven weeks two examinations were in progress. My accusers had a chance to produce all their proofs. They were offered the widest latitude; they produced nothing. I have been judged by my peers, by my superiors, who have acquitted me unanimously. Today, in contempt of all rights, in contempt of all the rules of justice. I am summoned before you, not as a witness, but as an accused. I protest with all my might against this treatment. I am kept in the witnesses’ room, and not allowed to put anyone forward in my justification. Meantime my accusers question the witnesses whom they have prepared. There is no one to raise his voice in my favor. During the last eighteen months, in the shadow, there has been woven against me the most frightful conspiracy ever woven against any man. During that time I have suffered more than anyone of my contemporaries has suffered in the whole of his life. I have been made the object of the most infamous manœuvres, the most cowardly manœuvres,—for it is especially cowardice that figures in this campaign. I am ready to answer all the questions that the court or the jurors may ask me. It is your right. As for these people, I do not answer them.”
The Judge.—“M. Labori, have you any questions to put?”
M. Labori.—“I am drawing up my motion, Monsieur le Président.”
The Judge.—“Witness, you may be seated.”
M. Labori.—“I add that I shall have some questions to put to the witness.”
The Judge.—“You will put them now, or not at all.”
M. Labori.—“I call attention to the way in which, twice in succession, you have refused me the means of maintaining the defence.”
The Judge.—“I repeat to you that you are not the director of the trial.”
M. Labori.—“I do not direct the trial. The proof of that is that you forbid me the floor. I have a right to offer motions. I am drawing up a motion. When the court shall have passed upon it, I will put questions. You will pass upon it in the fulness of your rights. As for me, I will appeal by every way that is open to me.”
The Judge.—“You have the right to appeal, but as for me, I will direct the trial as to me seems proper. You ask the floor on a matter foreign to the trial. I have refused it to you, and I still refuse it to you. If you have no questions to put to Major Esterhazy, we shall ask him to be seated.”
M. Labori.—“I have questions to ask, but I will not ask them until the court shall have passed upon my motion.”
The Judge.—“The court will pass upon it tomorrow.”
M. Labori.—“The court will pass upon it when it likes, but, as for me, not another word shall be gotten from me.”
The Judge.—“Witness, take your seat.”
The court then called other witnesses, but none appeared. Thereupon General de Pellieux asked for the floor.
The Judge.—“Certainly.”
General de Pellieux.—“I have just received the declaration of a person whose name is on this card. This person was questioned day before yesterday by M. Atthalin. I ask that he be heard. He has an especially important declaration to make regarding a money proposition that has been made to him. He is in the Salle des Pas-Perdus, ready to come up. His name is M. Bouton. I do not know him.”
The Judge.—“We will hear this witness presently, if there is occasion.”
The court then declared a recess. An hour and a half later the court came in again, whereupon M. Labori read the following motion:
May it please the court,
Whereas, after the deposition of General de Boisdeffre, M. Labori asked the floor in order to put several questions to the witness;
Whereas the incident in question was raised spontaneously during yesterday’s session by General de Pellieux, who invoked, as a so-called proof against Dreyfus, and consequently as a so-called decisive defence of Major Esterhazy, two documents without any appearance of value or authenticity;
Whereas, without having to touch any point concerning the national defence, the accused have a right to put to the witnesses in a general way questions relative to their depositions, and of such a nature as to aid in bringing out the truth;
Whereas the accused cannot be forbidden, without outrageously violating the rights of defence, to ask questions concerning the manner in which General de Pellieux was made acquainted with these documents, the conditions under which they were shown to him, in order to find out whether they have been examined by experts, etc.;
Whereas it cannot be pretended that General de Pellieux made a declaration so spontaneous that it was impossible to stop him;
Whereas in fact, General de Boisdeffre, whose deposition had been announced in advance, has been called to the bar, after a day’s reflection, with the consent of the court and with full knowledge of the circumstances, in order to confirm the declaration of General de Pellieux;
Whereas there is no occasion here to inquire into the value, from the standpoint of equity and right, of judicial processes which consist in calling, or allowing to come daily, to the bar generals who testify free of all control, and without prevention of any sort, concerning matters which it pleases them to approach, invoking or violating closed doors or professional secrecy at their convenience;
But whereas in any case, and making, moreover, concerning this matter, all legal reserves, the accused believe it their duty to establish the following fact: The judge of the assize court, answering M. Labori, who asked for the floor in the terms of Article 319 of the code of criminal examination, and solely to put questions to witnesses; declared that the floor should not be given to him, and that no question should be asked either of General de Boisdeffre or of General de Pellieux;
Whereas the court made this answer before any question had been formulated;
Whereas M. Labori then asked to be allowed to offer a motion, in order to establish this refusal, and to make known to the court the reasons of fact and law by which he intended to obtain the floor immediately in the interest of the defence;
Whereas the judge refused to let M. Labori offer his motion;
Whereas the judge of the assize court undoubtedly has a right to direct the trial and to put questions to witnesses, but whereas, that this right may be exercised in conformity with the law, with equity, and with good sense, it is indispensable that the judge should at least inform himself of the questions to be put;
Whereas the refusal of the court, under the general, rigorous, and absolute conditions in which it was declared, constitutes, from all points of view, and especially after the depositions of General de Pellieux and General de Boisdeffre, which are thus left without answer and with the protection of justice, a manifest violation of the rights of defence;
Whereas by the deposition of General de Boisdeffre the question of confidence in the general staff is now laid before the jury, and the chief of the general staff has indicated that a verdict of acquittal would be followed by the resignation of the general staff;
Whereas the defence thus finds itself confronted with a really abusive intervention of military authority in a matter of justice, and whereas it would be a veritable denial of justice to prevent the accused from disproving the serious charges made against them at this bar with the authorization of the court;
Whereas, in consequence of these facts, the judge summoned the next witness, Major Esterhazy;
Whereas, after having put a question to him upon the refusal of the defence to put questions itself for the reason that it needed time to draw up a motion, the judge invited M. Labori to put questions to Major Esterhazy if he thought it useful to do so, telling him that he must put them then, or that he would not be allowed to put them later;
Whereas, after this declaration, and in spite of the protests of the defence, the witness, Major Esterhazy, was sent back to his seat, and another witness was called;
Whereas it was only because no witness appeared at the bar that the judge found himself under the necessity of declaring a recess, and that the defence has had an opportunity of drawing up its motion;
Whereas all these facts have done serious injury to the rights of the defence, the free exercise of which it is the business of the court to insure;
For these reasons,
To give the movers the benefit of record of the facts announced as the reasons for the present motion;
To order that Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre shall be recalled to the bar, there to be examined on all questions that may be formulated by the defence and thereafter put by the court;
To declare that the trial shall then go on according to the regular forms prescribed by law, under all reserves, notably under that of recalling to the bar Major Esterhazy when there shall be occasion;
And that will be justice.
Paris, February 18, 1898.
The Attorney-General.—“I have but a single observation to make,—namely, to recall my declaration of the opening day that the law is absolutely opposed to any attempt at revision in the assize court. I asked the court to exclude from the trial the Dreyfus file and the Esterhazy file. I foresaw all that is taking place here. It is because we have allowed ourselves to be drawn upon the ground which the defence had chosen and prepared that all this has occurred. Under these circumstances I have only to remain on the ground where I first placed myself, and on that ground I call for an open debate, but only on that ground.”
M. Labori.—“I do not ask the floor to plead. Nevertheless it is fitting that the defence should say a word in answer to the attorney-general, and I thank the court for allowing me for once to take the floor.” [Murmurs of protest in the court-room.]
The Judge.—“For ten sessions this has been going on.”
M. Labori.—“What has been going on, and what is increasing, is the unfitting manifestations which the court makes no effort to suppress. The attorney-general seeks shelter behind the words that he uttered on the opening day. He has seen nothing of what has been going on during the last ten days, if he thinks that we are still at the point where we were when he rose for the first time, on February 7, 1898. The facts have taken it upon themselves to prove that, in presence of a situation so serious as this, procedure and its subtleties are of no avail. I said, when I rose the first time: ‘Do you imagine that you can stop a torrent by placing yourself in the middle of it?’ You see that this torrent flows on. But the attorney-general could not have chosen a more inopportune moment for placing himself in opposition to the full explanations that we desire. Was it the accused who threw into the trial the incredible declarations that were heard here yesterday, and that could not resist ten minutes’ examination? We have nothing to do with them. Generals have come here every day to plead, not only with the oratorical talent that some of them possess, but with their authority, with their uniform, with their stripes, with their decorations” ...
The Judge.—“I shall take the floor from you, if you go on in that tone; it the last degree of impropriety.”
M. Labori.—“I do not accept the word ‘impropriety.’ There is nothing improper in my words. I say that these generals have come here to plead. Is that improper? I say that they have pleaded here not only with their talent. Is that improper?”
The Judge.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“I say that they have pleaded also with all the authority given them by the love of this country for its flag, which it wrongly confounds with them, for the flag is to be confounded with nobody. The flag is a symbol. [Cries of Enough! Enough!] Silence for those who do not respect justice in default of respect for defence. Really, who is it that is guilty of impropriety here, I ask?”
The Judge.—“The impropriety is in exciting the protests that you excite.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, this trial has now risen to such a point that such opinions as those which you have just uttered, Monsieur le Président, have no weight with me, whatever my respect for your functions. And you shall not stop me, except by depriving me of the floor. It would not be the first time, and, if the trial goes on in this way, I am afraid that it will not be the last. That said, I resume my explanations at the point where I left off. I say that the attorney-general could not have chosen more inopportune circumstances to remind us of his words on the opening day. These generals have brought into the trial, not facts, but assertions, which we are forbidden, I do not say to contradict, but to discuss and examine. This is not the moment to protest against the revision that we desire. Ah! yes, in spite of all obstacles, by virtue of the forces that truth and the sentiment of justice impart, we have been making this revision here for the last ten days, and it is because we are making it so successfully that by violent, morally violent, and illegal means they are trying from day to day, by demolishing each stone of the edifice that is rising in spite of everything, to make against us a sort of counter-revision. Well, there shall be no counter-revision here, unless we have the right to reply. The debate has now risen far above the condemned man on Devil’s Island, who is interesting not because of his suffering, for there are so many men who suffer, and in so many different ways, that one more or less does not make much difference. He is interesting only because he suffers in violation of law, by a verdict rendered in the name of the people, in the name of the country. The trial has risen far above Esterhazy, far above M. Zola and M. Perrenx. It has risen above everybody. It is justice, liberty, and right that are now in question, and it is in their name that I offer in abstracto the motion which I have just offered.
“You also, gentlemen of the court, have responsibilities here. Do not answer our motion by equivocations. Do not say that I have asked for the floor for an argument. It would not be true. Confront the question as it is put. You are to tell us, gentlemen, if new forms of justice are to be inaugurated in this country. Neglect the tumult of an audience which does not know why it rages. Neglect the passions of people who trustingly believe in assertions that cannot be examined, and could not stand examination for a second. Do not forget that perhaps we are at a turning-point in the history of this country; and that you are about to render a decree the consequences of which no one can measure.”
The court then rendered the following decree:
After listening to the accused and their counsel, and to the public prosecutor, and after deliberating in conformity with the law;
Considering that, on the spontaneous demand of General de Pellieux, the latter declared at yesterday’s session a fact relating to the Dreyfus case, and that, in support of his declaration, he invoked the testimony of General de Boisdeffre;
Considering that the latter, at today’s session, has confirmed the declaration of General de Pellieux;
Considering that, in the terms of the decree of February 7, the court has ordered that all incidents relating to the Dreyfus case should be excluded from the trial, and that consequently every question relating to these incidents must be excluded as of no utility and contrary to the aforesaid decree;
Considering that consequently the presiding judge was right in refusing the floor to the defence for the putting of any question under this head, and in ordering that the trial should be proceeded with;
Adopting, furthermore, the reasons indicated in the aforesaid decree;
Considering, as concerns Major Esterhazy, that the presiding judge, after having summoned the witnesses to the bar, invited the counsel of M. Zola to put to him such questions as he might deem useful, and that the counsel refused to put any questions at that moment, and that the presiding judge had to question him officially;
Considering, further, that the direction of the trial belongs exclusively to the president of the assize court in conformity with the law;
For these reasons,
The court declares that the presiding judge was right in refusing the floor to the counsel of the accused for the putting of any question to Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre;
Declares that Major Esterhazy will be recalled to the bar, if there is occasion;
Rejects consequently the motion of the defence, and declares that the trial shall be proceeded with.
At this point M. Clemenceau inquired if General de Pellieux had fulfilled his promise to obtain from the minister of war an authorization of the production of the Uhlan letter. General de Pellieux answered that the minister of war must have written to the court in regard to it; but the court declared that nothing had been received from General Billot.
Then M. Clemenceau asked that the court order a guard to protect Mme. de Boulancy on her way to the court-room, she being in the building, but fearing to traverse, unprotected, the distance of one hundred and fifty feet between the point where she was and the court-room. The request was denied.
Then Colonel Picquart was recalled to the stand.
M. Labori.—“Major Esterhazy has had in his hands a document known as ‘the liberating document.’ It is directly connected with the Esterhazy case, and is the document that was seen in a certain file concerning which Colonel Henry testified. It has been declared that this file was shut up in a closet on the 15th or 16th of December, 1894, and was not taken out again until it was seen on the desk of Colonel Picquart in the presence of M. Leblois. Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows about that file?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Colonel Henry’s testimony was incorrect. The file was taken from the closet in the interval, I have not to say for what circumstances, or for what purpose. But Colonel Henry’s statement is not correct.
“Another thing. General Gonse said that the document beginning: ‘That scoundrel D——’ had been in the hands of several persons,—his own, Major Henry’s, Adjutant Gribelin’s, and mine. Well, I say that it has been in the hands of other persons. I need not enumerate them, but one of the persons who had it in his possession for some time is Colonel du Paty de Clam.
“I say further that, when this file was shut up in my closet from the end of August to the beginning of November, 1896, I was not the only one who could get it. There were at least two others who knew how to open my closet,—Adjutant Gribelin and Major Lauth. Colonel Henry also spoke of certain secret documents, extra-secret. I should violate my professional duty, if I were to enumerate the contents of that file. Until the minister of war shall relieve me from the obligation of professional secrecy, I shall have nothing to say regarding this. But I believe that Colonel Henry somewhat exaggerates the importance of certain documents therein. Evidently they are not documents for the public, but, considering the fact that the bordereau and the dispatch have been spoken of here, there are certainly other documents in the file which could be spoken of. In fact, there are certain of them whose authenticity it would be well to verify, one especially which arrived at the moment when Major Esterhazy needed to be defended against the charge that he was the author of the bordereau, and when it was necessary to prove that the author of the bordereau was someone else. Well, it has been produced, it seems, for it was never shown to me; but I have heard of it, and its origin has not been stated; probably it fell from heaven. But, in view of the moment of its production, and the language in which it is framed,—language absolutely improbable,—I think that there is reason to consider it a forgery.”
M. Labori.—“The document of which Colonel Picquart speaks is the document alluded to here yesterday?”
Colonel Picquart.—“It is the document of which General de Pellieux spoke. If he had not spoken of it yesterday, I would not have spoken of it today. It is a forgery.”
General Gonse was then recalled for confrontation with Colonel Picquart. But he declared that he could do no more than repeat the declaration already made by General de Boisdeffre.
Major Esterhazy was then called to the bar.
Testimony of Major Esterhazy.
M. Labori.—“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer me. Consequently, in conformity with the law, I ask him no question, but I ask the court to ask him what he thinks of the writing of the bordereau, and to call his attention to the fact that the question is put by the court.”
The Judge.—“I repeat the question to Major Esterhazy. You are asked what you think of the writing of the bordereau.”
Major Esterhazy.—“Although you do me the honor to convey to me this question, Monsieur le Président, it is still the question of M. Labori. Consequently I will not answer.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, will you ask Major Esterhazy if he has in his hands the letter that Captain Brault wrote to him in 1893 to ask him for his handwriting—either Captain Brault or a forger signing the captain’s name?”
The Judge.—“Will you answer?”
Major Esterhazy.—“I will answer none of the questions put to me. That is flat.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask permission to continue the experiment. And, as the witness may at any time change his mind, I will ask all the questions that I have to ask. The witness will answer or not. Will you ask the witness how he entered the French army,—by way of St. Cyr, by way of the Polytechnic, or otherwise?”
The Judge.—“You hear the question.”
Major Esterhazy.—“Always the same reply.”
M. Clemenceau.—“At what time was the witness connected with the French information service? Has he not said that he was connected with it twenty years ago? Did he not say that before the council of war?”
No answer.
M. Clemenceau.—“I will continue. Did the witness ever know a person answering to the name of Mme. de Boulancy?”
The Judge.—“Will you answer this question?”
Major Esterhazy.—“None, Monsieur le Président.”
A few “Bravos” were heard in the court-room.
M. Clemenceau.—“I beg the court to permit all these manifestations on the part of the public. If you will permit me, I will even join in them, because I consider that the witness has adopted the only plan open to him. Placing myself where he stands, I will applaud every time that he refuses to answer the questions that I shall ask him. Does the witness admit that he wrote a letter to Mme. de Boulancy containing the following passage: ‘The Germans will put all these people [meaning Frenchmen] in their right-place before long’?”
The Judge.—“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Pointing out that the witness has previously admitted the authenticity of this letter, I continue. Does the witness admit that he wrote a letter containing the following passage: ‘There is the beautiful army of France; it is shameful. And if it were not a question of position, I would leave tomorrow. I have written to Constantinople. If they offer me a position that suits me, I will go there, but not without first administering to all these scoundrels a pleasantry of my own’?”
After waiting a moment and receiving no reply, M. Clemenceau continued:
“Are not the passages that I have just read contained in letters whose authenticity the witness admitted to General de Pellieux? [Silence.]
“Did not the witness deny to General de Pellieux the authenticity of a single letter, called the Uhlan letter, in which the passages that I have just read do not occur?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did not the witness admit that the following passage occurred in a letter written by him to Mme. de Boulancy: ‘Our great commanders, poltroons and ignoramuses, will go once more to fill the German prisons’?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that the passage just read was contained in a letter whose authenticity he did not deny to General de Pellieux?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that he wrote to Mme. de Boulancy a letter containing the following passage: ‘I am absolutely at the mercy of this hussy, if I make the slightest mistake with her; and it is a situation which is far from pleasant. I hate her, you may believe, and I would give everything in the world to be today at Sfax, and send for her to come there: one of my horse soldiers, with a gun capable of going off by chance, would cure her forever.’” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that this letter was produced before General de Pellieux, and that he did not deny its authenticity?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on. The major has told you that he will not answer.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that all these letters containing the insults to the army and its commanders which I have just read were written after the war of 1870 and 1871?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Monsieur le Président, I am going to read a letter the authenticity of which the witness denies, and, after that, I will ask him a question.”
M. Clemenceau then read the Uhlan letter, and followed it with this question: “This letter having been seized at Mme. de Boulancy’s, does the witness pretend that Mme. de Boulancy is a forger?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“In certain interviews it has been stated that Major Esterhazy had declared that Mme. de Boulancy was either mad or a forger. Does the witness maintain that declaration?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Has not the witness once stated that the Uhlan letter could not have been written by him, since he writes ‘Uhlan’ in the Hungarian fashion, while in the letter it is written as it is usually written in France?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does not the witness know that his argument on that point has been met by the statement that, in a letter whose authenticity cannot be denied, since it was seized at the law office of M. Lortat-Jacob, there is mention of the Uhlan, and that the word is spelled as in the letter to Mme. de Boulancy?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“What is the explanation of the word ‘crime’ contained in a letter that I have read, and in which Major Esterhazy indicated that perhaps he would be obliged to commit a crime? What crime had he in mind? Did he mean, as certain newspapers have stated, that he would be ready to kill himself?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“If that be his explanation, how can he admit the other affirmation made to a witness, M. Autant, that Major Esterhazy was at that moment a man who was ready to kill himself, when Major Esterhazy declared before the council of war that he was not a man to kill himself?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“You have no more questions?”
M. Clemenceau.—“Yes, Monsieur le Président. Does the witness admit having written other letters to Mme. de Boulancy and recently two telegrams?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“At first did not the witness deny all these letters?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“After the motion made before the court, did not Major Esterhazy admit that the passages indicated in the motion were correct, notably the following: (1) ‘General Saussier is a clown, whom the Germans would not have in a circus;’ (2) ‘On reaching Lyons, the Germans will throw away their guns, and keep only their bayonets, to drive the Frenchmen before them’?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Concerning the first passage, did not Major Esterhazy declare that he was simply reporting remarks made by German officers at a dinner where French officers were present?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Concerning the second passage, has not the witness declared in an interview that the phrase was his, but that it was his estimate of the way in which the city of Lyons is defended? Concerning the first passage, will Major Esterhazy explain to the court how it happened that French officers were able to be present at a dinner where foreign officers indulged in such remarks, and how it happens that the French officers, and notably Major Esterhazy, did not protest?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“In the passages that I have just read Major Esterhazy repeatedly indicates that he was exasperated; yet has not Major Esterhazy received excellent testimonials from his superiors?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“On the eve of the appearance of Major Esterhazy before the council of war, the chief of staff said in a testimonial that he is ‘of the most distinguished superior officers, and of elevated sentiments,—one who can aspire to the highest positions in the hierarchy’; the brigadier-general, that M. Esterhazy ‘is distinguished, remarkably endowed, has all the qualifications of a commander, and has a future’; the general of division, that he is ‘a superior officer of personal value.’ Now, will the court ask the witness if he was not a little surprised when he heard these testimonials read before the council of war?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Were not the causes of his surprise (1) that he has been short of money, and, to use his own expression, had been to the people whose trade it is to lend money; (2) that he speculated on the stock exchange, as indicated by M. de Castro. [Silence.] I may go on, Monsieur le Président?”
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Has not Colonel Picquart said that the witness was short of money, and did he not give the names of officers who had given him bad reports concerning Major Esterhazy? Was not the witness’s acquaintance with General Guerrier another reason for his surprise? The witness has declared that his premises were robbed; when were they robbed?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Before the council of war, the witness was a little confused in his replies on this point. He was unable to explain himself. Perhaps he would like to explain himself in the assize court? [Silence.] Did the witness ever prefer a complaint on account of this robbery?”
The Judge.—“Will you answer?”
Major Esterhazy.—“No, Monsieur le Président.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Was this robbery proved otherwise than by the affirmations of Major Esterhazy? [Silence.] Did Major Esterhazy reply to the council of war: ‘I supposed that it was M. Mathieu Dreyfus? I would not have believed that it was an officer. When they told me that, I was dumbfounded.’ Does the witness adhere to the reply? [Silence.] If he adheres to it, how can he explain his answer that M. Mathieu Dreyfus was guilty of this robbery in 1896, when at that time he could not have known the name of M. Mathieu Dreyfus? [Silence.] How did the witness learn that he was suspected of having written the bordereau?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“When did he learn it?”
The Judge.—“You may go on. The witness has told you that he will not answer you.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Has not the witness said that he learned of it through a letter signed ‘Speranza,’ received in the country, October 20, 1897, in which Colonel Picquart was denounced, and in which it was said that Colonel Picquart had paid soldiers for specimens of his handwriting? [Silence.] Did not the witness learn through the note published in ‘Le Matin’ on October 10, ten days before the 20th, that M. Scheurer-Kestner knew who wrote the bordereau? [Silence.] When the witness returned to Paris, did he not observe the resemblance in the writing, and did he not say that there was a frightful resemblance between the writing of the bordereau and his own? [Silence.] Will the witness explain concerning the veiled lady, and the circumstances under which she conveyed to him the liberating document? [Silence.] Did not Major Esterhazy have four meetings with the veiled lady? [Silence.] At the second meeting, near the spot where now stands the Bridge Alexander III, did not the veiled lady hand to Major Esterhazy an envelope containing a liberating document? [Silence.] Did not Major Esterhazy declare before the council of war that he had carried this document, this liberating document which affirmed his innocence, in an envelope to the war department, without knowing what the envelope contained?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“When the witness deposited this liberating document at the war department, did they not give him a receipt for it? [Silence.] When he appeared at the war department with a secret document stolen from its most secret closet, was not Major Esterhazy afraid of being arrested as an accomplice in a robbery? [Silence.] Has not Major Esterhazy made endeavors to find the veiled lady again?” [Silence.]
The Judge.—“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Will Major Esterhazy tell us what, in his opinion, were the motives that led Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart to accuse him? [Silence.] Does Major Esterhazy admit that he has written articles signed ‘Dixi’ for ‘La Libre Parole’? Is Major Esterhazy aware that ‘La Libre Parole’ lately declared that the articles thus signed were from his pen? [Silence.] In these articles did Major Esterhazy seriously insult Colonel Picquart, and especially accuse him of having been bought in 1896? [Silence.] Does Major Esterhazy admit having had relations with Colonel de Schwarzkoppen?”
The Judge.—“Oh! nothing about that. Not a word concerning foreign politics.”
M. Clemenceau.—“This does not concern foreign politics.”
The Judge.—“Say nothing of officers belonging to foreign countries.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I have not a right to speak of an act committed by a French officer?”
The Judge.—“No, let us not discuss that.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Is it true, as the newspapers have said, that Major Esterhazy knew Colonel de Schwarzkoppen, and went once in uniform to the German embassy for his colonel, who desired to go to Alsace-Lorraine without being disturbed?”
The Judge.—“I have told you that I will not put the question.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Does the witness admit that he had relations, not frequent, but not hidden, with Colonel de Schwarzkoppen, military attaché of the German embassy, whom he knew at Carlsbad, as ‘Le Paris’ says?”
The Judge.—“No, I will not put the question.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I will offer a motion, if necessary.”
The Judge.—“Oh, come!”
M. Clemenceau.—“Certainly. How is it that one cannot speak of justice in a court?”
The Judge.—“Because there is something above that,—the honor and safety of the country.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I note, Monsieur le Président, that the honor of the country permits these things to be done, but does not permit them to be said.”
Major Esterhazy was then allowed to step down, and his place was taken by M. Jules Huret, of “Le Figaro,” who testified that on November 17, 1897, he went to the garrison at Rouen to question the officers regarding Major Esterhazy, and found among them no astonishment at the mention of Major Esterhazy’s name in connection with the bordereau, one of them saying that Major Esterhazy, in spite of his services in Tunis, and in spite of the services of his uncle and father in the French army, was considered the rastaquouère of the French army.
The defence then offered as a witness General Guerrier, but the court declined to hear him, because his name was not in the list of witnesses furnished by the defence to the attorney-general. For the same reason the court declined to hear M. Bouton, whose card had been passed up by General de Pellieux. An adjournment was then taken until the following day.
Twelfth Day—February 19.
The proceedings opened with an application for the floor from Colonel Picquart, who desired to vindicate himself against aspersions cast upon him by witnesses and by the newspapers. Referring first to a statement of “Le Petit Journal” that he was a divorced husband, and was having his children brought up in Germany, he declared that he was not married, that he had never been, that he had no children, and that, if he had any, he would not have them brought up in Germany. Referring next to the statement of General de Pellieux that he, Colonel Picquart, had endeavored to stimulate the testimony of Mulot by promising him certain favors, he said that General de Pellieux knew him only through the three interviews that they had had on three afternoons, and that he would like some military commander who knew him better to be called to testify regarding his character. “I will cite you,” said he, “one man whose past is glorious, who has shed his blood on many battle-fields, a man who has been mingled with our victories and our sorrows, a man who certainly cannot be suspected of undue indulgence toward his subordinates,—I mean General de Galiffet. I am certain that, if General de Galiffet were called to this bar, he would say what he said before the council of investigation, where he did not fear to shake hands with me after saying what he thought of me. I ask that he may come here to say what he thinks of me. I do not know the proper means to employ; but I desire it.”
M. Labori sustained the demand of Colonel Picquart that General de Galiffet be called, but the court ruled that his testimony would be useless.
In answer to questions put by M. Labori, Colonel Picquart testified that, while he was at the head of the bureau of information, one Marchand was connected with that service, who was also an editor of “L’Eclair,” a “hold-over” from the time of Colonel Sandherr, and that, at the time of certain publications in “L’Eclair,” M. Marchand was questioned about them, whereupon he denied being concerned in the indiscretions, and endeavored, but unsuccessfully, to find out who had given the documents to “L’Eclair.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Pellieux intervene several times, of his own accord, in the course of Colonel Picquart’s testimony before the council of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Please put that question to General de Pellieux.”
Thus summoned, General de Pellieux advanced to the bar, apologizing for his appearance in civil costume, declaring that he had supposed his part in the affair was ended. Instead of answering the question, he spoke as follows:
“The words uttered yesterday by the attorney-general dictate my duty. I absolutely refuse to answer any question of the defence not directly connected with the Zola case. Now I have a word to add. In presence of Colonel Picquart, I said at a previous session that everything in this case was strange, but what I find still more strange—and I say it to his face—is the attitude of a Monsieur who still wears the French uniform, and who comes to this bar to accuse three generals of having committed a forgery or made use of a forgery.”
Colonel Picquart.—“In declaring yesterday that in my eyes the document of which General de Pellieux had spoken was a forgery, I insist that I had not the least intention of casting suspicion upon the good faith of my superiors. There are forgeries so perfect that they have the appearance of a genuine document. For instance, there were the Norton documents, I believe, which persons high in place thought to be genuine. My thought should be interpreted from this point of view, and I object to any other interpretation.”
M. Labori desired to say a few words regarding the incident, but the court was opposed. “All this,” said the judge, “has nothing to do” ...
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, Monsieur le Président” ...
The Judge.—“I am going to deprive you of the floor.”
M. Labori.—“Every time that you deprive me of the floor, you do me a little more honor.”
The Judge.—“Well, it is understood; you may take your seat.”
General de Pellieux.—“I would like to add a word. The part that I have played in this matter has not been voluntary; circumstances have forced it upon me.”
The Judge.—“Can the witness withdraw? Has the defence any objection?”
M. Labori.—“I have no objection to anything, since I cannot make any observations.”
The Judge.—“That is not the question.”
M. Labori.—“You ask me a question. Will you permit me to answer it or not?”
The Judge.—“I ask you a question.”
M. Labori.—“You ask me if I object to the withdrawal of General de Pellieux.”
The Judge.—“Answer yes or no.”
M. Labori.—“I cannot answer yes or no, because I have distinctions to make.”
The Judge.—“Monsieur the attorney-general?”
The Attorney-General.—“Incidents may arise. The general had better remain in the court-room.”
The Judge.—“Then, General, be good enough to remain in the court-room.”
General de Pellieux.—“I remain at the disposition of the court and the jury.”
M. Labori.—“As for me, I ask that it be recorded that the court has asked me a question, and then deprived me of the floor before I had replied.”
The Judge.—“But I have not deprived you of the floor. I deprived you of the floor when you were going to argue.”
M. Labori.—“I have not argued.”
The Judge.—“This is too much.”
M. Labori.—“You had deprived me of the floor.”
The Judge.—“I did so because you desired to argue; because it is my right; because it is my duty.”
M. Labori.—“It relates to a question.”
The Judge.—“The witness has answered that he will say nothing.”
M. Labori.—“It is to you that I speak. I wish to induce you to direct the trial in a manner that I am about to point out. Do you give me the floor for that purpose?”
The Judge.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Very well. It is not the court that is judge, but the whole country.”
General Gonse was then called, and asked by M. Labori at what date the hydraulic check was introduced into the service.
General Gonse.—“I am not in charge of the artillery service, and cannot answer.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to comment upon the testimony of the witness, to say regarding it that which is indispensable to the truth, according to Article 319?”
The Judge.—“Ask questions only.”
M. Labori.—“Really, I ask myself if it would not be better to quit this court-room than to suffer myself to be thus gagged and placed in a strait-jacket.”
The Judge.—“Come, Monsieur Labori, say serious things.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, you abuse the right that your lofty position gives you. You have no right to insult me. Do you maintain that I do not say serious things here?”
The Judge.—“Ask questions.”
M. Labori.—“It is well. You do not maintain it; I continue. I ask Colonel Picquart to explain what he meant in his testimony when he indicated that one of the documents in the secret file applied rather to Major Esterhazy than to another.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Had there not been mention of this document in the Ravary report, I would not say a word about it. I say that it applied rather to Major Esterhazy than to another, because this document need only be seriously discussed in order to make it plain that it can apply only to an officer of troops, and not to a staff officer. I could give my reasons only behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“Was not Colonel Picquart appointed chief of the bureau of information on July 1, 1895?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“When he entered upon his functions, did not General de Boisdeffre say to him: ‘Occupy yourself with the Dreyfus case. There is not much in the file’?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I have not to answer that question, for it relates to conversations with the chief of staff.”
M. Labori.—“At what date did the witness say to General Gonse: ‘I shall not carry this secret to the grave’?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot speak of private conversations. I have seen that statement in a newspaper, and asked myself who could have given it out.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Boisdeffre in September and October, 1896, after the letters of General Gonse, invite Colonel Picquart to put questions regarding Major Esterhazy?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The obligations of professional secrecy prevent me from answering.”
M. Labori.—“Was it not then that Colonel Picquart proposed to have Major Esterhazy arrested for certain matters of indelicacy?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I considered that it would be useful to arrest Major Esterhazy, and that, if the presumption that he was a spy was not strong enough, there was enough against him in other directions to warrant sending him to a fortress. My superiors did not agree with me.”
M. Labori.—“This proposition having been rejected by General de Boisdeffre, did he not ask Colonel Picquart to formulate another?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot testify in the assize court concerning the details of my service.”
M. Labori.—“Did not Colonel Picquart then frame another proposition, which was first accepted, and then rejected because it would lead to Major Esterhazy’s arrest? Does not that prove that the authenticity of the dispatch was not disputed?”
Colonel Picquart.—“At that time nobody questioned the authenticity of the dispatch.”
The stand was then taken by M. Stock, the publisher, who at the time of the examination in the Esterhazy case had turned over to General de Pellieux certain letters written by Major Esterhazy to M. Autant, the architect.
“General de Pellieux undoubtedly took no account of them,” said the witness, “for neither M. Autant or myself was called before him. At that time Major Esterhazy said to M. Autant: ‘You must deny having received these letters; you must deny that I am your tenant; you must deny any acquaintance with me; and, if questioned about the letters, you must say that they are forgeries.’ M. Autant refused, saying that that was contrary to the truth. Moreover, it was childish, for there were two registered leases, and everybody in the house knew Major Esterhazy. Later the letters found their way into the hands of Major Ravary, and M. Autant and I were called before him. He was very courteous, but my testimony did not seem to please him. He asked me why the letters had been photographed. I did not know. He said that he considered it very strange that M. Autant should have given up Major Esterhazy’s letters without his consent. I found it very curious that this examining magistrate should tell a witness to ask the opinion of the accused before deciding what to do.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness know anything concerning M. Zola’s good faith?”
M. Stock.—“To me, as to everybody, it is absolutely evident. Furthermore, I know, through the indiscretion of a member of the council of war, that not simply one secret document, but several, were communicated to that body. I can enumerate them.”
The Judge.—“No, it is useless. We have no right to say anything about the Dreyfus case.”
M. Stock.—“I can enumerate four of these documents, if you like.”
The Judge.—“We are not concerned with the Dreyfus case.”
The next witness was M. Lalance, who formerly sat in the German reichstag representing Alsace-Lorraine, as protesting deputy.
“I would like,” said the witness, “to tell the jury something about the origins of this affair. I was acquainted with the Sandherr and Dreyfus families,—that is, with the family of the accuser and the family of the accused. I have lived with them and seen them very closely. The elder Sandherr was a Protestant who became a Catholic and showed the intolerance of all neophytes. In 1870, the time of the war, bands of people said to be directed by him ran through the streets of Mulhouse, crying: ‘Down with the Prussians of the interior!’ These Prussians were the Protestants and Jews. These cries found no echo. Protestants, Jews, and Catholics all did their duty during the war and after it. When in 1874 the provinces were called upon to send deputies to Berlin, it was a Jew who nominated the bishop of Metz, and the Protestant deputies were nominated by the priests. The younger Sandherr, the colonel, whom I knew from childhood, was a good soldier and a brave and loyal citizen, but he had inherited his father’s intolerance. Furthermore, in 1893 he fell a victim to the brain disease of which he was to die three years later. In that year he was sent to Bussang to be cured. During his stay there, there was a patriotic ceremony,—the return of the flag to the regiment of light infantry. All the bathers went to see it. Near them was a Jew, undoubtedly an Alsatian, who wept with emotion. Colonel Sandherr turned to his neighbors, and said to them: ‘I distrust those tears.’ His neighbors asked him to explain, saying to him: ‘We know that there were Jewish officers in the army who were patriotic and intelligent and did their duty.’ Colonel Sandherr answered: ‘I distrust them all.’ Such was the man, gentlemen of the jury, who proffered the accusation. It is legitimate to suppose that he was governed by his feelings rather than by justice. As for the Dreyfus family” ...