Here is a letter that was received by Maître Demange, the counsel of
Dreyfus, from his client, December 31, 1894. It was first made public
when sent to M. Sarrien, Minister of Justice, July 11, 1898. In the
published copy it was deemed necessary to suppress certain words and
phrases:
“Commandant du Paty came to-day, Monday, December 31, 1894, at 5.30
P.M., after the rejection of my appeal, to ask me, on behalf of the
Minister, whether I had not, perhaps, been the victim of my
imprudence, whether I had not meant merely to lay a bait ... and
had then found myself caught fatally in the trap. I replied that I
had never had relations with any agent or attaché, ... that I had
undertaken no such process as baiting, and that I was innocent. He
then said to me on his own responsibility that he was himself
convinced of my guilt, first from an examination of the handwriting
of the document brought up against me, and from the nature of the
documents enumerated therein; secondly, from information according
to which the disappearance of documents corresponded with my
presence on the General Staff; that, finally, a secret agent had
declared that a Dreyfus was a spy, ... without, however, affirming
that that Dreyfus was an officer. I asked Commandant du Paty to be
confronted with this agent. He replied that it was impossible.
Commandant du Paty acknowledged that I had never been suspected
before the reception of the incriminating document.
“I then asked him why there had been no surveillance exercised over
the officers from the month of February, since Commandant Henry
had affirmed at the court-martial that he had been warned at that
date that there was a traitor among the officers. Commandant du
Paty replied that he knew nothing about that business, that it was
not his affair, but Commandant Henry’s; that it was difficult to
watch all the officers of the General Staff.... Then, perceiving
that he had said too much, he added: ‘We are talking between four
walls. If I am questioned on all that I shall deny everything.’ I
preserved entire calmness, for I wished to know his whole idea. To
sum up, he said that I had been condemned because there was a clue
indicating that the culprit was an officer and the seized letter
came to give precision to that clue. He added, also, that since my
arrest the leakage at the Ministry had ceased; that, perhaps, ...
had left the letter about expressly to sacrifice me, in order not
to satisfy my demands.
“He then spoke to me of the remarkable expert testimony of M.
Bertillon, according to which I had traced my own handwriting and
that of my brother in order to be able in case I should be arrested
with the letter on me to protest that it was a conspiracy against
me. He further intimated that my wife and family were my
accomplices--in short, the whole theory of M. Bertillon. At this
point, knowing what I wanted to discover, and not wishing to allow
him to insult my family as well, I stopped him, saying, ‘Enough; I
have only one word to say, namely, that I am innocent, and that
your duty is to continue your inquiries.’ ‘If you are really
innocent,’ he exclaimed, ‘you are undergoing the most monstrous
martyrdom of all time.’ ‘I am that martyr,’ I replied, ‘and I hope
the future will prove it to you.’
“To sum up, it results from this conversation: 1. That there have
been leakages at the Ministry. 2. That ... must have heard, and
must have repeated to Commandant Henry, that there was an officer
who was a traitor. I do not think he would have invented it of his
own accord. 3. That the incriminating letter was taken at.... From
all this I draw the following conclusions, the first certain, the
two others possible: First, a spy really exists ... at the French
Ministry, for documents have disappeared. Secondly, perhaps that
spy slipped in in an officer’s uniform, imitating his handwriting
in order to divert suspicion. Thirdly (here four lines and a half
are blank). This hypothesis does not exclude the fact No. 1, which
seems certain. But the tenor of the letter does not render this
third hypothesis very probable. It would be connected rather with
the first fact and the second hypothesis--that is to say, the
presence of a spy at the Ministry and imitation of my handwriting
by that spy, or simply resemblance of handwriting.
“However this may be, it seems to me that if your agent is clever
he should be able to unravel this web by laying his nets as well on
the ... side as on the ... side. This will not prevent the
employment of all the other methods I have indicated, for the truth
must be discovered. After the departure of Commandant du Paty I
wrote the following letter to the Minister: ‘I received, by order,
the visit of Commandant du Paty, to whom I once more declared that
I was innocent, and that I had never even committed an imprudence.
I am condemned. I have no favor to ask. But in the name of my
honor, which I hope will one day be restored to me, it is my duty
to beg you to continue your investigations. When I am gone let the
search be kept up; it is the only favor that I solicit.’”