A CHAPTER OF FRENCH JUSTICE AS DEALT
OUT IN THE DREYFUS CASE
A good many people do not understand the method of French courts of
law. Take the Dreyfus case, for instance. It has been dragging along
for years, and the more evidence accumulated by Captain Dreyfus to
prove his innocence, the greater seems to be his portion of woe. He
has been vindicated over and over again and the vindications simply
make him more unpopular with those who prefer to regard him as a
mysterious and melodramatic villain.
People living at home have never understood why Captain Dreyfus was
convicted in the first place. That is because they are not familiar
with the workings of a French court and cling to the Anglo-Saxon rule,
that every man must be regarded as innocent until he is proven guilty.
The French say that trials may be greatly simplified if the presumption
of guilt is attached to every defendant in a criminal case. When the
presumption of guilt is combined with a personal unpopularity, the
prisoner usually finds it advisable to throw himself on the mercy of
the court and accept a life sentence.
In order to elucidate the rules of procedure in a French court and show
how and why Captain Dreyfus was convicted, let us suppose that French
methods could be transferred to the United States and applied to an
ordinary criminal case--say the theft of a dog. Here is what would
happen.
The Court--"Prisoner, you are accused of stealing a dog. Are you
guilty or not guilty?"
Prisoner--"Not guilty."
Court--"Well, someone stole a dog, and if you refuse to acknowledge
your guilt, we may be compelled to cast suspicion on gentlemen who
would be deeply pained to have themselves interrogated."
The Prisoner--"How can I acknowledge my guilt when I didn't steal the
dog?"
Court--"That isn't the point. The point is that a great many prominent
and influential people have said at different times that you stole the
dog. Now, if you come before the tribunal and prove that you didn't
steal the dog you are going to humiliate a great many well known and
sensitive persons and make the whole situation very distressing to me.
It would simplify matters greatly if you would admit that you stole the
dog."
The Prisoner--"But how can I admit stealing the dog when I am entirely
innocent?"
The Court--"Did you ever see the dog said to have been stolen?"
Prisoner--"Yes, sir." (Profound sensation.)
Court--"And yet you have the audacity to stand there and say you didn't
steal it?"
Prisoner--"A great many other people saw the dog."
Court--"Perhaps so; but they would make trouble if you or anyone else
began insinuating against them, so I don't propose to have their names
hauled in here. Of all the men who saw the dog and had a chance to
steal it, you are the only one whose conviction would satisfy the
general public."
Prisoner--"I can bring witnesses who saw another man steal the dog. I
can prove that he confessed to stealing the dog and that he has fled to
escape punishment."
Court--"You ought not to bring any such testimony into this court, for
if you do so you are going to upset some theories held by very dear
friends of mine, and if I permit the introduction of such testimony,
there is no telling what they will say about me. If you didn't steal
the dog isn't there something else you have done that is punishable in
one way or another?"
Prisoner--"I can't think of anything just now."
Court--"Oh, pshaw! Aren't you guilty of something? Just think a
moment. Nearly every man is guilty of something. If we can find you
guilty of any old crime it will help some."
Prisoner--"I refuse to acknowledge any degree of guilt. I am innocent."
Court--"I don't see how you can be when so many estimable people think
otherwise, but I suppose we shall have to give you a trial. Call the
first witness."
First Witness--"Your Honor, I am a very high-minded and aristocratic
person, and I have always disliked this defendant. (Sensation.) As
soon as I had heard that someone had accused him of stealing a dog, I
knew he must be guilty. I still hold to the opinion that he is guilty.
I know that another man has confessed to stealing the dog, and has
skipped out in order to avoid arrest, but these details have no weight
with me. I am satisfied that if the defendant did not steal the dog
mentioned in this affidavit, he must have stolen some other dog that we
know nothing about. Ever since this wretched defendant was first
accused of this crime I have been going around saying that he was
guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Naturally I am not going to come
here now and acknowledge his innocence. If he is acquitted, I'll be
the subject of ridicule. That is why I urge the court to convict him.
No matter what the testimony may show, you take my personal assurance
that he is guilty. Remember one thing, that I have a large pull."
The Court--"Thank you very much for your testimony. Call the second
witness."
Second Witness--"Your Honor, one day last spring I met a man whose
friend told him that one day he saw the defendant pass the house from
which the dog was stolen. From that moment I became convinced of the
defendant's guilt. (Terrific sensation.) Another day a stranger
walked into my office and told me that 'D' was the first letter of the
name of the man who stole the dog. Although there are 100,000 persons
in town whose names begin with 'D,' I had no difficulty in coming to
the conclusion that the particular 'D' who stole the dog was the
scoundrel now on trial. The reason that I came to this conclusion was
that he used to wear a red necktie, and I dislike any man who wears a
red necktie. Also I attach great importance to the fact that the
letter 'D,' which is the first letter in his name, is also the first
letter in 'Dog,' thus proving that he stole the dog. (Profound
sensation.) In conclusion I would like to request the court to bring
in a verdict of guilty."
The Court--"We will now have some expert testimony."
First Expert--"Your Honor, I never saw the prisoner before, and I had
no personal acquaintance with the dog, but I am convinced that he stole
the dog, and I will tell you why. You know, of course, that another
man has confessed to stealing the dog. My theory, evolved after much
thought, is that the man who confessed did not steal the dog at all,
but that the dog was stolen by the defendant, who disguised himself so
as to resemble the man who has confessed. (Great sensation.) There
seems to be a universal admission that the man who stole the dog was a
brunette. Some people claim that this fact points to the innocence of
the defendant, who is a blonde; but my theory is that the defendant
dyed his hair and whiskers so as to cause them to resemble the hair and
whiskers of a certain innocent man, then he borrowed a suit of the
innocent man's clothes and went and stole the dog, and the resemblance
was so perfect that even the innocent man and the dog were both
deceived. The innocent man thought that he, and not the defendant, had
stolen the dog, so he confessed and then ran away. But I am here to
save him in spite of his confession. I maintain that if this defendant
were to dye his hair and whiskers and put on a suit of clothes
belonging to the man who has confessed to stealing the dog, then to
anyone a short distance away he would bear a striking resemblance to
the man who has confessed. Therefore the dog was not stolen by the man
who has confessed, but by this infamous defendant cleverly disguised to
resemble the man who has confessed."
The Court--"Then you think he is guilty?"
Expert Witness--"If there is anything in my theory, it is simply
impossible for him to be innocent."
The Court--"Much obliged. Call the next witness."
Next Witness--"I would like to state to the court that the defendant is
not very well liked down in our neighbourhood, where he formerly
resided, and if the court will only convict him it will be a distinct
personal favour to several of us."
The Court--"Do you think him guilty?"
Next Witness--"I haven't the slightest doubt of it. Neither has my
wife. I have been convinced of his guilt ever since I heard him say
one morning, 'I have something to do this afternoon.' It is evident to
my mind that when he said, 'I have something to do this afternoon,' he
meant, 'I am going to steal a dog this afternoon.'" (Sensation.)
The Court--"Then you are quite sure that he did steal the dog?"
Next Witness--"Of course."
The Court--"Are there any other witnesses?"
Prisoner--"I have several witnesses here who saw the other man steal
the dog. I can prove that at the time of the stealing I was ten miles
away, attending a picnic. I can prove, also, that I didn't need a dog;
that I never liked dogs; that I had no earthly motive for stealing a
dog; and that from the time of my first accusation I have consistently
and emphatically denied any knowledge of the crime."
The Court--"Well, I don't see that the dog has anything to do with the
case. I'll sentence you to six months in the bridewell for being so
blamed unpopular."