Author of “The Truth About Dreyfus”
In cases of high treason no less than in violations of the criminal code
the personal character of the accused has always had great weight with
French judges. In attempting to prove that Captain Alfred Dreyfus
carried on treasonable negotiations with a foreign power, M.
d’Ormescheville, in his Acte d’Accusation or indictment, laid great
stress on the information collected from the municipal police tending to
show that the prisoner was an habitual wrong-doer. The supposition that
as an Alsatian he might have entered the French army and remained there
with the patriotic and unselfish desire to serve Germany is treated with
secondary importance. It was the intention of the officer who served as
Juge d’Instruction to show that Dreyfus was criminally corrupt, and
hence was quite capable of being a traitor. Not only did the
semi-official press of Paris, in the winter of 1894-95, dwell upon those
acts that seemed intimately connected with the alleged treason, but they
delved into his domestic life. With diabolical frankness and in a
network of specious details they branded him profligate as well as
traitor. The Acte d’Accusation charges him with being a gambler and
libertine, unmindful of the well-being of his family, faithless to his
wife.
For many weeks this most infamous campaign was kept up in the columns of
_L’Echo de Paris_, _Le Petit Journal_, _Le Gaulois_, _La Libre Parole_,
and _L’Intransigeant_. So varied in character and so ingenious in
conception were these libellous tales, that it became impossible for the
friends of the condemned man to make an adequate defense. Dreyfus’s
counsel, Maître Demange, heard the stories, and could do nothing. The
verdict of the court-martial closed the door to legal redress. The
devoted wife of Dreyfus at first attempted to reply to them in _Le
Figaro_. Parisians laughed at her _naïveté_. She was not the only
deceived wife in the world, they said. At length, wearied of the unequal
combat--one woman against a horde of anti-Semitic vilifiers--she gave to
the world a volume of letters written by her husband to herself. It was
her desire simply to show him as he was, to rehabilitate the prisoner as
a husband and a father in the eyes of Frenchmen. But “Les Lettres d’un
Innocent” have done more than this. To the women of France, at least,
they have established the innocence of the man. No one can read these
letters without being struck by the absolute sincerity of the writer; by
his love for his wife and his family, and for his country; by his
devotion to duty and to the traditions of the army whose heads had so
remorselessly sacrificed him; by the utter hopelessness of his position.
When, in the papers of January 6, 1895, the story of his dramatic
degradation was published to the world, the French people pretended to
see in his proud, fearless demeanor, as his uniform was stripped of
insignia and his sword broken before him, a criminal stoicism that would
have been impossible in an innocent man. Many English and American
readers recognized simply the final desperate appeal of an entirely
innocent man. The sentiment that was then aroused outside of France will
be emphasized by “Les Lettres d’un Innocent.” Although not destined to
have the judicial and logical weight of the testimony before the Cour de
Cassation, they have a sympathetic and persuasive significance that is
eminently human. The evidence before the Court proves that Dreyfus did
not write the _bordereau_. The letters convince one that he was
incapable of treason.
The reader who expects to find in the epistles before us arguments
tending to prove the innocence of the writer will be disappointed. Even
if the prisoner actually attempted defense it was not allowed to pass
the censor. Only a persistent declaration of innocence will be found
here--a declaration that is repeated with awful and tragic monotony
until it smites the ear like the wail of an innocent soul in Dante’s
“Inferno.”
As has been said, the conditions under which these letters were written
forbade the author to indulge in details concerning the circumstances of
his awful fate. Hence, for a fuller appreciation and a better
understanding of the emotions that moved the writer at given periods,
the following data must constantly be borne in mind: Dreyfus was
arrested October 15, 1894; his trial by court-martial began December 19
of the same year and ended December 23. The condemned man was publicly
degraded January 5, 1895, and on the 9th day of the following February
the Chamber passed a law decreeing his place of confinement to be French
Guiana, in South America; in March he was transported thither.
The prisoner wrote regularly to his wife until the spring of 1898, when
he became a victim of the conditions of his solitary position. In
September, 1898, he bade a final adieu to his wife and children and
declared that he would write no more.[A] He was beset with unconquerable
sadness. He complained to his physician, Dr. Veugnon, of Cayenne, of
mental exhaustion and insomnia. He was haunted by the “fixed idea” to
exculpate himself from the charge of treason. Yet he could only deny and
deny.
He knew nothing of what was passing in Paris and in the world at large.
On November 15, 1898, M. Darius, the Procureur Général of Cayenne,
entered the room occupied by the prisoner on the Ile du Diable and said
to him, “Dreyfus, the Cour de Cassation has decided to revise your case.
What have you to say?” Dreyfus seemed like one dazed. The day for which
he had so fervently prayed had come at last. Yet, according to his
inquisitor, this is what he replied: “I shall say nothing until I am
confronted by my accusers in Paris.” No further facts were revealed to
him, but, under the direction of the authorities in Paris, he was
interrogated at given periods. In the mean time he was left a prey to
strange conjectures concerning his ultimate fate. On July 3, 1899, he
was told that he was to be taken immediately to France to stand trial
before a new court-martial at Rennes. He had been a prisoner on the Ile
du Diable for more than fifty months.
Alfred Dreyfus, captain in the 14th Artillery, was appointed to the
General Staff of the French Army in 1893. He was the first Jew to be so
honored. His record at the Chaptal College, at Sainte-Barbe, at the
Ecole Polytechnique, at the Ecole d’Application, at the Ecole de Guerre,
no less than his service in the 31st Regiment of Artillery, in the 4th
Mounted Battery, and in the 21st Regiment of Artillery, shows that he
deserved the distinction. The words of praise that his chiefs then wrote
of him are in strange contrast with their later reflections.
For years the Dreyfus family had been identified with large
manufacturing interests in Mulhouse, in Alsace. Alfred was one of four
brothers. When Germany took possession of the province as one of the
results of the Franco-Prussian War, the three younger brothers declared
for France, and were obliged to quit German territory; the eldest, who
had passed the age of military service, remained behind to look after
the business from which the brothers derived their income. It was
natural that they should have wished to remain Frenchmen. Had not France
emancipated the Jews forty years before they had the privileges of
Gentiles under the English law? Since disgrace has fallen upon their
family their enduring and emphasized patriotism is somewhat remarkable.
It must not be supposed, on the one hand, that a long period of
suspicion was attached to Dreyfus before his melodramatic arrest in the
office of du Paty de Clam, or, on the other, that the unfortunate man
was the victim of an anti-Semitic plot created for the purpose of
ruining him. He was the victim of mistake before he became the martyr of
crime. The facts are simply these:
In August, 1894, Commandant Comte Walsin-Esterhazy, who was carrying on
treasonable negotiations with the German Embassy in Paris, sent to
Lieutenant-Colonel von Schwarzkoppen some notes of information together
with a memorandum. This memorandum, or _bordereau_, fell into the hands
of a French spy. It was taken to the Secret Intelligence Department.
Its importance as revealing the presence of a traitor who had access to
the secrets of the War Office was at once recognized. General Mercier,
then Minister of War, placed the investigation in the hands of
Commandant du Paty de Clam. Owing to the similarity between the
handwriting in the _bordereau_ and that of Dreyfus, this officer was
suspected of being its author. He was arrested and taken to the military
prison of Cherche Midi. In the mean time, du Paty de Clam exhausted
every resource to find confirmatory evidence. In this he signally
failed. Nevertheless the indictment was drawn up.
Commandant Forzinetti was in charge of Cherche Midi. His first
impression of the prisoner as deposed before the Cour de Cassation was
as follows:
“I went to Captain Dreyfus. He was terribly excited. I had before me a
man bereft of reason, with bloodshot eyes. He had upset everything in
his room. I succeeded, after some trouble, in quieting him. I had an
intuition that this officer was innocent. He begged me to allow him
writing materials, so that he might ask the Minister of War to be heard
by him or by one of the general officers of the Ministry. He described
to me the details of his arrest, which were neither dignified nor
soldierly.”
On October 24 Mercier asked Forzinetti what he thought of the prisoner’s
guilt. This was the reply: “They are evidently on a false scent. This
officer is not guilty.”
Nearly every day du Paty de Clam visited Dreyfus and tried in every way
to force a confession from him.[B]
This was the position of Minister of War Mercier: For months a campaign
had been carried on against him in the radical press. One fortunate act
would vindicate him--the conviction of a traitor. It is impossible that
he could have long entertained a belief in the guilt of the prisoner.
Yet, having in the first flush of seeming success publicly accused him,
he dare not draw back. Already his enemies of the radical and clerical
press were accusing him of selling himself to the Jews. “To-morrow,”
wrote Drumont in _La Libre Parole_, “no doubt they will applaud the
Minister of War, when he comes and boasts of the measures which he has
taken to save Dreyfus.”
Thus the reputation of Mercier, and very possibly the existence of the
Cabinet, became staked on the conviction of Dreyfus. Dreyfus was
convicted. Space will not permit me to state the exact circumstances by
which this most stupendous miscarriage of justice was brought about.
Suffice to say, that during a secret deliberation of the court-martial
forged evidence was introduced unknown to the prisoner or to his
counsel. The criminal code as well as article 101 of the Code de Justice
Militaire was grossly violated. It was to cover this illegality and to
perpetuate its result that the conspiracy in the General Staff gradually
grew into being.
The victim was publicly degraded in the courtyard of the Ecole
Militaire, in Paris. The morning was clear and cold. The sunlight
shimmered from the gaudy trappings of the Garde Républicaine. “On the
stroke of nine from the clock of the Ecole Militaire,” wrote a reporter
of _L’Autorité_, “General Darras draws his sword and commands, ‘Shoulder
arms!’ The order is repeated before each company. The troops execute the
order. Silence follows.
“Hearts cease to beat; all eyes are fixed upon the right-hand corner of
the square, where Dreyfus is imprisoned in a low building on the
terrace.
“In a moment a small group is seen; it is Alfred Dreyfus in the midst of
four artillerymen, accompanied by a lieutenant of the Garde Républicaine
and by the commander of the escort....
“Dreyfus walks with a quiet, firm step.”
The reporter continues to describe the march across the square to the
point in front of the troops where the degradation is to take place.
Dreyfus listens in silence while a clerk reads the sentence. General
Darras then says, “Dreyfus, you are unworthy to bear arms. In the name
of the French people we degrade you.”
“Then,” continues _L’Autorité_, “Dreyfus is seen to raise both arms,
and, head erect, he cries out in a strong voice, in which no tremor is
noticed:
“‘I am innocent, I swear that I am innocent. Vive la France!’
“And the vast crowd outside answers with a cry of, ‘Death to him!’”
The adjutant then begins his work. First cutting from the condemned
man’s uniform his galloons, cuffs, buttons, all insignia of rank, ending
by breaking the sword. During the ceremony Dreyfus several times raises
his voice:
“On the heads of my wife and children I swear that I am innocent. I
swear it. Vive la France!”
The reporter of _L’Autorité_ seems deeply moved, for he adds:
“It is over at last, but the seconds have been as centuries. We had
never before felt pangs of anguish so keen. And afresh, clear, and
without any touch of emotion, is heard the voice of the condemned man
in a loud tone, crying:
“‘You degrade an innocent man!’”
The prisoner is then obliged to pass before the line of soldiers. As he
approaches the railing the civilian crowd gets a better view of him and
yells, “Death to him!”
When he arrives before a group of reporters he pauses and says, “Tell
the people of France that I am innocent.”
They mock him, however, crying, “Dastard! Traitor! Judas! Vile Jew!”
He passes on and comes to a group of officers of the General Staff, his
late colleagues. Here again he pauses, and says, “Gentlemen, you know I
am innocent.”
But they yell at him as did the reporters. He surveys them closely
through his pincenez and says calmly, “You’re a set of cowards.” There
is utter contempt in his voice. At length the direful march is ended.
Dreyfus enters a van and is driven to the Prison de la Santé.
* * * * *
For nearly four years the world was a blank to him. Of the efforts made
to rehabilitate him he knew nothing. He knew not that the real traitor
had been discovered. He knew nothing of the heroic Picquart’s unselfish
martyrdom in the cause of truth and justice. He knew nothing of Zola’s
melodramatic entrance upon the scene. He knew nothing of the crimes that
were committed in the name of _l’honneur de l’armée_. Was it to be
wondered at that he should have been overwhelmed when these things were
told him at Rennes?
The story of the indignities that he endured, the tortures that he
suffered at the Ile du Diable, has been given to the world by his
counsels, Maîtres Labori and Demange. It is like a chapter from the dark
ages. Once, when it was reported that an attempt would be made to rescue
him, this man, consumed with fever and almost bereft of reason, was, by
the order of M. Lebon, Minister of the Colonies, chained to his couch,
while the lamp that was kept burning over his head attracted hordes of
tropical insects. He was told that his wife sought to forget him and
desired to marry again. In his despair his jailers thought he might say
something that would incriminate him. They were mistaken. He made no
confession. There was none to make. He could only yell in their ears, “I
am innocent! I am innocent!” When, in early autumn of 1898, he was
believed to be dying this message was cabled from Paris to Cayenne:
“Embalm him if he dies, and send us his corpse.”
But he lived. And he may still live to see in his appalling experience
the cause of social revolution in France--a revolution that shall make
the rights of the individual paramount to the traditions of the army, to
the subtle cravings of the clericals, to the fantastic schemers of the
Faubourg St. Germain.