Chapter M: Boucard (the Examining Magistrate) and the Doctors Leaving (7)

One of the great difficulties in the task of the examining magistrate in securing really relevant and really useful evidence in a crime of this kind, is the French insistence on the need of and the right to professional secrecy. As I have pointed out in another chapter, while professional secrecy is in some cases a necessity, it is often distinctly antagonistic to the search for the truth. It is not unlikely that there might never have been any Caillaux drama at all if professional secrecy had not been invoked on another occasion. During Monsieur Boucard’s examination he was informed by two members of Parliament that each of them had been told that Monsieur Calmette had been in possession of the letters, the publication of which Madame Caillaux feared so much. The examining magistrate very naturally wanted to know who had supplied this information, and very naturally wanted to question the informant. One of the two honourable deputies had given his word of honour as a lawyer, the other had given his word of honour pure and simple not to disclose the source of his information, with the result that their evidence is no evidence at all, and that on the other hand even if it be valueless the public and everybody interested has been led to believe that there may be a good deal in it. But what impresses the impartial observer more than anything else in connexion with the preliminaries for a criminal trial in France is their unfairness—the unfairness of the system—to the person who is to be tried. For instance, after Monsieur Calmette’s death, the report of the autopsy made by the two medical officers of health usually charged with this duty, Doctor Socquet and Doctor Charles Paul, was handed by them to the examining magistrate and was, immediately afterwards, published _in extenso_ in the public press. The examining magistrate had also received the evidence of the armourer, Monsieur Gastinne-Renette, and his employees on Madame Caillaux’s visit to the shooting gallery, and her trial of the revolver she bought there. An enterprising newspaper secured a figure from the shooting gallery, marked it with the trial shots as Madame Caillaux had shot them, and published this picture opposite another one representing Monsieur Calmette, which was marked with the wounds inflicted according to the autopsy. Does it not seem an unheard of and unallowable crime against common sense and common decency that the public should be offered such evidence of premeditation by a newspaper while the case is still unheard?

Some idea of the evidence which is inflicted on the examining magistrate in a case of this kind may be formed from that given voluntarily by a young man named Robert Philippeau. Monsieur Philippeau stated with some solemnity that he knew nothing about the drama, that he did not know Monsieur Caillaux and that he had not known Monsieur Calmette. He had been in the Nord Sud (a branch of the Paris Tube) in a first-class carriage, one afternoon in the course of last winter. Two ladies sat on the seat immediately behind him. One of them said in his hearing, “She browbeat me, she laughed at me, she took him from me, but I have four of his letters, and one of them is one which he does not know I possess. I have shown these letters to Barthou, I have told him that I am going to use them. He neither advised me to do so, nor advised me not to. I will wait till they get to the top of the tree and then I will pull them down headlong.” Monsieur Philippeau said that he looked at the lady who had spoken. He did not know her by sight, but when he saw the picture of Madame Gueydan-Dupré in the newspapers he had no further doubt that it was she who had spoken, and that she alluded to the letters of which we have heard so much.

To anyone who has ever seen in a Paris daily newspaper the reproduction of the photograph of anyone he knows, the value of this “evidence” is obvious. Madame Gueydan had no difficulty whatever in proving by the evidence of several intimate friends that she had never been in the Nord Sud in her life. And even if Madame Gueydan had travelled every afternoon all through the winter in the first-class carriages of the Nord Sud she would hardly have been likely to talk to a friend in a loud voice of private affairs of such importance, or to mention Monsieur Barthou’s name in connexion with them.

With regard to these letters, it is not yet certain that they will be read in court, but it is to be hoped that the examining magistrate may succeed in obtaining possession of them for this purpose, for on the probability of their publication in the _Figaro_, and on Madame Caillaux’s belief that their publication might occur, rests one of the principal pleas for the defence. In her examination on the motive for her crime before the examining magistrate, Monsieur Boucard, the prisoner was asked why she was so afraid at the idea of the publication of the two letters which Monsieur Caillaux had written to her in 1909 when he was still the husband of Madame Gueydan, as Madame Caillaux at that time was already divorced from her first husband, Monsieur Léo Claretie. “These letters,” said the prisoner, “were intimate in nature, and I resented and feared the possibility of their publication. My situation and my reputation could be attacked by the help of these letters.” “That being so,” said Monsieur Boucard, “why did you give them back to Monsieur Caillaux?” “When he wrote them to me,” said the prisoner, “I was staying in the country with friends. So that I shouldn’t lose them, Monsieur Caillaux asked me to send them back to him, addressed to him ‘Poste Restante’ at Le Mans. I did this, and that is how Madame Gueydan was able to steal them from the drawer of his writing-table. Now that the scandal has burst,” she added, “I should wish these two letters to be put in with the other evidence on my case.” Monsieur Boucard told her (it should be understood that the whole of this conversation in the magistrate’s private room at the Palais of Justice was reproduced in full, immediately after it took place, in the Paris newspapers of April 22) that he had asked Madame Gueydan on three separate occasions to give him the photographs of these letters—which photographs had been taken and which she had, she admitted, deposited in a safe place—and that she had refused to let him have them. “I hope you will be able to get them,” said Madame Caillaux to Monsieur Boucard. “Their publication will show that they are not the improper letters they have been described to be, and I wish to renew my statement that in going to the _Figaro_ office I had no intention of killing Monsieur Calmette. My object was to obtain from him the promise that he would not make use of the letters which Monsieur Caillaux had written to me, and I had intended making a scandal in case Monsieur Calmette refused.” The magistrate’s answer to this statement was published, with the statement itself, by the Paris newspapers of April 22.

I quote his answer from the _Petit Parisien_, a paper which has made every effort to try the case in its columns with impartiality, and without political bias. I quote it as a sidelight on the inherent peculiarities of the conduct of a criminal trial in France, quite irrespective of the impropriety of its being published at all. “Do not let us go back to a discussion on this point,” answered the magistrate. “You will make nobody believe that when you went to get your letters back or to obtain a promise that they should not be published you lost all power of speech, and lost your head at the same time, to the extent of saying nothing and using your revolver.” “Madame Caillaux had been in the magistrate’s office for six hours,” says the _Petit Parisien_. “She appeared very tired.”

Some weeks before this extract from the examination of Madame Caillaux had appeared _Excelsior_ published (on March 25, 1914) an extract from the letter Madame Caillaux had written to her husband and left with Miss Baxter, her daughter’s English governess, to be given to her husband on the evening of March 16 in case she did not return home before him. In this letter Madame Caillaux is said to have written, in reference to her conversation with her husband that same morning, “you told me that you were going to smash his face. I do not want you to sacrifice yourself. France and the Republic need you. I will do it for you.”

The mere fact that such details of the examination of a prisoner by the magistrate appointed to instruct the court which is to try her should be made known in the public Press and should be free for comment weeks before, and even months before the trial of her case in the assize court, calls for no remark. It speaks for itself. A prisoner in France who has been accused of any crime is tried by the public before the trial of the case begins. The jury cannot possibly come into court with impartial minds owing to this system, they cannot listen with open minds to the evidence which is laid before them in the court room, for they have read it all before, they have thought over it, they have discussed it with their families and with their friends, and with the best will in the world they have been unable to help forming an opinion of one kind or another. And there is another vice of French procedure which is well worthy of note. In a sensational case such as the trial of Madame Caillaux, the jury is subjected to direct influence. After it has been empanelled at the beginning of the trial the members of the jury return to their homes every evening. They are therefore, during the actual hearing of the case, liable to outside influence. Even more than this, the names of the twelve jurymen and of the two supplementary jurymen will certainly be published in the French newspapers with details about the men themselves and their professions, before the trial begins, and this of itself forms an abuse which must inevitably react on the absolute impartiality of a jury, which should be a first necessity of any criminal trial in any country, for numbers of newspapers will tell them what they ought to do and what their verdict ought to be.

The procedure of a French criminal trial in the court of assizes in Paris is attended with considerable pomp. In the Caillaux case as in the cases of a sensational nature which have preceded it, the rush for tickets of admission to the trial will be enormous. Response to this demand for tickets to hear and to witness the trial rests entirely in the hands of the judge who presides over the proceedings. He is able to admit, to standing room behind the bench, such friends of his own as he cares to admit, and he decides on the number of tickets of admission to the body of the court, which are distributed to the Press. The body of the court is supposed to be reserved for the Press and for the witnesses. In actual fact, as every barrister in robes is by reason of his profession entitled to admission to the court, barristers overflow from the seats reserved for the Bar and crowd the Press benches and the witnesses terribly, and far too many tickets are invariably distributed to members of the detective force in plain clothes who become “journalists” for the occasion. The public who have no particular privileges are admitted to a small space at the back of the court, through a small door in the Palace of Justice which is set apart for the purpose.

In the trial of Madame Steinheil long queues waited all night for admission to this small enclosure, although the hundreds who waited knew beforehand that very few of them would get in, and in the Caillaux case we are likely to see similar strings of well dressed society folk subjecting themselves to the hardships of waiting all night in the streets for a few hours’ sensation. The assize court is presided over by the President and two assistant judges. These three men in all the mediæval glories of their red robes and quaint brimless caps, trimmed with ermine, sit at a long table on a platform at the upper end. The court-room is a long parallelogram with beautiful dark oak panelling and ugly green paper above it. The top half of the room, which is reserved for the court, the table with the _pièces à conviction_ (Madame Caillaux’s revolver, for instance), the jury, and the Bar, behind which is the dock, is divided from the lower half of the room where the witnesses, the Press, and the public sit or stand, by an oaken barrier with a gate in the middle of it. Immediately in front of this gate, plumb in the centre and facing the table at which the judges sit, is the bar to which witnesses are called. Witnesses, after they have given evidence, go and sit on the seats beyond the barrier till the end of the trial. A witness stands facing the judge, and has on his immediate right the prisoner’s lawyers and above them the dock in which the prisoner stands. This dock has no door leading into the body of the court. The only entrance to it or exit from it is a door leading out to a room and the passage which conducts to the stairway leading down to the depôt or prison in the Palace of Justice. To the witness’s left is the box with the jury, and on a level with the judge’s bench and with the jury’s box is the desk occupied by the Public Prosecutor, who wears the same imposing red, ermine-trimmed robes as those worn by the judges, and who prosecutes on behalf of the Government of France. As a matter of fact, however, in every French criminal trial there are two prosecutors. The French criminal system considers this right, but to any foreigner who has been present at a trial in France it must appear anything but that. For the presiding judge in a French trial is really a prosecutor as well. Before the case comes into court he has spent many hours over the opinion provided for him, in a lengthy document with countless appendices of evidence, by the examining magistrate, and from the very start of the trial the presiding judge takes the lead in the examination of the prisoner.

I was present in the Paris Court of Assizes throughout the Steinheil trial, and I shall always remember the painful impression which was made on me then by the judge’s methods. I remember now the picture I saw of the eager little woman, dressed in black, pleading, protesting, discussing, admitting and contradicting by turn, and of the man in his judge’s robes who argued hotly with her, told her, downright, time after time that she was guilty of the crime for which she was on trial, thundered out accusations, tried to wheedle her into damaging admissions, and thundered out the statement that she was not telling the truth. The judge in a French trial is not only a prosecuting counsel—he is rather a brutal one at that. Any impartial onlooker, if he be not a Frenchman, and be not therefore accustomed to the methods of the French court, cannot help realizing that the judge uses his power and his prestige as Brennus used his sword, and frequently hurls it into the scales of justice to the detriment of the prisoner. On the other hand, a French judge, who is enjoined by law on his honour and his conscience to use his best efforts to bring out truth at the trial, undoubtedly does so within the limits of human possibility.

But the work which a French judge has to do at a criminal trial is more than any one man should be allowed to do, for no man can both judge and prosecute. To begin with, his own opinion has been prejudiced, must have been prejudiced, by the opinion of the examining magistrate, which, whether he will or not, has influenced him. He examines all the witnesses, he examines the prisoner, and he cross-examines them. On the other hand he is forbidden to discuss the arguments after the counsel’s speeches, either for the prosecution or for the defence (if he did so the whole proceedings would be void), and he does not sum up as an English judge is allowed to sum up. But the French judge in a criminal trial sums up at the beginning of the trial instead of after it. He has made a complete study of the _dossier_, which is to all intents and purposes a complete study of the brief for the prosecution and of the brief for the defence, he tells the jury the whole story of the crime with which the prisoner is charged, and tells them the facts on which the prosecution and the defence rely. The judge tells the jury, before it is given, of the evidence which will be called in support of the prosecution, and of the evidence which will be called by the defence in answer to it. He goes the length of explaining why the prosecution believes the prisoner to be guilty, and explains the facts and deductions on which prisoner’s counsel base their defence.

The amount of apparently irrelevant argument which is permitted in a French criminal trial is enormous. The code does not allow it, for by Article 270 the presiding judge is ordered to exclude from the hearing anything that will prolong the trial without adding to the certainty of the result. In any trial which has aroused general interest this article of the code usually becomes a dead letter. The judge himself, the Public Prosecutor, the prisoner’s counsel, the prisoner and the witnesses are all allowed immense latitude, are all encouraged to say all that they care to say at enormous length. The only people in court who do not talk are the members of the jury, and from the very beginning of the trial these men go to their homes every night, discuss the case with their friends and their wives, and read the newspapers daily, and the newspaper comment on the case which they are trying. Jurymen are not necessarily possessed of legal minds, and under such circumstances how can twelve ordinary men, however honest, and however impartial they may wish to be, keep their minds entirely free from outside influence.

I don’t know that I have ever heard of a case in which a member or members of the jury have been known to have talked to witnesses, but I do not know, either, that there is anything to prevent any member of the jury discussing the case at night during the progress of the trial with a witness outside the precincts of the court. No man is infallible, but justice ought to be. Jean Richepin put the whole case against the French criminal trial in a nutshell when he sang “Quel homme est assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice?” The conclusions of a _juge d’instruction_, however capable the man may be, need not of necessity be infallible. As he has the power to let the prisoner go, the power to say that there is no case for the jury, it stands to reason that, unless he states a doubt, the mere fact that he has sent the prisoner for trial means that he believes in the prisoner’s guilt.

The judge therefore starts a trial with the conviction that the examining magistrate thinks that the prisoner is guilty. This conviction must influence his conduct of the case. “Quel homme est assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice” under these conditions? Many Frenchmen have been of the opinion for a long time that the procedure of a French criminal trial needs reformation. Many consider that the judge’s preliminary interrogatory of the prisoner and of the witnesses should be entirely suppressed, and should give place to examination and cross-examination by prosecuting counsel and the counsel for the defence. Many people think too that the _juge d’instruction_ should be made to justify his _dossier_ in open court and on oath, that he should be called to justify it at the witness bar instead of the present system of a formal reading by a clerk of the court which takes a long time and is always so gabbled that it is merely a formality.

Another reform in French criminal procedure which many Frenchmen think necessary is the suppression of the freedom of the jury during the trial. There is a curious disregard of rules and regulations during the details of a big criminal trial in France. There are witnesses who, in response to the judge’s remark after he has asked the witness to swear to tell the truth without fear and without hatred, and to state name, address, and age, in response to the three words “Make your deposition” which give the witness a free head, behave just like racehorses when the starting gate goes up. Lawyer witnesses particularly have been known to make long speeches for the defence or for the prosecution on the plea of giving evidence, and there are many other similar abuses. It often happens, too, that evidence which the examining magistrate has collected is never sifted at the trial itself. When the trial is over, when the Public Prosecutor, the counsel for the defence, and, if the prisoner has anything to say, the prisoner, have addressed the court, the jury retires to consider the verdict. There is something oddly, picturesquely, emphatic and impressive in the mechanism of this retirement.

Somehow or another the French have a peculiar knack of stage-managing anything and everything. No visitor on his first visit to Paris fails to remark the wonderful stage-management (I suppose I ought to call it landscape gardening) of the city. Look at the Tuileries Gardens when dusk is just closing in towards the end of a fine day. The whole place breathes the history of the last days of the Empire, and has the gentle melancholy of a Turner picture. Stop in the Avenue des Champs Elysées where the Avenue Nicholas II. intersects it. Look up the Avenue and down it. The Arc de Triomphe and the Place de la Concorde, which, when it ceased to be the Place Royale, held the scaffold of a king of France. Look out across the Seine, then turn and look behind you. The bridge which is named after a murdered Czar of Russia and the Invalides beyond it. Behind you the Palace of the Elysée, the home of the President of the third Republic, facing Napoleon’s Tomb. At every turn in Paris, north, east, west, or south, you get signs of this half-unconscious national gift of staging effects.

The jury in a criminal trial in Paris does not, as a London jury does, melt into disappearance before the final verdict. There are a few solemn words from the judge, there is a rustle as the lawyers gather up papers and sit back, and then fourteen very ordinary, very weary good men and true, whose faces we had only seen in profile until then, rise in their places. Their white and tired faces shine suddenly a pasty yellow in the electric lamplight. The good men of the jury show us their backs and walk slowly behind the desk of the Public Prosecutor to a little door which we had not noticed till then, and which has just been opened. Through this freshly opened door we stare across the court up a flight of narrow stairs with red and grey carpets on them. The verdict will come, presently, down that flight of narrow stairs. The small door closes, and we wait.

As a rule a big criminal trial finishes late in the evening. Everybody is sick of it. For the sake of the prisoner, for the sake of the judge, for the sake of the jury, for the sake of the lawyers, for the sake of the public, every one wants to get it over. Nobody wants yet another adjournment. So it is usually at night that one sits and waits for the verdict in a big Paris criminal trial, and although I have seen exactly the same scene, and endured exactly the same sensations many times, the scene has never lost its dramatic force, and the sensations are always new. A sense of relief comes first. We have seen the prisoner, in a state of semi-collapse as a rule, going out through the door of the dock to the room behind it, where, on this last evening of the trial, the prisoner is allowed to wait for the verdict which is to be rendered before her return. We feel the relief that one feels when the fighting is over, mingled with suspense and with pity for the wretched creature who is waiting and is wondering. We realize that we are hungry, and rush off to get a little food. We dare not stay to eat it, and return with it to court again. The appearance of the court-room has changed during the few minutes of our scamper to the buffet down below for sandwiches. We have brought them back with us, and other people are munching food, too, in the dust, the heat, the squalor of this room from which the majesty of justice has departed with the red robed tribunal, the jury, and the prisoner. There is a hubbub of excited talk and much discussion. Municipal guards forget to keep order and chat with us and with the barristers of the probabilities and possibilities of the verdict. Every now and then there is a hubbub of excitement and a sudden deathly stillness. The little door, beyond which we can see those red and grey carpeted stairs, has opened. The jury are returning! No, it is a false alarm. They are not quite clear on some formal point or other, and they have sent for the judge. After one or more of these alarms, suddenly, when nobody has expected it, the little door opens and remains open. The jury really are returning this time. We see them walk slowly down those narrow red and grey stairs, and file slowly into the box. Their faces tell us nothing, but we all try to read them. The presiding judge and his two assistant judges walk slowly in and take their seats, at the long table. On their right, the red robed Public Prosecutor who has followed them, stands at his desk, on their left the lawyers for the defence stand in their seats in front of the empty dock. The stillness which was broken for a moment while the court came in becomes something tangible, something quite painful now. It has a quality of the sensation one feels in a diving bell. Our eardrums tingle with it. Then the judge’s voice breaks the strain. “There must be not the least noise,” he says. “I will allow no demonstration of any kind, whatever the verdict may be.” Somebody laughs, and is hushed down with indignant sibilance. We know that there will be a demonstration whatever the judge may say. There has never yet been a French trial without one.

“Mr. Foreman of the Jury,” says the judge, “Be kind enough to let us know the result of your deliberations.” If possible the silence becomes greater yet. Then: “On my honour and on my conscience,” says the foreman of the jury “before God and before men, the answer is ... to all questions.” And pandemonium breaks forth. The answer to the questions has to be “Yes” or “No”. The jury may not amplify it. They will be asked, in the trial of Madame Caillaux, to decide whether there was murder, whether there was murder with premeditation or without it. They will be asked to state whether there are extenuating circumstances, or whether there are none. On these answers, on this simple “Yes” or “No” depends the fate of the prisoner. We see the judge’s mouth open and shut, we see his hand rise and fall, but we have heard no sound of his voice in the hubbub which the declaration of the verdict has let loose. Then there is silence again. The judge has ordered the prisoner to be brought in. The verdict is told her, and the sentence, if there is a sentence, is rendered.

This is the way in which the curtain will fall on the last act of the Caillaux Drama. Will it be a final curtain? And what will the jury’s answer be to the questions which will be put to them? That, no man can answer now. Madame Caillaux may of course be acquitted, though public opinion in Paris considers this exceedingly unlikely. She may be found guilty of murder with premeditation. The sentence decreed by the Code for this is death, and nobody believes in or anticipates the likelihood of such a verdict. If the verdict be “Murder without premeditation,” if the jury finds extenuating circumstances, the Code decrees a minimum of five years, either hard labour or confinement in a prison, and a maximum of ten years. There is also the possibility that a sentence may be passed of hard labour or imprisonment for life.

And beyond the verdict, beyond the sentence, what will the future of this woman and her husband be? That no man can answer either, but we all know that whatever happens, whatever the court decides, those shots from a revolver in the office of the _Figaro_ on the afternoon of March 16, 1914, will never cease to echo in the lives of Joseph and Henriette Caillaux.

And in the echo, lurks the tragic essence of the Caillaux drama.

THE END

INDEX

Agadir
M. Calmette asked not to publish telegrams, 96
M. Clemenceau and the Barthou Cabinet, 103
M. Caillaux open to criticism, 106
M. Calmette’s series of articles, 130
History of Agadir, 150
_Panther_ and _Berlin_ arrive, 165
M. Caillaux’s telegram, 166
Lord Morley in the _Times_, 168
Treaty, 259

Algeciras, Act of
The right of France to police Morocco, 151, 154

Alphonse de Neuville, Rue
Home of Madame Caillaux, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20

Aratra Mines
Company floated by M. Rochette, 210

Asquith
“extremely difficult” situation, 168

Auteuil
Home of M. Schneider, Boulevard Beauséjour, 121

Avenue d’Antin
Sale-rooms of Gastinne-Renette, 18

Banque, Franco-Espagnole
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 200, 207

Banque Perrier
M. Calmette calls M. Caillaux to account for heavy fine, 130

Baring Bros., London Bankers
concerned in Prieu affair, 118

Barrès
took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42

Barthou, Minister of Justice
produced and read statement, 33, 96, 179
takes part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42
conversation with Mme. Gueydan and with M. Caillaux, 97
defeated by Clemenceau faction, 103
opposition to M. Caillaux, 104
comment on Bourse operation, 137
M. Fabre’s statement received from M. Briand, 242

Baxter, Miss, Mme. Caillaux’s English governess
letter for M. Caillaux, 289

Belgian Congo
Railway from German Cameroons, 164, 174
opinion in Great Britain and Belgium, 168

Bernard-Maurice, M. Rochette’s lawyer
statement by M. Fabre, 35, 38, 39, 232
represented M. Caillaux in divorce proceedings, 83, 181
M. Poincaré’s evidence, 83, 84, 85
M. Monis’ remarks, 181
charges of illegality made, 206
postponement of trial, 237, 238
threatened M. Fabre, 247

Bernstein, Henry, Jewish play-writer
play produced by Comédie Française, 65

Berr, Examining Magistrate
preparing Rochette case, 199
letter from M. Rochette, 200
M. Rochette’s complaint, 217

Bidault de L’Isle, Judge
question by M. Delahaye, 30
evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 31, 32
statement by M. Fabre, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40
pressure brought on him by M. Monis and M. Caillaux, 140, 240
contradictions in evidence, 228
evidence at Chamber of Correctional Appeal, 237, 238

Blanc, Examiner of M. Rochette’s books
M. Rochette’s trial a foregone conclusion, 218

Bloch-Laroque, friend of M. Fabre
statement by M. Fabre, 35, 39
conversation with M. Fabre on M. Bernard, 247

Boileau, Member of Prieu Syndicate
letters in the _Figaro_, 123

Boucard, Examining Magistrate
Madame Caillaux’s evidence, 18, 19, 20, 21, 286, 287
_Action Française_, 69
M. Caillaux and evidence of others, 80
evidence of M. Caillaux, 86, 87, 90, 93, 95
_re_ Prieu affair, 118
Madame Caillaux’s request, 277

Bourget, Paul
novelist and friend of M. Calmette, 6, 21

Briand, Minister of Justice in Monis Cabinet
received M. Fabre’s declaration, 32
statement handed to M. Barthou, 33
took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42
favours Clemenceau party, 103
founded Federation of the Left, 104
Prime Minister, 153
resignation, 155
Monis Cabinet and desire to break away, 159
M. Caillaux’s epigram, 159, 163
interview with M. de Selves, _re_ “green document,” 173
handed M. Fabre’s statement to M. Barthou, 242

Buisson Hella
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207

Caillaux, Eugène Alexandre, Inspector of Finance and Minister of State
father of M. Joseph Caillaux, 87

Calmette, Madame
divorce proceedings, 94

Cambon, Jules, French Ambassador in Berlin
troops to Fez, 164
reply of von Kiderlen Waechter, 165
M. de Selve’s request, 167
questions German Foreign Minister, 170

Cambon, Paul
instructions in relation to British Government, 166, 167
telegram from Berlin, 171

Cameroon
Franco-German understanding, 158, 159, 160, 167

Carpin, Police Commissioner
received journalists, 10, 11
no means of stopping _Figaro_ campaign, 13

Cassel, Sir Ernest
influence on behalf of M. Spitzer, 128
negotiations with Herr von Gwinner, 170

Ceccaldi
mentioned in M. Caillaux’s evidence, 100
charges of corruption, 126
member of second Commission, 193

Chauchard, Founder of Magasins du Louvre
legacy to M. Calmette, 95

Chaussée d’ Antin, Rue de la
situation of office of M. Gaudrion, 196

Claretie, Leo
first husband of Madame Caillaux, 286

Claretie, Madame Leo, second wife of M. Caillaux
became Madame Caillaux, 88, 90

Clemenceau
supporter of M. Pams, 102
against M. Barthou and his Cabinet, 103
general adviser, 104
letter published by M. Calmette, 135
head of Government, 152
out of office, 153
M. Caillaux and impeachment for high treason, 169
interview with M. de Selves, 173
discussion in the Chamber, 175-177
accused of moral complicity with M. Rochette, 191
initiates action in Rochette case, 193, 194
accusation of proceeding illegally, 206
evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 209, 212
Government not protecting M. Rochette, 226

Cochery
Finance Minister, 1909, 115

Compagnie Transatlantique
quarrel with South Atlantic Company and _Figaro’s_ accusation, 129

Congo
Franco-German understanding, 152, 155, 158, 159, 160, 167
convention with Germany, 163
M. Waechter’s answer to M. Cambon, 165
Germany’s demands, 168, 171

Conty, Director of Political Affairs in Foreign Office and now
French Minister at Pekin
Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158, 160

Corbeil
home of M. Pichereau, 196

Crédit Minier
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 201, 207, 218, 219, 222

Cruppi
Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158, 163

D’Ariste, Heir of M. Prieu
made over his rights to Syndicate, 119

Darracq
backed by M. Rochette, 220

Delahaye, Member of the Opposition
placed motion before the House, 27
declared M. Calmette intended to publish letter, 29
addressed question to M. Monis, 30
Prime Minister replies, 32

Desbons
Counsel for Madame Vitz, 75

Desclaux, chef de Cabinet de M. Caillaux
Madame Gueydan’s offer to journalist, 91, 92, 93

De Selves, Minister for Foreign Affairs
resignation of, 108
visit to Holland, 165
M. Caillaux’s instructions in opposition to his opinion, 166
returns from Holland and asks for explanation of agreement, 167
negotiations without his knowledge, 169, 176
telegram from Berlin to German Embassy in Paris, 171
the “green document,” 172
causes excitement, 174
speech before Senate in Committee, 175

D’Estournelles de Constant, friend of M. Caillaux
canvass for M. Caillaux, 257

Doumergue, Prime Minister
M. Caillaux telephones his resignation, 23
Cabinet Council, 24
speech of M. Delahaye, 27
speech in Chamber of Deputies, 32
challenged to a duel, 42
improbability of re-election, 43
M. Caillaux endeavouring to maintain Ministry, 107
M. Renoult, Minister of the Interior, 115

Doyen, Dr., surgeon
his opinion as to M. Calmette’s treatment, 277

Drouot, Rue
office of the _Figaro_, 2, 3, 4, 43

Du Mesnil, managing editor of the _Rappel_
statement by M. Fabre, 35, 39

Dupré, Jules
first husband of Madame Gueydan, 88, 95

Durand, Yves, chef de Cabinet de M. Lépine
sent for by M. Lépine, 194
ordered to find plaintiff, 194, 195
visits M. Gaudrion, 196, 198
sent to M. Monier, 197
accused of speculating, 199, 206
called as witness before Commission, 207
acquitted by M. Lépine of all dishonourable action, 208

Duret, M. Rochette’s Private Secretary
his evidence, 223

Fabre, Victor, Procureur Général
M. Calmette and letter, 26, 138
M. Delahaye’s question, 30
declaration carried by M. Calmette, 31
statement produced, 33
“deplorable abuse of influence,” 41
Madame Gueydan read letter, 97
story of pressure put upon him, 140
position at Aix, 180
evidence before Parliamentary Commission, 231, 232
cross-questioned, 234
statements _re_ Rochette case, 235-247

Fallières, President of the French Republic
Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158
warning at Cabinet Council, 160
visit to Tunis, 163

Faubourg Montmartre, Rue du
police-station, 3, 9, 12, 23, 44

Fez
French troops to be sent, 163, 164, 165

Fontainebleau
M. Rochette’s early life, 183

Fonvielle, Antoine de, lawyer Prieu Syndicate
letter to M. Calmette, 120, 122

Forichon, Presiding Judge in Court of Appeal
hears M. Poincaré’s evidence on oath, 81

François-Poncet
statement by M. Fabre, 36, 40

Fresnes
Modern prison, 46, 47

Gabon
Germany’s demands, 168

Gaillard, Doctor
Dentist of Madame Caillaux, 14

Gastinne-Renette
Armourer, 18, 19, 283

Gaudrion, a banker connected with Rochette case
willing to prosecute M. Rochette, 196
visited by M. Durand, 198
dealings in shares in M. Rochette’s Companies, 204
supplies a prosecutor in his stead, 225

German Cameroons
railway to Belgian Congo, 164, 174

Grange Batélière, Rue de la
other entrance to police station, 12

Grey, Sir Edward
refers to Belgian Congo, 168

Gueydan, Madame, first wife of M. Caillaux
divorced wife of M. Dupré, 88
letters burned, 89, 92
evidence before examining magistrate, 90, 91
read letters to M. Barthou, 97
M. Privat-Deschanel and burning of letters, 101, 129
“Ton Jo” letter, 146, 147

Guillemard, Madeleine
wrote in defence of letters, 86

Guiot, representative of bondholders of Moroccan Debt
visited German Foreign Office, 153
provisional agreement, 154

Gwinner, of the Deutsche Bank
negotiations, 170

Hartmann
owner of hospital, 4

Herbaux, new Procureur Général
probable prosecutor, 180

Homberg, André, Director of Société Générale
called on M. Caillaux, 129
_Figaro’s_ accusation, 130

Hotel Ritz
Madame Caillaux’s engagement for tea, 16, 20

Hottinguer and Co.
concerned in Prieu affair, 118

Humbert
notorious female prisoner, 12, 44

“Intermède Comique—Ton Jo”
Headline in _Figaro_, 98

Italian Embassy
Dinner-party, 13, 17, 23, 24

Jaurès
President Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, 31, 41, 180
took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42
Rochette affair, 141, 206, 238
tells committee the history of the Rochette case, 224-228
letter summoning M. Monis to Commission of Inquiry, 235

Jeanne
Soubrette in attendance on Madame Caillaux, 50, 51

Kissingen
French Ambassador’s conversation with German Secretary of State, 165

Lancken
first mention of Belgian Congo, 169

Lavedan
play-writer, 65

Laviana
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207

Lebon, François, editor of _L’Œuvre_
attack on M. Caillaux and French Parliament, 125

Le Mans
letters sent to M. Caillaux “poste restante,” 286

Léonide, Sister, Chief Superintendent of prison nuns
description of, 47
“Bostock,” 48
duties in St. Lazare, 60, 62

Lépine, Prefect of Police
received orders to inquire into Rochette case, 194, 212, 226
previously urged authorities to take action, 195
sent M. Durand to M. Monier, 197
evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 197, 208, 210
opinion of M. Rochette, 209

Lloyd George
opinion on Congo question, 168

Luquet, Permanent Official in Ministry of Finance
intermediary between Government and Société Générale, 128
superseded and succeeded by M. Privat-Deschanel, 129

Malvy, Minister of Commerce
accompanies M. Caillaux, 12
sent to M. Caillaux to induce him to reconsider resignation, 24
appointed Minister Home Affairs, 25

Mamers
M. Caillaux’s constituency, 19, 88, 112, 132, 256, 257, 259, 260

Manchon Hella
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 185, 207
M. Pichereau’s investments, 197, 198

Mannesmann Brothers
claims and concessions, 163

Mascuraud Committee
association of parliamentarians and commercial men, 126

Mazars
letter in _Figaro_ from M. Prosper Sauvage, 123

Messimy, Colonial Minister in Monis Cabinet
instructed to declare Franco-German understanding impossible, 160

Michel, Louise
notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, 44

Millerand, Socialist, 255

Milliés-Lacroix, French Colonial Minister
interview with M. Pichon, 153

Mines de Liat
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207

Mogador
telegram from M. Caillaux, 166

Moinier, General
troops at his disposal, 164

Monier, Procureur de la République?
president of the Civil Court, 13, 14
consulted by Madame Caillaux, 81, 99
interviewed by M. Durand, 197, 198
documents accusing M. Rochette, 207

Monis, Prime Minister and Minister of Marine
accusation against, 29
questioned by M. Delahaye and reply, 30
statement by M. Fabre, 33, 37, 138
resignation from Cabinet, 40
Minister of Marine, 104
article by M. Calmette, 139
brought pressure to bear on M. Fabre and Judge Bidault de L’Isle, 140
elected Prime Minister, 155
Cabinet defeated, 165
examination by Parliamentary Commission, 179, 180, 234-237
conversation in regard to trial of Rochette, 181, 182
M. Caillaux advises postponement of trial, 213
order for postponement of trial, 243, 245

Monniot
letter in _Figaro_ from M. Prosper Sauvage, 123, 124

Monquin, Head of Research Department, Paris Police
sent for by M. Lépine, 194

Morand, Albert, Artist of St. Lazare
honoured in Carnavalet Museum, 47
drawings in this volume, 47

Morley, Lord
letter in the _Times_, 168

Morocco
interests of France, 151, 152, 156
serious trouble, 160, 161, 163, 169
M. Caillaux’s telegram, 166
German Cabinet and the crisis, 171

Moroccan Company of Public Works
formed after approval of provisional agreement, 154

Mortier, Pierre, Editor of _Gil Blas_
would not use letters, 93

Neuilly
private hospital at, 3

N’Goko Tanga
charges of corruption by M. Ceccaldi, 126
offered to give up a portion of territory, 154
question in Parliament, 155
convention with Germany, 163
M. Caillaux explains failure of negotiations, 174

Pams, Rival of M. Poincaré
non-election resented by M. Clemenceau, 102

Paral Mexico
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184

Paris Omnibus Co.
M. Rochette endeavouring to get concession, 220

Pau
M. Caillaux founded Radical united party, 104

Paul, Dr. Chas., Medical Officer of Health
report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, 283

Péret, Raoul
appointed Minister of Commerce, 25

Perrier, Minister of Justice (Monis Cabinet)
M. Calmette’s article, 139

Philippeau, Robert
reported conversation heard in Paris Tube, 284, 285

Pichereau, connected with M. Rochette’s enterprises
introduced by M. Gaudrion, 196
accusation against M. Rochette signed, 198
formal charge made, 199
M. Rochette in letter to examining magistrate, 201, 202
claim against M. Rochette, 202
documents in M. Rochette’s desk, 203
M. Rochette takes legal action, 205
prosecutor in M. Gaudrion’s stead, 225

Pichon
South American Bank Loan refused, 134
Foreign Minister, 152, 153
convention with Germany, 163

Pierre Charron, Rue
M. Caillaux’s house, 89

Pierre de Fouquières of the Protocol, 13

Place Beauvau
situation of Home Office, 194

Poincaré, President of the French Republic
hears of the tragedy, 24
signs decrees, 25
evidence on oath, 79, 80, 81, 86
conversation with M. Caillaux, 82
election to Presidency and M. Clemenceau, 102, 103
M. Calmette in the _Figaro_, 108
Prime Minister, 140

Poirier, Henri, intimate friend of M. Spitzer
M. Calmette’s comment on Finance Minister’s resignation, 133

Potsdam Agreement
soothed Russian fears, 165

Prestat, father of Madame Calmette
chairman of _Figaro_ Co., 94

Prevet, Managing Director _Le Petit Journal_
M. Rochette’s attack, 187, 191
realizes effects of M. Rochette’s tactics, 189, 190
told M. Durand M. Gaudrion would prosecute, 196
M. Durand complains he has been misled, 199
_Petit Journal_ and shareholders, 214, 215

Prieu, French merchant living in Brazil
M. Caillaux accused by _Figaro_, 106
misspelled “Priou,” 114
heirs claim concessions, 115, 116
difficulty of settlement, 117
claim on Government, 118, 119
M. de Fonvielle’s letter, 120
M. Schneider pressed claims, 121
members of Prieu Syndicate, 123
article in _L’Œuvre_, 125

Privat-Deschanel, Secretary of the Ministry of Finance
letters burned, 89
M. Boucard’s call, 90
evidence of, 101
successor to M. Luquet in Ministry of Finance, 129

Rabier, one of M. Rochette’s lawyers
received large sums, 220

Raynouard
maiden name of Madame Caillaux, 88

Renoult, René, Member of Cabinet
appointed Minister of Finance in M. Caillaux’s stead, 25
Under Secretary for Finance, 1909, 115
lawyer of one of M. Rochette’s Companies, 220

Reymond, Doctor
present with Calmette, 3, 7

Richepin, Jean
quotation, 297

Rio de Janeiro
French Consul helps Prieu, 115

Rocher, Rue de
flat of M. de Fonvielle, 120

Rochette, Company Promoter and Speculator
M. Calmette and the _Figaro_, 26
question by M. Delahaye and M. Monis’ reply, 30
Commission of Inquiry, 31, 41
statement by M. Fabre, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38
cause of political unrest, 106
M. Caillaux accused of interfering with the course of justice, 112
_Figaro’s_ article, 138, 139, 140, 145
M. Fabre pressed to adjourn trial, 179, 180
postponement requested by Maître Bernard, 181
trial postponed, 182, 213
early life, 183
companies floated, 184
shareholders sign petition for release, 185
examination of books by accountants, 186
Bourse suspicious, 187
attack in _Le Petit Journal_, 187, 188, 214, 215
M. Prevet endeavours to stop M. Rochette’s manœuvres, 189
Western Railway of France, 190
M. Clemenceau accused of moral complicity, 191
charges against members of Chamber and Senate, 192
judicial inquiry, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197
M. Pichereau’s accusation, 198
M. Yves Durand accused of speculating, 199
arrested and imprisoned, 200
confronted with M. Pichereau, 202
declared bankrupt, 203
appealed against verdict and took action against M. Pichereau, 205
becomes a political matter, 206
M. Lépine justifies arrest, 208
M. Lépine’s opinion, 209
details of M. Rochette’s methods, 210
sentenced to imprisonment and appeal, 211
evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 212
advertisements, 214
complaint against M. Berr, 217
examination of books a pretence, 218
defence of enterprises, 217, 218, 219
clerk’s story, 220
secrecy of payment, 222
evidence of employees, 223
judgment annulled, 224
proceedings dragged out, 227, 231, 248
volume on history of French issues, 249

Royale, Rue
conversation between M. and Mme. Caillaux, 99

Saint Calais
M. Caillaux’s speech to his constituents, 173

St. Lazare, Prison for Women, 11, 12, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50,
53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63
history of, 44, 45, 46
motor lorry at, 51
“six o’clock sickness,” 61
favours shown Madame Caillaux, 75

Santé Prison
M. Rochette imprisoned, 200

Sarthe
M. Caillaux candidate for re-election, 91
popular view of peasantry, 258-262

Sauvage, Prosper, member of Prieu Syndicate
letters in the _Figaro_, 123, 124

Say Sugar Refinery
M. Rochette’s connexion, 219

Schneider, Auguste, pressed claims of Prieu Syndicate
called on M. Caillaux by appointment and agreed settlement, 119
his home at Auteuil, 121
introduces M. de Fonvielle to M. Vidal, 121
conversation recorded in M. de Fonvielle’s letters, 122
mentioned in M. Boileau’s letters, 123
referred to in letter of M. Prosper Sauvage, 124

Schoen, German Ambassador in Paris
first suggestion of compensation, 167

Société des Mines de la Nerva
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207
M. Pichereau’s investments, 197, 198, 202

Socquet, Dr., Medical Officer of Health
report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, 283

South Atlantic Company
quarrel with Compagnie Transatlantique and _Figaro’s_ accusation, 129

Spitzer, Arthur, Director Société Générale
re-election indirectly opposed by Government, 128
accusation of Bourse quotations being permitted unfairly, 131
M. Calmette’s comment, 133

Steinheil
notorious female prisoner, 12, 44, 52, 59, 291, 294

Syndicat Minier
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 203, 207

Tangier, Possibility of German demonstration, 159

Thalamas
letter to Madame Caillaux, 28, 29

Thorel, solicitor for M. Caillaux
M. Poincaré’s evidence, 83

“Ton Jo”
signature to letter written by M. Caillaux, 92, 97, 98, 142,
144-147, 149
Copy of “Ton Jo” letter, 143

Tripoli
coveted by Italy, 165

Tunis
President Faillière’s visit, 163

Ullmann, of the Compte d’Escompte
received by M. Caillaux, 124
accusation that Bourse quotations were allowed in his favour, 131

Union, Franco-Belge
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207

Val d’Airan
Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207

Valentine Morelli
notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, 44

Vervoort, journalist on _Gil Blas_
Madame Gueydan’s offer, 91-93

Vidal, journalist
introduced to M. de Fonvielle, 121
conversation with M. Schneider, 122

Vitz, Madame
prisoner in St. Lazare, 75, 76

Waechter, Kiderlen, German Foreign Minister
remark to French Ambassador in Berlin, 163
reception of communication from M. Cambon, 164
answer to M. Cambon’s question, 165
suggests an agreement, 167
reply to M. Cambon, 171

Waldeck-Rousseau
former Cabinet in which M. Caillaux was Minister of Finance, 144

Western Railway of France
M. Rochette’s agitation against State acquisition, 190, 191

Yenck, clerk in Crédit Minier
his evidence, 223

PRINTED BY
BALLANTYNE & COMPANY LTD
LONDON

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.

Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations
in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.

The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up
paragraphs, and the paginations in the List of Illustrations have
been adjusted accordingly.