Thiers, Gambetta, and the Rise of the French
Republic.
[=A Provisional Government=]
It has been already told how the capitulation of the French army at
Sedan and the captivity of Louis Napoleon were followed in Paris by
the overthrow of the empire and the formation of a republic, the third
in the history of French political changes. A provisional government
was formed, the legislative assembly was dissolved, and all the court
paraphernalia of the imperial establishment disappeared. The new
government was called in Paris the "Government of Lawyers," most of
its members and officials belonging to that profession. At its head
was General Trochu, in command of the army in Paris; among its chief
members were Jules Favre and Gambetta. While upright in its membership
and honorable in its purposes, it was an arbitrary body, formed by
a _coup d'etat_ like that by which Napoleon had seized the reins of
power, and not destined for a long existence.
[=Excitement in Paris=]
The news of the fall of Metz and the surrender of Bazaine and his army
served as a fresh spark to the inflammable public feeling of France. In
Paris the Red Republic raised the banner of insurrection against the
government of the national defence and endeavored to revive the spirit
of the Commune of 1793. The insurgents marched to the senate-house,
demanded the election of a municipal council which should share power
with the government, and proceeded to imprison Trochu, Jules Favre, and
their associates. This, however, was but a temporary success of the
Commune, and the provisional government continued in existence until
the end of the war, when a national assembly was elected by the people
and the temporary government was set, aside. Gambetta, the dictator,
"the organizer of defeats," as he was sarcastically entitled, lost his
power, and the aged statesman and historian, Louis Thiers, was chosen
as chief of the executive department of the new government.
The treaty of peace with France, including, as it did, the loss of
Alsace and Lorraine and the payment of an indemnity of $1,000,000,000,
roused once more the fierce passions of the radicals and the masses
of the great cities, who passionately denounced the treaty as due to
cowardice and treason. The dethroned emperor added to the excitement
by a manifesto, in which he protested against his deposition by the
assembly and called for a fresh election. The final incitement to
insurrection came when the assembly decided to hold its sessions at
Versailles instead of in Paris, whose unruly populace it feared.
[=Outbreak of the Commune=]
In a moment all the revolutionary elements of the great city were in
a blaze. The social democratic "Commune," elected from the central
committee of the National Guard, renounced obedience to the government
and the National Assembly, and broke into open revolt. An attempt to
repress the movement only added to its violence, and all the riotous
populace of Paris sprang to arms. A new war was about to be inaugurated
in that city which had just suffered so severely from the guns of the
Germans, and around which German troops were still encamped.
The government had neglected to take possession of the cannon on
Montmartre; and now, when the troops of the line, instead of firing
on the insurrectionists, went over in crowds to their side, the
supremacy over Paris fell into the hands of the wildest demagogues.
A fearful civil war commenced, and in the same forts which the
Germans had shortly before evacuated firing once more resounded; the
houses, gardens, and villages around Paris were again surrendered to
destruction, and the creations of art, industry, and civilization,
and the abodes of wealth and pleasure were once more transformed into
dreary wildernesses.
[=Outrages of the Insurgents=]
The wild outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the Commune recalled
the scenes of the revolution of 1789, and in these spring days of 1871
Paris added another leaf to its long history of crime and violence.
The insurgents, roused to fury by the efforts of the government to
suppress them, murdered two generals, Lecomte and Thomas, and fired
on the unarmed citizens who, as the "friends of order," desired
a reconciliation with the authorities at Versailles. They formed
a government of their own, extorted loans from wealthy citizens,
confiscated the property of religious societies, and seized and held as
hostages Archbishop Darboy and many other distinguished clergymen and
citizens.
[=Punishment of the Commune=]
Meanwhile the investing troops, led by Marshal MacMahon, gradually
fought their way through the defences and into the suburbs of the city,
and the surrender of the anarchists in the capital became inevitable.
This necessity excited their passions to the most violent extent,
and, with the wild fury of savages, they set themselves to do all the
damage to the historical monuments of Paris they could. The noble
Vendôme column, the symbol of the warlike renown of France, was torn
down from its pedestal and hurled prostrate in the street. The most
historic buildings in the city were set on fire, and either partially
or entirely destroyed. Among these were the Tuileries, a portion
of the Louvre, the Luxembourg, the Palais Royal, the Elysée, etc.;
while several of the imprisoned hostages, foremost among them Darboy,
Archbishop of Paris, and the universally respected minister Daguerry,
were shot by the infuriated mob. Such crimes excited the Versailles
troops to terrible vengeance, when they at last succeeded in repressing
the rebellion. They went their way along a bloody course; human life
was counted as nothing; the streets were stained with blood and strewn
with corpses, and the Seine once more ran red between its banks. When
at last the Commune surrendered, the judicial courts at Versailles
began their work of retribution. The leaders and participators in
the rebellion who could not save themselves by flight were shot by
hundreds, confined in fortresses, or transported to the colonies. For
more than a year the imprisonments, trials, and executions continued,
military courts being established which excited the world for months by
their wholesale condemnations to exile and to death. The carnival of
anarchy was followed by one of pitiless revenge.
The Republican government of France, which had been accepted in an
emergency, was far from carrying with it the support of the whole of
the assembly or of the people, and the aged, but active and keen-witted
Thiers had to steer through a medley of opposing interests and
sentiments. His government was considered, alike by the Monarchists and
the Jacobins, as only provisional, and the Bourbons and Napoleonists on
the one hand and the advocates of "liberty, equality and fraternity"
on the other, intrigued for its overthrow. But the German armies still
remained on French soil, pending the payment of the costs of the war;
and the astute chief of the executive power possessed moderation enough
to pacify the passions of the people, to restrain their hatred of the
Germans, which was so boldly exhibited in the streets and in the courts
of justice, and to quiet the clamor for a war of revenge.
[=President Thiers and the Assembly=]
The position of parties at home was confused and distracted, and a
disturbance of the existing order could only lead to anarchy and civil
war. Thiers was thus the indispensable man of the moment, and so much
was he himself impressed by consciousness of this fact, that he many
times, by the threat of resignation, brought the opposing elements in
the assembly to harmony and compliance. This occurred even during the
siege of Paris, when the forces of the government were in conflict
with the Commune. In the assembly there was shown an inclination to
moderate or break through the sharp centralization of the government,
and to procure some autonomy for the provinces and towns. When,
therefore, a new scheme was discussed, a large part of the assembly
demanded that the mayors should not, as formerly, be appointed by the
government, but be elected by the town councils. Only with difficulty
was Thiers able to effect a compromise, on the strength of which
the government was permitted the right of appointment for all towns
numbering over twenty thousand. In the elections for the councils
the Moderate Republicans proved triumphant. With a supple dexterity,
Thiers knew how to steer between the Democratic-Republican party and
the Monarchists. When Gambetta endeavored to establish a "league of
Republican towns," the attempt was forbidden as illegal; and when the
decree of banishment against the Bourbon and Orlean princes was set
aside, and the latter returned to France, Thiers knew how to postpone
the entrance of the Duc d'Aumale and Prince de Joinville, who had been
elected deputies, into the assembly, at least until the end of the year.
[=The National Loan=]
The brilliant success of the national loan went far to strengthen the
position of Thiers. The high offers for a share in this loan, which
indicated the inexhaustible wealth of the nation and the solid credit
of France abroad, promised a rapid payment of the war indemnity, the
consequent evacuation of the country by the German army of occupation,
and a restoration of the disturbed finances of the state. The foolish
manifesto of the Count de Chambord, who declared that he had only to
return with the white banner to be made sovereign of France, brought
all reasonable and practical men to the side of Thiers, and he had,
during the last days of August, 1871, the triumph of being proclaimed
"President of the French Republic."
The new president aimed, next to the liberation of the garrisoned
provinces from the German troops of occupation, at the reorganization
of the French army. Yet he could not bring himself to the decision of
enforcing in its entirety the principle of general armed service, such
as had raised Prussia from a state of depression to one of military
regeneration. Universal military service in France was, it is true,
adopted in name, and the army was increased to an immense extent, but
under such conditions and limitations that the richer and more educated
classes could exempt themselves from service in the army; and thus the
active forces, as before, consisted of professional soldiers. And when
the minister for education, Jules Simon, introduced an educational law
based on liberal principles, he experienced on the part of the clergy
and their champion, Bishop Dupanloup, such violent opposition, that the
government dropped the measure.
[Illustration: DREYFUS, HIS ACCUSERS AND DEFENDERS
Lawyer Labori; Henry, the suicide; Dreyfus, the
prisoner; Esterhazy, the confessed criminal; General
Mercier, chief accuser.]
[Illustration: THE DREYFUS TRIAL
Dreyfus in the act of declaring "_I am Innocent_."]
[=Reorganization of the Army=]
In order to place the army in the condition which Thiers desired, an
increase in the military budget was necessary, and consequently an
enhancement of the general revenues of the state. For this purpose a
return to the tariff system, which had been abolished under the empire,
was proposed, but excited so great an opposition in the assembly that
six months passed before it could be carried. The new organization
of the army, undertaken with a view of placing France on a level in
military strength with her late conqueror, was now eagerly undertaken
by the president. An active army, with five years' service, was to be
added to a "territorial army," a kind of militia. And so great was the
demand on the portion of the nation capable of bearing arms that the
new French army exceeded in numbers that of any other nation.
[=Gambetta as an Agitator=]
But all the statesmanship of Thiers could not overcome the anarchy in
the assembly, where the forces for monarchy and republicanism were
bitterly opposed to each other. Gambetta, in order to rouse public
opinion in favor of democracy, made several tours through the country,
his extravagance of language giving deep offence to the monarchists,
while the opposed sections of the assembly grew wider and more violent
in their breach.
[=Trial and Condemnation of the Generals=]
Indisputably as were the valuable services which Thiers had rendered
to France, by the foundation of public order and authority, the
creation of a regular army, and the restoration of a solid financial
system, yet all these services met with no recognition in the face
of the party jealousy and political passions prevailing among the
people's representatives at Versailles. More and more did the Royalist
reaction gain ground, and, aided by the priests and by national
hatred and prejudice, endeavor to bring about the destruction of its
opponents. Against the Radicals and Liberals, among whom even the
Voltairean Thiers was included, superstition and fanaticism were
let loose, and against the Bonapartists was directed the terrorism
of court martial. The French could not rest with the thought that
their military supremacy had been broken by the superiority of the
Prusso-German arms; their defeats could have proceeded only from the
treachery or incapacity of their leaders. To this national prejudice
the Government decided to bow, and to offer a sacrifice to the popular
passion. And thus the world beheld the lamentable spectacle of the
commanders who had surrendered the French fortresses to the enemy being
subjected to a trial by court-martial under the presidency of Marshal
Baraguay d'Hilliers, and the majority of them, on account of their
proved incapacity or weakness, deprived of their military honors, at
a moment when all had cause to reproach themselves and endeavor to
raise up a new structure on the ruins of the past. Even Ulrich, the
once celebrated commander of Strasburg, whose name had been given to a
street in Paris, was brought under the censure of the court-martial.
But the chief blow fell upon the commander-in-chief of Metz, Marshal
Bazaine, to whose "treachery" the whole misfortune of France was
attributed. For months he was retained a prisoner at Versailles, while
preparations were made for the great court-martial spectacle, which, in
the following year, took place under the presidency of the Duc d'Aumale.
[=MacMahon Elected President=]
The result of the party division in the assembly was, in May, 1873, a
vote of censure on the ministry which induced them to resign. Their
resignation was followed by an offer of resignation on the part of
Thiers, who experienced the unexpected slight of having it accepted
by the majority of the assembly, the monarchist MacMahon, Marshal of
France and Duke of Magenta, being elected President in his place.
Thiers had just performed one of his greatest services to France, by
paying off the last installment of the war indemnity and relieving the
soil of his country of the hated German troops.
[=The Count de Chambord and His Demand=]
The party now in power at once began to lay plans to carry out their
cherished purpose of placing a Legitimist king upon the throne, this
honor being offered to the Count de Chambord, grandson of Charles X.
He, an old man, unfitted for the thorny seat offered him, and out of
all accord with the spirit of the times, put a sudden end to the hopes
of his partisans by his mediæval conservatism. Their purpose was to
establish a constitutional government, under the tri-colored flag of
revolutionary France; but the old Bourbon gave them to understand that
he would not consent to reign under the Tricolor, but must remain
steadfast to the white banner of his ancestors; he had no desire to be
"the legitimate king of revolution."
This letter shattered the plans of his supporters. No man with ideas
like these would be tolerated on the French throne. There was never to
be in France a King Henry V. The Monarchists, in disgust at the failure
of their schemes, elected MacMahon president of the republic for a term
of seven years, and for the time being the reign of republicanism in
France was made secure.
[=Trial and Sentence of Bazaine=]
While MacMahon was thus being raised to the pinnacle of honor, his
former comrade Bazaine was imprisoned in another part of the palace at
Versailles, awaiting trial on the charge of treason for the surrender
of Metz. In the trial, in which the whole world took a deep interest,
the efforts of the prosecution were directed to prove that the conquest
of France was solely due to the treachery of the Bonapartist marshal.
Despite all that could be said in his defence, he was found guilty by
the court-martial, sentenced to degradation from his rank in the army,
and to be put to death.
A letter which Prince Frederick Charles wrote in his favor only added
to the wrath of the people, who cried aloud for his execution. But,
as though the judges themselves felt a twinge of conscience at the
sentence, they at the same time signed a petition for pardon to the
president of the republic. MacMahon thereupon commuted the punishment
of death into a twenty years' imprisonment, remitted the disgrace of
the formalities of a military degradation, without cancelling its
operation, and appointed as the prisoner's place of confinement the
fortress on the island of St. Marguerite, opposite Cannes, known
in connection with the "iron mask." Bazaine's wealthy Mexican wife
obtained permission to reside near him, with her family and servants,
in a pavilion of the sea-fortress. This afforded her an opportunity of
bringing about the freedom of her husband in the following year with
the aid of her brother. After an adventurous escape, by letting himself
down with a rope to a Genoese vessel, Bazaine fled to Holland, and then
offered his services to the Republican government of Spain.
[=The New Constitution of France=]
In 1875 the constitution under which France is now governed was adopted
by the republicans. It provides for a legislature of two chambers;
one a chamber of deputies elected by the people, the other a senate
of 300 members, 75 of whom are elected by the National Assembly and
the others by electoral colleges in the departments of France. The two
chambers unite to elect a president, who has a term of seven years.
He is commander-in-chief of the army, appoints all officers, receives
all ambassadors, executes the laws, and appoints the cabinet, which is
responsible to the Senate and House of Deputies,--thus resembling the
cabinet of Great Britain instead of that of the United States.
[=MacMahon Resigns and Grevy Elected=]
This constitution was soon ignored by the arbitrary president, who
forced the resignation of a cabinet which he could not control, and
replaced it by another responsible to himself instead of to the
assembly. His act of autocracy roused a violent opposition. Gambetta
moved that the representatives of the people had no confidence in a
cabinet which was not free in its actions and not Republican in its
principles. The sudden death of Thiers, whose last writing was a
defence of the republic, stirred the heart of the nation and added
to the excitement, which soon reached fever heat. In the election
that followed the Republicans were in so great a majority over the
Conservatives that the president was compelled either to resign or
to govern according to the constitution. He accepted the latter and
appointed a cabinet composed of Republicans. But the acts of the
legislature, which passed laws to prevent arbitrary action by the
executive and to secularize education, so exasperated the old soldier
that he finally resigned from his high office.
[=Gambetta as Prime Minister=]
Jules Grévy was elected president in his place, and Gambetta was
made president of the House of Deputies. Subsequently he was chosen
presiding minister in a cabinet composed wholly of his own creatures.
His career in this high office was a brief one. The Chambers refused
to support him in his arbitrary measures and he resigned in disgust.
Soon after the self-appointed dictator, who had played so prominent a
part in the war with Germany, died from a wound whose origin remained a
mystery.
The constitution was revised in 1884, the republic now declared
permanent and final, and Grévy again elected president. General
Boulanger, the minister of war in the new government, succeeded in
making himself highly popular, many looking upon him as a coming
Napoleon, by whose genius the republic would be overthrown.
[=The Career of Boulanger=]
In 1887 Grévy resigned, in consequence of a scandal in high circles,
and was succeeded by Sadi Carnot, grandson of a famous general of the
first republic. Under the new president two striking events took place.
General Boulanger managed to lift himself into great prominence, and
gain a powerful following in France. Carried away by self-esteem, he
defied his superiors, and when tried and found guilty of the offence,
was strong enough in France to overthrow the ministry, to gain
re-election to the Chamber of Deputies, and to defeat a second ministry.
But his reputation was declining. It received a serious blow by a duel
he fought with a lawyer, in which the soldier was wounded and the
lawyer escaped unhurt. The next cabinet was hostile to his intrigues,
and he fled to Brussels to escape arrest. Tried by the Senate, sitting
as a High Court of Justice, he was found guilty of plotting against the
state and sentenced to imprisonment for life. His career soon after
ended in suicide and his party disappeared.
[=The Panama Canal Scandal=]
The second event spoken of was the Panama Canal affair. De Lesseps,
the maker of the Suez Canal, had undertaken to excavate a similar one
across the Isthmus of Panama, but the work was managed with such wild
extravagance that vast sums were spent and the poor investors widely
ruined, while the canal remained a half-dug ditch. At a later date this
affair became a great scandal, dishonest bargains in connection with
it were abundantly unearthed, bribery was shown to have been common
in high places, and France was shaken to its centre by the startling
exposure. De Lesseps, fortunately for him, escaped by death, but others
of the leaders in the enterprise were condemned and punished.
[=Anarchy in France and Murder of the President=]
In the succeeding years perils manifold threatened the existence of the
French republic. A moral decline seemed to have sapped the foundations
of public virtue, and the new military organization rose to a dangerous
height of power, becoming a monster of ambition and iniquity which
overshadowed and portended evil to the state. The spirit of anarchy,
which had been so strikingly displayed in the excesses of the Parisian
Commune, was shown later in various instances of death and destruction
by the use of dynamite bombs, exploded in Paris and elsewhere. But its
most striking example was in the murder of President Carnot, who was
stabbed by an anarchist in the streets of Lyons. This assassination,
and the disheartening exposures of dishonesty in the Panama Canal Case
trials, stirred the moral sentiment of France to its depths, and made
many of the best citizens despair of the permanency of the republic.
[=The Reorganization of the Army=]
But the most alarming threat came from the army, which had grown in
power and prominence until it fairly overtopped the state, while its
leaders felt competent to set at defiance the civil authorities. This
despotic army was an outgrowth of the Franco-Prussian war. The terrible
punishment which the French had received in that war, and in particular
the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, filled them with bitter hatred of
Germany and a burning desire for revenge. Yet it was evident that
their military organization was so imperfect as to leave them helpless
before the army of Germany, and the first thing to be done was to place
themselves on a level in military strength with their foe. To this
President Thiers had earnestly devoted himself, and the work of army
organization went on until all France was virtually converted into a
great camp, defended by powerful fortresses, and the whole people of
the country were practically made part and portion of the army.
The final result of this was the development of one of the most
complete and well-appointed military establishments in Europe. The
immediate cause of the reorganization of the army gradually passed
away. As time went on the intense feeling against Germany softened
and the danger of war decreased. But the army became more and more
dominant in France, and, as the century neared its end, the autocratic
position of its leaders was revealed by a startling event, which showed
vividly to the world the moral decadence of France and the controlling
influence and dominating power of the members of the General Staff.
This was the celebrated Dreyfus Case, the _cause celèbre_ of the end
of the century. This case is of such importance that a description of
its salient points becomes here necessary.
[=The Opening of the Dreyfus Case=]
Albert Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew and a captain in the Fourteenth
Regiment of Artillery of the French army, detailed for service at the
Information Bureau of the Minister of War, was arrested October 15,
1894, on the charge of having sold military secrets to a foreign power.
The following letter was said to have been found at the German embassy
by a French detective, in what was declared to be the handwriting of
Dreyfus:
"Having no news from you I do not know what to do. I send you in the
meantime the condition of the forts. I also hand you the principal
instructions as to firing. If you desire the rest I shall have them
copied. The document is precious. The instructions have been given only
to the officers of the General Staff. I leave for the manoeuvres."
For some time prior to the arrest of Dreyfus on the charge of being the
author of this letter, M. Drumont, editor of the _Libre Parole_, had
been carrying on a violent anti-Semitic agitation through his journal.
He raved about the Jews in general, declared Dreyfus guilty, and
asserted that there was danger that he would be acquitted through the
potent Juiverie, "the cosmopolite syndicate which exploits France."
Public opinion in Paris became much influenced by this journalistic
assault, and under these circumstances Dreyfus was brought to trial
before a military court, found guilty and condemned to be degraded from
his military rank, and by a special act of the Chamber of Deputies was
ordered to be imprisoned for life in a penal settlement on Devil's
Island, off the coast of French Guiana, a tropical region, desolate and
malarious in character. The sentence was executed with the most cruel
harshness. During part of his detention Dreyfus was locked in a hut,
surrounded by an iron cage, on the island. This was done on the plea of
possible attempts at rescue. He was allowed to send and receive only
such letters as had been transcribed by one of his guardians.
He denied, and never ceased to deny, his guilt. The letters he wrote to
his counsel after the trial and after his disgrace are most pathetic
assertions of his innocence, and of the hope that ultimately justice
would be done him. His wife and family continued to deny his guilt, and
used every influence to get his case reopened.
[=Belief in the Innocence of Dreyfus=]
The first trial of Dreyfus was conducted by court-martial and behind
closed doors. Some parts of the indictment were not communicated to
the accused and his lawyer. The secrecy of the trial, the lack of
fairness in its management, his own protestations of innocence, the
anti-Jewish feeling, and the course of the government in the affair
aroused a strong suspicion that Dreyfus, being a Jew, had been used as
a scapegoat for some one else and had been unjustly convicted. Many
eminent literary men of France, and even M. Scheurer-Kestner, a vice
president of the Senate--none of them Jews--eventually advocated the
revision of a sentence which failed to appeal to the sense of justice
of the best element of France.
It was asserted by some that Dreyfus had sold the plans of various
strongly fortified places to the German government, and by others that
the sale had been to the Italian government. It was also said that he
had disclosed the plans for the mobilization of the French army in case
of war, covering several departments, and especially the important
fortress of Briançon, the Alpine Gibraltar near the Italian frontier.
[=The Bordereau and the Dossier=]
The _bordereau_, the paper on which the charges against Dreyfus were
based, was a memorandum of treasonable revelations concerning French
military affairs. The _dossier_ was the official envelope containing
the papers relative to the case, which embraced facts alleged to be
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused officer. The bordereau was
examined by five experts in handwriting, only three of whom testified
that it could have been written by Dreyfus. The papers in the dossier
were not shown to Dreyfus or his counsel, so that it was impossible
to refute them. In fact, the court-martial was conducted in the most
unfair manner, and many became convinced that some disgraceful mystery
lay behind it, and that Dreyfus had been made a scapegoat to shield
some one higher in office.
[=The Accusation of Esterhazy=]
It was in the early part of 1898 that the case was again brought
prominently to public notice, after the wife of the unfortunate
prisoner had, with the most earnest devotion for three years, used
every effort to obtain for him a new trial. Lieutenant-Colonel
Picquart, in charge of the secret service bureau at Paris, became
familiar through his official duties with the famous case, and was
struck with the similarity between the handwriting of the bordereau and
that of Count Ferdinand Esterhazy, an officer of the French army and
a descendant of the well-known Esterhazy family of Hungary. Shortly
afterwards M. Scheurer-Kestner declared that military secrets had
continued to leak out after the arrest of Dreyfus, that in consequence
a rich and titled officer had been requested to resign, and that this
officer was the real author of the bordereau. This man was Count
Esterhazy, whose exposure was due to Picquart's fortunate discovery.
Others took up this accusation, and the affair was so ventilated that
Esterhazy was subjected to a secret trial by court-martial, which ended
in an acquittal.
[=Zola's Letter and Accusation=]
At the close of the Esterhazy trial a new defender of Dreyfus stepped
into the fray, Emile Zola, the celebrated novelist. He wrote an open
letter to M. Faure, then President of France, entitled "_J'accuse_"
("I accuse"), which was published in the _Aurore_ newspaper. In it he
boldly charged that Esterhazy had been acquitted by the members of the
court-martial on the order of their chiefs in the ministry of war, who
were anxious to show that French military justice could not possibly
make an error.
This letter led to the arrest and trial of Zola and the manager of
the paper, their trial being conducted in a manner specially designed
to prevent the facts from becoming known. They were found guilty of
libel against the officers of the court-martial and sentenced to heavy
fines and one year's imprisonment. On appeal, they were tried again
in the same unfair way, and received the same sentence. Zola took
care, by absenting himself from France, that the sentence of a year's
imprisonment should not be executed.
[=Henry's Forgery and Suicide=]
As time went on new evidence became revealed. Colonel Henry, who was
one of the witnesses in the Zola trial, was confronted with a damaging
fact, one of the most important papers in the secret dossier being
traced to him. He confessed that he had forged it to strengthen the
case against Dreyfus, was imprisoned for the offence, and committed
suicide _in his cell_--or was murdered, as some thought. Picquart was
punished by being sent to Africa, and afterwards imprisoned. He made
the significant remark that if he should be found dead in his cell it
would not be a case of suicide. Esterhazy was said to have acknowledged
to a London editor that he was the author of the bordereau, and it
was proved that the handwriting was identical with his and the paper
on which it was written a peculiar kind which he had used in 1894.
The papers in the secret dossier were also alleged to be a mass of
forgeries.
The great publicity of this case, in which the whole world had
taken interest,--the action of the French courts being universally
condemned,--and the development of the facts just mentioned, at length
goaded the officials of the French government to action. President
Faure had the case considered by the cabinet, and finally forced a
revision. In consequence the cabinet resigned and a new one was chosen.
As a result the case was brought before the Court of Cassation, the
final court of appeal, which, after full consideration, ordered a new
trial of the condemned officer.
[Illustration: THE BOMBARDMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
The Egyptian patriots of 1882, who rushed to arms at
the call of Arabi Pasha for the expulsion of the hated
British from their country, made their most vigorous
stand behind the strong fortifications of Alexandria,
where they fought with much resolution. But the cannon
of the British fleet proved too heavy for their powers
of defence, and the city fell into the hands of the
invaders. It was plundered and partly burned by the
Egyptians in their retreat.]
[Illustration: BATTLE BETWEEN THE ENGLISH AND THE ZULUS, SOUTH AFRICA
Of all the natives encountered by the British in
Africa, there were none more brave and daring than
the Zulus of the South, who did not hesitate with
spear and shield to charge against the death dealing
rifles of their foes. Cetewayo, the leader of these
valiant blacks, was a man who would have been a hero
in civilized warfare. As a captive savage in London
streets he compelled the respect of his enemies by the
majestic dignity of his bearing, and won the right to
return and die in his native land.]
[=A Second Condemnation=]
Captain Dreyfus was accordingly brought from Devil's Island, and on
July 1, 1899, reached the city of Rennes, where the new court-martial
was to be held. It is not necessary to repeat the evidence given in
this trial, which lasted from August 7th to September 7th, and with
which the world is sufficiently familiar. It will suffice to say that
the evidence against Dreyfus was of the most shadowy and uncertain
character, being largely conjectures and opinions of army officers,
and seemed insufficient to convict a criminal for the smallest offence
before an equitable court; that the evidence in his favor was of
the strongest character; that the proceedings were of the loosest
description; that much favorable evidence was ruled out by the judges,
the presiding judge throughout showing a bias against the accused; and
that the trial ended in a conviction of the prisoner, by a vote of five
judges to two, the verdict being the extraordinary one of "guilty of
treason, with extenuating circumstances"--as if any treason could be
extenuated.
[=The World's Opinion=]
This is but an outline sketch of this remarkable case, which embraced
many circumstances favorable to Dreyfus which we have not had space
to give. The verdict was received by the world outside of France with
universal astonishment and condemnation. The opinion was everywhere
expressed that not a particle of incriminating evidence had been
adduced, and that the members of the court-martial had acted virtually
under the commands of their superior officers, who held that the "honor
of the army" demanded a conviction. Dreyfus was thought by many to have
been made a victim to shield certain criminals of high importance in
the army, which so dominated French opinion that the great bulk of the
people pronounced in favor of the sacrifice of this innocent victim to
the Moloch of the French military system. It was widely felt in foreign
lands that the great development of militarism in France, and the
vast influence of the general staff of the army, formed a threatening
feature of the governmental system, which might at any time overthrow
the republic and form a military empire upon its ruins. Two republics
have already been brought to an end in France through the supremacy of
the army, and the safety of the third is far from assured. The Dreyfus
case has thrown a flood of light upon the volcanic condition of affairs
in France.
The general condemnation of this example of French "justice" by the
press of other nations, and very probably the recognition by the
governing powers of France of the inadequacy of the evidence led,
shortly after the conclusion of the court-martial, to the pardon of
the condemned. The sentence of the court in no sense affected his
position before the world, he being looked upon everywhere outside of
France as a victim of injustice instead of a criminal. The severity
of his imprisonment however, had seriously affected his health, and
threatened to bring his life to an end before he could obtain the
justice which he proposed to seek in the courts of France.
This remarkable case, which made an obscure officer of the French army
the most talked-of and commiserated man among all the peoples of the
earth, at the end of the nineteenth century, is of further interest
from the light it throws upon the legal system of France as compared
with that of Anglo-Saxon nations. Dreyfus, it is true, was tried by
court-martial, but the procedure was similar to that of the ordinary
French courts, in which trial by jury does not exist, the judge having
the double function of deciding upon the guilt or innocence of the
accused and passing sentence; while efforts are made to induce the
prisoner to incriminate himself which would be considered utterly
unjust in British and American legal practice. The French legal system
is a direct descendant of that of ancient Rome. The British one
represents a new development in legal methods. Doubtless both have
their advantages, but the Dreyfus trial seems to indicate that the
system of France opens the way to acts of barbarous injustice.