Chapter I: Accuse...! (3)

M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Permit me to ask a question. Just now the witness said this second letter, which was a forgery, was so drawn up as to prove that it emanated from a personage familiar with the documents of the war offices. But the witness did not explain this declaration. I should like to ask him what there was in this letter that enables him to make this declaration, and to say that it came from the war offices.”

M. Leblois.--“I prefer not to give any explanations in regard to this letter, for I should run a risk of altering the version that you will soon hear from Colonel Picquart. [Laughter.] I think there is some misunderstanding. I said that the text of the two telegrams was a certain proof that they emanated from a man familiar with all the secrets of the war department, but I can say that only of the telegrams, because I have seen them and am in possession of their text. I cannot speak so certainly of a letter which I have not seen, and concerning which I have only information.”

M. Labori.--“From the standpoint of the conspiracies to which M. Leblois has referred, what was the bearing of the false letter intercepted in the war offices?”

M. Leblois.--“I said just now that I considered this false letter signed ‘Speranza’ another stone on which to erect, little by little, the edifice of the conspiracies against Colonel Picquart. Regarding the two telegrams, must I give details?”

The Judge [hastily].--“No.”

M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, we are very desirous that he should.”

The Judge [sadly].--“Since the defence demands it, speak.”

M. Leblois.--“The following telegram: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche,’ suggests to me this reflection: Who, outside of the war department, could then know that an inquiry was in progress concerning Major Esterhazy, and especially that the basis of this inquiry was a dispatch? That was an absolute secret. The two telegrams of which I have spoken were not the only elements of this complicated plot against Colonel Picquart. There were many other telegrams sent by third parties. For instance, an individual sent from Paris a telegram signed ‘Baron Keller’ and addressed to a pretended Baroness Keller at Sousse. All these telegrams were intended to compromise Colonel Picquart. The two which I have cited are the only ones that reached him, but they are only the centre of a very complicated network. He referred to all of this in an article in ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 16, 1897.”

M. Labori.--“M. Leblois has told us that Colonel Picquart left the war department November 16, 1896. Could he tell us what was the attitude of his superiors, and especially of General Gonse, toward him at that time? Did Colonel Picquart go in disgrace, and how has he been treated since, up to the time of his recall to Paris, under circumstances with which the jurors must be familiar, at the beginning of the Esterhazy inquiry?”

M. Leblois.--“Colonel Picquart’s superiors behaved toward him in the most kindly manner throughout his inquiry concerning Major Esterhazy,--an inquiry which began toward the end of spring and continued until September. According to Colonel Picquart, it was not until the moment had come for a decision in this matter that a difference of opinion was revealed between his superiors and himself. This difference did not assume an acute form at first. In the beginning it was simply an exchange of opposite views, such as often takes place between inferiors and superiors. The solution of the matter, clearly stated in a letter from Colonel Picquart bearing date of September 5, 1896, remained in suspense until November, 1896. At that moment things were growing worse under influences which I do not exactly know myself. Perhaps the government, upon the question being laid before it, decided that there was no occasion to review the Dreyfus case. I know nothing about it; I can only form hypotheses. Answering M. Labori’s question, I will say this: when Colonel Picquart left the war department, they gave him not the slightest hint that he was sent away in disgrace. On the contrary, they represented to him as a favor the rather vague mission with which he was entrusted. They said to him: ‘You are to go away for a few days. You will go to Nancy, to do certain things.’ When once he was at Nancy, they said to him: ‘Go elsewhere.’ Thus from day to day they gave him new orders, continually prolonging his mission; and the colonel, who had left Paris without extra clothing, was told, when he asked permission to return to get his linen, that his mission was too important to warrant a diversion of even a few hours; and they sent him to Besançon. Thus, without suspecting the fate that was in store for him, he was sent along the frontier, and then to Algeria and Tunis, where, in March, 1897, he was made lieutenant-colonel of the Fourth Sharpshooters. They pretended that he was given this appointment as a favor. General Gonse told him positively, in a letter, that the regiment was a very select one, and that he should consider himself fortunate in belonging to it. The general’s letters are full of expressions of sympathy.”

M. Labori.--“M. Leblois referred just now to a threatening letter which intervened at a certain moment, and which apparently modified the state of mind prevailing in the office of the minister of war. Could he tell us when this letter was addressed to Colonel Picquart, from whom it came, and in what spirit it was conceived?”

M. Leblois.--“I have already said that this letter was dated June 3, 1897. It came from Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, who had been Colonel Picquart’s subordinate, and it was couched in terms almost insulting.”

M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The witness has said that at the same time when Colonel Picquart’s letters were being seized in the war department he was suffered to receive forged telegrams, and that at the same time also General Gonse, sub-chief of the general staff, acted in a very kindly manner toward him. I ask him if these three matters were really contemporaneous.”

M. Leblois.--“The reply is simple enough. You must distinguish between two utterly distinct orders of events,--the events at the end of 1896, which was the time of Colonel Picquart’s departure, and the events at the end of 1897. I know of only one letter intercepted at the bureau of information in 1896,--namely, the letter signed ‘Speranza.’ It was at that time that General Gonse showed the greatest sympathy for Colonel Picquart. Coming to the conspiracy of 1897, it is my opinion that letters were then intercepted, but I prefer that the testimony on this point should come from Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart.”

M. Clemenceau.--“Yet the witness said just now that they sent a letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart after having opened it.”

M. Leblois.--“That was in 1896. It was in December of that year that the Speranza letter was sent.”

M. Clemenceau.--“Then my question was appropriate. All these things happened at the same time.”

M. Labori.--“Does M. Leblois know of certain facts in the relations that prevailed in 1892 between M. du Paty de Clam and the de Comminges family that offer a singular analogy with the participation of the veiled lady in the Esterhazy case?”

M. Leblois.--“The comte de Comminges received in 1892 a certain number of very serious anonymous letters. He had reason to suspect that they were written by Colonel du Paty de Clam, who was then only a major. He consulted the prefect of police, M. Lozé, who, if I have been correctly informed, answered: ‘It is du Paty de Clam.’”

The Judge.--“But you know nothing about it; this information is second-hand.”

M. Labori.--“But the sequel is interesting.”

M. Leblois.--“Thereupon the comte de Comminges went to General Davout, and asked him to insist that these conspiracies should cease. General Davout sent for Major du Paty de Clam, and, as a result, the anonymous letters stopped entirely. But there remained a letter in the hands of Major du Paty de Clam, and the comte de Comminges insisted upon its restitution. General Davout helped him to bring this about, if I am correctly informed. But, however that may be, Major du Paty de Clam restored the letter under the following circumstances. He said that this letter had fallen into the hands of a woman, and that she would not part with it unless the sum of 500 francs was paid to her. So he convoked certain members of the family on the bank of the Seine, near the Jardin de Paris, at ten o’clock in the evening. There came a woman, carrying an umbrella, whom Major du Paty de Clam approached. After conversing with her a few minutes, he came back, saying: ‘I have just handed this woman an envelope containing a 500-franc bill. In exchange, she has given me the letter that you desire, in another envelope. Here it is.’ They opened the envelope, and, to be sure, found the letter. It is evident that there was something very strange about all this,--something useless, to say the least.”

The Judge.--“But what relation has all this to the charge against the defendants?”

M. Labori.--“I am ready to explain at once. It is our contention that the veiled lady, far from being in relations with, or in the circle of, Colonel Picquart, as has been insinuated, was in relations with certain members of the war department, and that those who have aided Major Esterhazy in his campaign may well have been in relation with certain members of the war department. That is the bearing of the question.”

The Judge.--“At what time did the events in connection with this letter occur?”

M. Leblois.--“In the spring of 1892, and, if I am not mistaken, the restitution took place on Good Friday of that year.”

_Testimony of M. Scheurer-Kestner._

The next witness was M. Scheurer-Kestner.

M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, will you ask M. Scheurer-Kestner under what circumstances he was led to concern himself with the facts which revealed to him that the authorship of the _bordereau_, attributed in 1894 to Captain Dreyfus, was really to be attributed to Major Esterhazy, and what steps he took in the matter afterwards?”

The Judge.--“Monsieur Attorney-General!”

The Attorney-General.--“It is always the same question.”

M. Labori.--“It _is_ always the same question, and I understand why you are always ready to welcome it in the same manner.”

The Judge.--“M. Scheurer-Kestner, you are to tell us of Major Esterhazy, but I beg you not to say anything of the Dreyfus case, concerning which we will not hear a word. Tell us of the Esterhazy case, but not of the Dreyfus case.”

M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I note what you say, _Monsieur le Président_. Last July I learned that, at the office of the general staff, in the bureau of information, in September, 1896, Colonel Picquart, who was then a major and the chief of this bureau, had discovered, in the course of investigations undertaken _à propos_ of other matters, but relating to Major Esterhazy, that there had been a mistake in 1894 in attributing the _bordereau_ to M. Alfred Dreyfus. I learned at the same time that, as soon as Colonel Picquart had made his discovery, he made haste to consult M. Bertillon, who had been one of the experts consulted in 1894, and who, without any hesitation, had attributed the _bordereau_ to Alfred Dreyfus. Colonel Picquart, showing him the _bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, but without telling him whose handwriting it was, asked him what he thought of it, and M. Bertillon said to him: ‘Ah! the forgers have succeeded. It is no similarity; it is identity.’ Colonel Picquart came back with this reply, and asked his chief to continue an investigation in this direction. He proposed to General Gonse, among others, to submit the documents to a new expert examination, and General Gonse dissuaded him. There is in existence a correspondence which was then exchanged between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart. I took pains to become acquainted with this correspondence, for it was of great value to me, being of a nature to settle my opinion. The correspondence being communicated to me, I was convinced by reading it that General Gonse accepted the opinion of Colonel Picquart, who was paving the way for a revision of the trial. It seems to me indispensable, in order to enlighten the jurors, that I should read this correspondence to them.”

The Judge.--“No, that is not possible.”

M. Labori.--“We must have the light, and I consider it indispensable that these letters should be put in evidence.”

The Judge.--“The law requires that witnesses shall testify without the aid of any document. However, if the attorney-general is not opposed to it, I shall not oppose it.”

The Attorney-General.--“General Gonse and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart have been summoned. They will testify concerning the letters, if they see fit.”

M. Labori.--“I suggest that M. Scheurer-Kestner be authorized to hand the letters to the court.”

The Attorney-General.--“It is not possible. The government should have been notified of them at the proper time.”

M. Labori.--“M. Zola could not do so, as he did not then have the letters in his possession; but he called upon the attorney-general, as the representative of the complainant, to put these letters in evidence, thereby complying as far as possible with Article 52 of the law of 1881; therefore I have the honor to offer a motion” ...

The Judge.--“Oh!”

M. Labori.--“Oh! _Monsieur le Président_, if you knew how much pain it gives me, as a man of the world, to thus make you suffer.”

The Judge.--“Permit me to tell you, before you offer your motion, that it is impossible. Article 52 of the law concerning the press does not permit the production of documents not previously announced.”

M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The law obliges us to announce documents. We ought to have announced the letters of General Gonse. Why did we not do so? It is well that the jurors should know. We did not do so, because these letters have already been produced at one hearing,--the hearing of the council of war,--and under the following circumstances. Colonel Picquart was asked: ‘Have you General Gonse’s letters?’ He answered: ‘They are in my pocket.’ The president of the council of war then asked: ‘Will you give them to me?’ Colonel Picquart handed him the letters. The president of the council of war took them and placed them with the documents of the case, without having them read. So that, in order to conform to the law, we had to give notice of letters which had been confiscated, as it were, by a president of the council of war,--letters which were not at our disposal, and which only the attorney-general could produce.”

The Judge.--“Offer your motion. But, after all, if M. Schemer-Kestner, instead of reading them, wishes to say what they contain, he may do so.”

M. Labori.--“Very well; so be it.”

M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I greatly regret that I cannot read these letters. I regret it from the standpoint of the manifestation of truth. I considered this reading indispensable, but I see that it is forbidden. Since, however, I am authorized to say what they contain, I will do so in a manner necessarily incomplete, but sufficient perhaps to enlighten the jurors.”

M. Scheurer-Kestner then repeated the substance of the letters, but, as the full text of the letters was printed in “L’Aurore” of the following day, February 9, they are given here in place of the description of them made to the jury by M. Scheurer-Kestner, although legally the full text of the letters forms no part of the evidence placed before the jury.

CORMEILLES-EN-PARISIS (SEINE-ET-OISE),
SEPTEMBER 7, 1896.

_My dear Picquart_:

I have received your letter of the 5th, and, after reflecting upon all that you say. I hasten to tell you that it seems to me useful to proceed in this matter with great prudence, distrusting first impressions. The thing necessary now is to determine the nature of the documents.[1] How could they have been copied? What requests for information have been preferred by third parties? You may say that in this order of ideas it is rather difficult to reach a result without making some stir. I admit it. But in my opinion it is the best way of making sure progress. To the continuation of the inquiry from the standpoint of the handwritings[2] there is the grave objection that it compels us to take new people into our confidence under bad conditions, and it seems to me better to wait until we are more firmly settled in our opinions before going further in this rather delicate path. I return September 15, and we can better discuss an affair of this nature in conversation. But my feeling is that it is necessary to proceed with extreme prudence. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Devotedly yours,

A. GONSE.

[1] The reference here is to the documents that accompanied the _bordereau_ attributed to Dreyfus.

[2] The reference here is to the comparison of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting with that of the bordereau.

PARIS, SEPTEMBER 8, 1896.

_My General_:

I have read your letter carefully, and I shall scrupulously follow your instructions, but I believe it my duty to say this to you. Numerous indications, and a serious fact of which I shall speak to you on your return, show me that the time is near at hand when people who have the conviction that there has been an error in this matter are going to make a great effort and create a great scandal. I believe that I have done all that was necessary to give ourselves the opportunity of initiative. If too much time is lost, that initiative will be taken by others, which, to say nothing of higher considerations, will not leave us in a pleasant position. I must add that the people to whom I refer do not seem to be as well informed as we are,[3] and that in my opinion they will make a mess of it, creating a scandal and a great uproar without furnishing light. There will be a sad and useless crisis, which we could avoid by doing justice in season. Be good enough, etc.,

PICQUART.

[3] The reference here is to the relatives of Dreyfus.

CORMEILLES-EN-PARISIS (SEINE-ET-OISE),
SEPTEMBER 10, 1896.

_My dear Picquart_:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th, after having given it careful consideration. In spite of the disturbing fact stated therein, I persist in my first feeling. I believe that it is necessary to act in the most circumspect manner. At the point at which you have arrived in your investigation there is no question, of course, of avoiding the light, but we must ascertain what course should be taken in order to arrive at a manifestation of the truth. This granted, it is necessary to avoid all false manœuvres, and especially to guard against irreparable steps. It seems to me necessary to arrive silently, and in the order of ideas that I have pointed out to you, at as complete a certainty as possible before compromising anything. I know very well that the problem is a difficult one, and may be full of unexpected elements. But it is precisely for this reason that it is necessary to proceed with prudence. You are not lacking in that virtue; so my mind is easy. Remember that the difficulties are great, and that wise tactics, weighing in advance all possibilities, are indispensable. I have occasion to write to General de Boisdeffre; I say to him a few words of the same tenor as this letter. Prudence! Prudence! That is the word that you must keep steadily before your eyes. I return on the morning of the 15th. Come to see me at my office early, after you have been through your mail. I shake your hand most affectionately, my dear Picquart. Yours devotedly,

GONSE.

PARIS, SEPTEMBER 14, 1896.

_My General_:

September 7 I had the honor to direct your attention to the scandal that certain people were threatening to precipitate, and I permitted myself to say to you that, in my opinion, if we do not take the initiative, we shall have much trouble on our hands. The article from “L’Eclair” which you will find enclosed confirms me unhappily in my opinion. I shall try to find out who has succeeded so well in preparing the bomb. But I believe it my duty to affirm once more that it is necessary to act without delay. If we wait longer, we shall be run over, and imprisoned in an inextricable situation, where it will be impossible for us to establish the real truth. Be good enough, etc.,

PICQUART.

M. Scheurer-Kestner, after repeating the substance of the foregoing letters, continued his testimony as follows:

“Such, gentlemen, is the _résumé_ that I have been able to make from memory of these fine letters, which honor their author, both as a soldier and as a man. After reading them, I was convinced that there had been an error. I saw that General Gonse, Colonel Picquart’s superior, shared his ideas, and looked upon revision as a possibility. What had I to do? My first duty was to inform the minister of war, and show him the documents which proved that the handwriting of the _bordereau_ was the handwriting of Major Esterhazy, and not that of Captain Dreyfus. That was what I did. I had a long conversation with General Billot, and showed him the documents that I possessed, though I did not speak at that time of the correspondence between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart, thinking it better not to do so. But I was not slow in offering this correspondence to the government, and naturally I was authorized to keep a copy of it. Unhappily new events had taken place, and the government perhaps had changed its attitude; I do not know; in any case, my offer was refused. It seemed to me that the honor of the government, of the republic, of democracy, and of the army required that the initiative in such a reparation should come from above, and not from below.

“Then what happened? The day after my visit to the minister of war, in which I spoke to him of the documents and showed them to him (that was October 31),--on the day after, November 1, though it had been agreed between us that our conversation should be secret, that it should not be noised abroad, that there should be no mention of it, what did I see in the newspapers inspired, so I was told, by the minister of war,--my visit to the minister related with false comments. It was said that I had shown nothing, that I had refused to give the minister of war proof of the innocence of Dreyfus, when, in fact, I had been with him three hours, begging him to make the proof public, and offering to cry it from the house-tops. He either would not, or could not, do it. He confined himself to saying: ‘He is guilty.’ ‘Prove to me that he is guilty,’ I said. ‘I cannot prove it to you.’ That was General Billot’s answer when I had brought important documents, and when my heart was full of all that I knew through the reading of the letters of which I had just spoken. That is how I came to my present conviction, and that is the way in which I gained courage to take up a cause which is a cause of humanity, truth, and justice.”

M. Labori.--“M. Scheurer-Kestner has told us of his conversation with General Billot. Will he now be good enough to tell us if he has interviewed the prime minister?”

M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I had several interviews with the prime minister in the early days of November. To him I told all that I knew, all that I had learned. I offered to him the letters that passed between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart, for to him I could speak of what had happened at the bureau of information.”

M. Labori.--“Whence and under what circumstances came M. Mathieu Dreyfus’s denunciation of Major Esterhazy? Did not M. Mathieu Dreyfus have a conversation with you in which he revealed to you the name of Major Esterhazy,--a name which had come to his knowledge by a path wholly different from that by which it had come to your ears?”

M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I had not uttered the name of Major Esterhazy in the presence of a single private individual. I had mentioned it only to the government when, on November 12, I received a message from M. Mathieu Dreyfus, asking me to receive him at my house. I had no relations with him; he had never been at my house; I had never seen him; I was not acquainted with him. He came, and this is the story that he told. A certain M. de Castro, whom he did not know, was walking on the boulevards, at the time when they were selling the placards which contained the proof of treason,--placards which bore portraits on both sides, and in the middle a _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_. M. de Castro, who is a foreigner, and who theretofore had not been much interested in this matter, bought one of these placards simply to pass away the time, and, as soon as he had it in his hands,--I make use of a word which he used himself when he told me the story later,--he was dazed. ‘I went home,’ he said, ‘took out the package of letters from Esterhazy that I had in my desk,--thirty or forty of them,--and made sure that I was not mistaken. The _bordereau_ was really in his writing.’ M. de Castro hurried to the house of M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and it was after this visit that M. Mathieu Dreyfus came to me in the evening to say this: ‘You must know the author of the _bordereau_. It is said that you have been occupying yourself with this matter for a long time, with an earnestness really feverish, and that you are searching for information everywhere. Then you must know whom they have substituted, or tried to substitute, for M. Alfred Dreyfus as the author of the _bordereau_, since I know that you are convinced, from the examination of handwritings, that Alfred Dreyfus is not the author of it.’ And, as I refused to give him the name, he said: ‘Well, if I speak the name, and if the name that I speak has come under your eyes in your investigations, will you tell me so?’ I answered: ‘In that case I shall consider myself unbound, and will say yes.’ Then M. Mathieu Dreyfus spoke the name of Major Esterhazy, and I said to him: ‘Under the circumstances in which you find yourself, it is your duty to state this immediately to the minister of war.’ For at that moment, thanks to the newspapers, a certain number of superior officers were under suspicion, and I was very glad that, under the circumstances in which this fact appeared, these superior officers would be placed out of the question. Thus it was that M. Mathieu Dreyfus pointed out Major Esterhazy to the minister of war as the author of the _bordereau_.”

M. Zola.--“I beg M. Scheurer-Kestner to give us further details regarding his interview with General Billot, in order to emphasize a thing which I consider of great importance. You know, _Monsieur le Président_, that they accuse us, and that they accuse me personally, of having been the cause of the frightful crisis that is now dividing the country. They say that we have produced this great trouble which is disturbing business and inflaming hearts. Well, I should like it to be clearly established that General Billot was warned by M. Scheurer-Kestner of what would take place. I would like M. Scheurer-Kestner to say that he is an old friend of General Billot, that he addresses him with the utmost familiarity, that he almost wept in his arms, and that he begged him, in the name of France, to take the matter up. I would like him to say that.”

M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“The conversation that I had with General Billot, who has been my friend for twenty-five years, was a long one. Yes, I begged him to give his best attention to this matter, which otherwise was likely to become extremely serious. ‘It is incumbent upon you,’ I said to him, ‘to take the first steps, make a personal investigation; do not trust the matter to anyone. There are bundles of documents in certain offices. Send for them. Use no intermediary. Make an earnest investigation. If you will promise to make this earnest personal investigation. I pledge myself to maintain silence until I shall know the result.’ As I left, General Billot asked me to say nothing to anyone. I agreed, but on one condition. ‘Two hours,’ I said, ‘are all that is necessary for this investigation. I give you a fortnight, and during that fortnight I will not take a step.’ Now, during that fortnight I was dragged in the mud, pronounced a dishonest man, treated as a wretch, covered with insults, and called a German and a Prussian.”

M. Zola.--“As they call me an Italian.”

M. Scheurer-Kestner--“It was during that fortnight that I wrote to General Billot: ‘We have made a truce, but I did not think that this truce would turn against me, thanks to the people who are about you, and whom you either cause to act or suffer to act.’ I even pointed out to him the names of officers who had been indicated to me as the bearers of the articles to the newspapers. I told him that I did not guarantee the accuracy of this information, but I asked him to inquire into the matter. He pretended that he would make this inquiry, and that, after it, he would report to me. The fortnight passed, and I am still without news, without reply. That is the truth.”

M. Zola.--“Without news, with insults.”

_Testimony of M. Casimir-Perier._

The next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, ex-president of the republic.

The Judge.--“You are M. Casimir-Perier, former president of the republic. Of course you are neither the relative or an ally of the accused, and they are not in your service. Will you raise your right hand?”

M. Casimir-Perier.--“_Monsieur le Président_, before taking the oath, I ask your permission to reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday in writing.”

The Judge.--“Yes, but, before making your declaration, it is necessary to take the oath.”

M. Casimir-Perier.--“I cannot tell the whole truth; it is my duty not to tell it.”

M. Labori.--“When M. Casimir-Perier was president of the republic, did he know, prior to the arrest of a staff officer, that this officer was suspected of treason, and did he know the charges against him?”

The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”

M. Labori.--“Did M. Casimir-Perier know at any time that there was a secret document in the war department relating either to the Dreyfus case or to the Esterhazy case?”

The Judge.--“Let the Dreyfus case alone; let us have nothing to say about it. Can you answer, M. Casimir-Perier, in regard to the Esterhazy case?”

M. Casimir-Perier.--“I did not know, while I was president of the republic, that there were any Esterhazy papers.”

M. Labori.--“Was M. Casimir-Perier aware that at a certain moment a secret document was laid before the council of war in the Dreyfus case, outside of the proceedings of the trial and without the knowledge of the accused?”

The Judge.--“The question will not be put.”

M. Zola.--“Is it understood, then, that no attention is to be paid to the word ‘illegality’ contained in the sentence complained of? You do not take that into consideration? Then why was it included in the summons?”

The Judge.--“On that point the court has rendered a decree.”

M. Zola.--“As a man, I bow to that decree, but my reason does not bow. I do not comprehend your limitation of the defence to certain matters indicated in the complaint, in the light of your refusal to hear evidence regarding this word ‘illegality’ that also appears therein.”

The Judge.--“There can be no testimony against the thing judged. That was repeated in today’s decree.”

M. Labori.--“We offer no testimony against the authority of the thing judged.”

The Judge.--“It is the same thing.”

M. Labori.--“No, no.”

The Judge.--“You maintain that in the Dreyfus case there was illegality.”

M. Labori.--“Yes.”

The Judge.--“Then it is the same thing. It is useless to insist.”

M. Zola.--“But the Esterhazy case is also a thing judged.”

The Judge.--“But you are prosecuted on that matter.”

M. Zola.--“But we are also prosecuted on the other.”

The Judge.--“Not the least in the world.”

M. Zola.--“Then there are differences in the thing judged?”

The Judge.--“The question will not be put. It is useless to debate it.”

M. Labori.--“No, it is not useless. Useless, perhaps, so far as obtaining a decision in our favor is concerned; but not useless from the standpoint of our cause, for everybody judges us, and the jurors follow these discussions with interest. But, as you say that discussion is useless, I shall have the honor to offer a motion, and await a decree of the court. I do not wish to detain M. Casimir-Perier longer, so I shall ask you, _Monsieur le Président_, on the ground of morality and good faith,--and I hope that no decree of the court will be needed to give us satisfaction on this point,--to ask M. Casimir-Perier the following question: If a secret document had been produced in any trial whatever, before any jurisdiction whatever, and if in this way an adverse verdict had been obtained, what would M. Casimir-Perier,--who will not, I am sure, in order to answer me, take refuge behind any sort of professional secrecy, since the question here is one of right and public morality, on which such men as Daguesseau have given an opinion before him,--what would M. Casimir-Perier think of it?”

The Judge.--“Allow me to tell you that it is useless to try to arrive by indirect questions at the same result. I will not put the question.”

M. Clemenceau.--“I think the court does not clearly understand my _confrère’s_ question, which is this: If M. Casimir-Perier were to learn tomorrow that a person had been condemned on a document that had not been shown to him, what would be his opinion? It is a question of good faith. The high position that M. Casimir-Perier has occupied justifies us in asking his opinion.”

The Judge.--“It is not a fact; it is an opinion.”

M. Clemenceau.--“Then the court refuses to ask this question?”

The Judge.--“It is not a proper question to ask.”

M. Labori.--“Well, on this question, as on the others, we shall offer a motion.”

M. Clemenceau.--“One word more. When M. Casimir-Perier took the stand, he began to testify before making oath, saying: ‘I believe that it is my duty not to tell the whole truth.’”

The Judge.--“That is not at all what M. Casimir-Perier said. He declared that he did not believe it his duty to speak.”

M. Clemenceau.--“I demand that the question be put to the witness.”

M. Casimir-Perier.--“I had in view the formula of the oath, which requires the telling of the whole truth, and I desired to point out that I could not tell the truth entire, having in view, in saying so, my declaration of yesterday, and, moreover, knowing no facts relating to the case before the court, besides considering that concerning other matters silence is imposed upon me by my duty and my constitutional responsibility.”

M. Labori.--“I ask pardon of M. Casimir-Perier for keeping him longer, but I cannot allow him to go until my motion has been passed upon.”

M. Casimir-Perier.--“I am a simple citizen, and at the service of the courts of my country.”

M. Labori.--“M. Casimir-Perier sets an illustrious example, when others have to be forced by legal measures to appear in the assize court.”

The Judge.--“You offer a motion, but you know what the opinion of the court is. It will be the same decree again.”

M. Labori.--“Well, it will be only the easier to render it.”

_Testimony of M. de Castro._

The witness-chair was then taken by M. de Castro, who testified as follows:

“At the time in question I was a banker and broker near the Paris Bourse, and I had had occasion to do some business for Major Esterhazy. He was in regular correspondence with the house, and I was very familiar with his writing,--so familiar, indeed, that in the morning, when I opened my mail, I knew the major’s writing before opening his letter. Toward the end of last October I was on the boulevard when a street-fakir passed by me, selling a _fac-simile_ of the famous _bordereau_ attributed to Dreyfus. I was struck by the writing. It looked to me like a letter from Major Esterhazy. I returned to my house much perturbed in mind. The next day I went with my brother-in-law to find some of Major Esterhazy’s letters. I compared them with the _fac-simile_, and found a perfect similarity,--in fact, a striking identity. I spoke to some friends of this strange coincidence, and they advised me to carry a few letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who was concerning himself with the Dreyfus case. Meantime these friends probably spoke to M. Mathieu Dreyfus, who came one day to ask me to show him these letters. I offered him some of them, but he refused them, saying: ‘I advise you to go yourself to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and show them to him.’ So I went one morning, and said to him: ‘I come to lay before you some very curious types. You will see for yourself the similarity between the handwriting of these letters and the famous _bordereau_.’ M. Scheurer-Kestner took the letters, and looked at them for some time; then he went to a bureau, and came back, saying: ‘Here are some letters probably written by the same hand.’ and, indeed, I recognized Major Esterhazy’s writing.”

M. Labori.--“At that time had Major Esterhazy’s name been spoken as that of the possible author of the _bordereau_? Did M. de Castro suspect that M. Esterhazy was already under suspicion?”

M. de Castro.--“No.”

M. Labori.--“Did M. de Castro receive threatening letters?”

M. de Castro.--“No; no letters. I received one day a telegram. If the court desires, I will produce it.”

The Judge.--“No, but what did it say?”

M. de Castro.--“It contained this threat: ‘If you have given in evidence the letters which “Paris” designates by the initials d. d. c., you will pay dear for this infamy.’”

The Judge.--“Did this handwriting resemble that of Major Esterhazy?”

M. de. Castro.--“No, there was nothing to indicate the origin of the dispatch. It was not signed, and the writing was quite different from that of Major Esterhazy.”

The witness was then allowed to step down, and the court adjourned for the day.

THIRD DAY--FEBRUARY 9.

The third day’s proceedings began with a statement of the judge that, in refusing to hear Mme. Dreyfus the day before, concerning M. Zola’s good faith, he had supposed that the question to be put to her concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case. Therefore the court desired the defence to specify whether the question concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case, or his good faith in the matter of the Esterhazy case.

M. Labori.--“I do not understand. M. Zola has committed an act which is considered criminal. We maintain that it is an act of good faith, and we ask the witness what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith. As to the Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case, they are connected only indirectly with the Zola case.”

The Judge.--“There is no Zola case. I can question Mme. Dreyfus on the good faith of M. Zola only so far as the Esterhazy case is concerned.”

M. Labori.--“The court will act according to its understanding. It is the sovereign judge. But we are the sovereign judges in the matter of the questions that we wish to put, and to us the question of good faith is indivisible. A man who commits an act commits it either in good or in bad faith, and we have not to inquire whether his faith is good concerning this point or that point. I do not know what Mme. Dreyfus will answer, but I ask that she be questioned in a general way as to the good faith of M. Zola in writing his letter.”

The Judge.--“There must be no confusion here, no arriving by indirect methods at that which the decree of the court has forbidden.”

M. Labori.--“I allow no one to say that I pursue indirect methods. I have neither the face or the attitude or the voice of a man who does things indirectly, and, if there are any indirect methods used here, I leave the entire responsibility--I do not say to the attorney-general--but to the complainant, the minister of war. I insist that the question shall be put as I framed it, and, if the court refuses, I shall offer a motion.”

The Judge.--“I will question Mme. Dreyfus concerning only the second council of war that tried the Esterhazy case.”

M. Clemenceau.--“I am informed that witnesses are present in the court-room, though the trial is now in progress. It seems that General de Boisdeffre, General Mercier” ...

The Judge.--“The trial is not in progress.”

M. Clemenceau.--“It is essential that the witnesses should not be present at any part of the trial before their deposition” ...

The Judge.--“The day’s debate has not begun.”

Nevertheless the military officers, who formed a group in the middle of the room, were then excluded, and Dr. Socquet, the expert physician who had been sent to examine the health of those witnesses who had pleaded illness, took the stand.

He reported that M. Autant had been seized on the previous Sunday with an attack of renal colic, but had now recovered, and was in the witnesses’ room. As to Mme. de Boulancy, he said that her case offered all the symptoms of angina pectoris, and that, considering her condition, her appearance in court would be attended by serious danger.

M. Clemenceau.--“I gather from the doctor’s testimony that it is materially possible for Mme. de Boulancy to come to this bar, but that the doctor thinks that the excitement would be bad for her. I ask him, then, supposing that this question had been put to him; ‘Do you believe that Mme. de Boulancy could appear before the examining magistrate in the presence of Major Esterhazy?’ would he have thought that that excitement would be bad for her?”

Dr. Socquet.--“I cannot answer. It is evident that the surroundings in the assize court are different from those in the office of an examining magistrate.”

Being questioned as to Mlle. de Comminges, he said that her physician, Dr. Florent, told him that she was the victim of a nervous affection, and had heart trouble so clearly defined that she was liable to fainting-spells on entering a room the temperature of which was a little above the ordinary.

M. Clemenceau.--“The jurors will note that these two ladies, Mlle. de Comminges and Mme. de Boulancy, were at their residences, and that their own physicians were present.”

Dr. Socquet.--“No, their physicians were not present.”

M. Clemenceau.--“The expert just said that the physician of Mlle. de Comminges told him a certain thing.”

Dr. Socquet.--“That was in his certificate.”

These preliminaries over, the witness-stand was taken by General de Boisdeffre.

_Testimony of General de Boisdeffre._

M. Labori.--“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us first what the document was that Major Esterhazy brought to the minister of war some time before his appearance before the council of war?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“That document relates to the Dreyfus case; consequently I cannot speak of it without violating the decree of the court and my professional secrecy.”

M. Labori.--“I am glad to learn that it relates to the Dreyfus case, but Major Esterhazy made use of it as a means of defence, and described it by an interesting phrase which General de Boisdeffre no doubt has heard,--‘the liberating document.’ Moreover, the minister of war gave Major Esterhazy a receipt for it; therefore it concerns exclusively the case of Major Esterhazy. So I ask General de Boisdeffre what the liberating document is.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Professional secrecy does not permit me to answer.”

M. Labori.--“Professional secrecy can be invoked only by persons capable of receiving confidences because of their profession. Where there is no profession that involves such confidences, there is no secrecy. General de Boisdeffre has received no confidences, and, if he has, we do not ask him to betray them. As chief of staff of the army, he has acted as an official, and, if he invokes any secrecy, it can be only that which seems to have been devised in many respects especially for the necessities of this case, and which is called the secret of State. When the secret of State is invoked by a government, we are at liberty to ask if there is a reason to recognize it. That question will arise when the members of the Dupuy cabinet shall come to the stand. When it is invoked by a former president of the republic, we bow with deference, because the president of the republic is irresponsible. But General de Boisdeffre is a responsible official. Respect for the army is never shown to a person, but to a symbol or an ideal, and it is based on the confidence that we have in those who represent it, and on their ability to answer at any moment for all their acts before the justice of the country, represented here by twelve jurors who are France, and to whom everybody owes explanations. General de Boisdeffre is in the presence of justice. He can escape by no appeal to secrecy. Therefore I ask the court to put my question again.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I have the profoundest respect for the justice of my country. Perhaps I do not know how to make the legal distinctions that have just been pointed out, but I consider the secret of State a professional secret. That is my reply.”

The Judge.--“Let us pass to another order of ideas.”

M. Labori.--“I pass not to another order of ideas, but to another order of questions. Can General de Boisdeffre tell us anything about the veiled lady?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I know absolutely nothing about the veiled lady, and have not heard her spoken of except by the newspapers.”

M. Labori.--“It is not only the newspapers that have spoken of her; she was a means of defence employed by Major Esterhazy before the council of war in the public part of the trial. I should like to know whether either the minister of war or General de Boisdeffre ordered any investigation concerning her.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“We did all that we could to find out who the veiled lady was, but we found out nothing.”

M. Labori.--“Does General de Boisdeffre declare that he does not know at all whence the veiled lady came, or with whom she was connected, or, on the contrary, does he know that she had some sort of relations with Colonel Picquart?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about it.”

M. Labori.--“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us how the liberating document got away from the war department?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about that, either.”

M. Labori.--“But the general must have made an inquiry.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Yes, but I arrived only at uncertain results, which, being doubtful, I cannot state here, for they are simple presumptions concerning people that may be entirely innocent.”

M. Labori.--“Yet Major Ravary insinuates in his report that the document may have reached the veiled lady through indiscretions on the part of Colonel Picquart. Does General de Boisdeffre accept the responsibility for such insinuations?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I have been in no way mixed up in the Esterhazy case. I know nothing of what was done in the examination, and have kept quite aloof from the whole matter.”

M. Labori.--“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us what charges are made against Colonel Picquart?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“They are of two kinds. There are some which have not yet taken on a definite character. There are others relating to his professional service, and which have been absolutely proved. The best proof is that certain letters appear in the newspapers of this morning which were the property of their writer, and which were written for the service.”

M. Labori.--“And are there other reprehensible points?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Yes; the attention of the council of inquiry was called to them, and, the doings of that body being absolutely secret, I can make no explanation concerning them.”

M. Labori.--“Does General de Boisdeffre know that Colonel Picquart was sent on a mission in November, 1896, and can he tell us why he was so sent?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“He was sent upon an order of the minister of war.”

M. Labori.--“Which is also secret, evidently.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“The object of the mission was secret.”

M. Labori.--“Exactly. Was Colonel Picquart sent away in disgrace?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I cannot say of any officer sent upon a mission that he was sent away in disgrace.”

M. Labori.--“Oh! everything that comes from a general’s mouth does not necessarily concern the national defence. General de Boisdeffre must tell us whether Colonel Picquart was sent away in disgrace or not.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Colonel Picquart was in a state of mind that did not permit him to attend to his duties satisfactorily. He was absorbed by a single idea. The minister of war thought it wise to send him on a mission that would restore him to his normal state of mind.”

M. Labori.--“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us what idea it was that obsessed Colonel Picquart’s mind?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I do not believe that I can answer that question, because I must not answer concerning the case” ...

Here the witness hesitated.

M. Labori.--“Concerning what case?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“The case of Dreyfus.”

M. Labori.--“And why must not the witness go into the Dreyfus case?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Because a decree of the court, which I have read in the newspapers, separates the two cases.”

M. Labori.--“Does not General de Boisdeffre know that Major Esterhazy has been prosecuted and examined concerning the _bordereau_ attributed to Dreyfus in 1894?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“Major Esterhazy was examined behind closed doors. Consequently it is not for me to know what took place behind closed doors.”

M. Labori.--“I believe that General de Boisdeffre is mistaken, for I was present at the public part of that trial. I imagine that General de Boisdeffre, having so many secrets to keep, confuses those concerning which he is obliged to keep silence with those concerning which he need not keep silence. At any rate, he cannot dispute that the _bordereau_ has been in question, for it has been discussed by the newspapers for the last fortnight. I ask him to tell us, since I well understand that it was the question of the innocence of Dreyfus that obsessed the mind of Colonel Picquart, what Colonel Picquart did in relation to the Esterhazy case.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“He made known his doubts concerning Major Esterhazy’s situation. We told him to do everything to illuminate the matter, and to settle the doubts that preoccupied him. He could find no document that sustained his doubts to our satisfaction, and we could only invite him to abstain and not continue his researches.”

M. Labori.--“I note here, for the benefit of the jurors, that at the time when General de Boisdeffre, chief of staff of the army, learned that Colonel Picquart was obsessed by this case which he will not name, he invited him to confirm his doubts. It results therefrom that at that time it did not seem impossible to General de Boisdeffre that Major Esterhazy was the author of the crime for which Dreyfus had been condemned.”

General de Boisdeffre.--“My words are incorrectly interpreted. The guilt of Captain Dreyfus has always been to me a thing absolutely certain, and my conviction is absolute regarding it. I do not say more, because I wish to touch this matter as little as possible. Consequently, when another officer was pointed out to me as guilty of such a crime, it was my duty to order an investigation. My doubts concerned the guilt of Major Esterhazy, and not the guilt of Captain Dreyfus.”

M. Labori.--“Is General de Boisdeffre’s belief in the guilt of Dreyfus based on the facts of 1894, or on facts of earlier or later date?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“It is based on the facts and the trial of 1894, the outcome of which is beyond discussion. There have been other facts, subsequent and prior, which have,--I do not say confirmed, for my conviction needed no confirmation,--but which have assisted my certainty most decidedly.”

M. Labori.--“What is the source of the communications made to certain newspapers, seeming to come from the war offices?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“To my knowledge, they do not emanate from the war offices.”

M. Labori.--“Has General de Boisdeffre investigated the matter?”

General de Boisdeffre.--“I have made an investigation, and questioned the officers.”

The Judge.--“And you are certain that these communications do not emanate from them?”