The Judge.--“Here is a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam.
He says: ‘In the Dreyfus case I performed the functions of an officer
of judicial police. My only part in the Esterhazy trial was to testify
behind closed doors, and in the matter of this testimony I am bound to
professional secrecy. Under these circumstances I have the honor to
pray you to excuse me from appearing in court, where I should be unable
to furnish any information concerning the matters mentioned in the
summons.’”
M. Labori.--“M. Zola and M. Perrenx deem Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty
de Clam a witness of the highest importance, not only in matters
relating to the Dreyfus trial, but in matters relating to the
Esterhazy trial. Furthermore, the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel du
Paty de Clam is necessary, because it bears upon the good faith of
the accused, for, if certain information that has come to M. Zola,
and the production of which he will call for before this court, is
to be believed, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam has been mixed
up in matters which concerned Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, certain
of which are very curious. Furthermore, a complaint has been lodged
against Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, the consideration of
which has been entrusted to Examining Magistrate Bertulus. For all
these reasons the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam is
indispensable. We cannot produce here certain evidence that concerns
him, unless he is called to explain himself in person. And under these
circumstances I believe it my duty to make formal motion that all
legal means be employed to make Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam
come here and testify concerning his relations with the de Comminges
family, concerning the scene with the mysterious lady in 1892, and
concerning the telegrams signed ‘Speranza’ and ‘Blanche,’ addressed to
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart at Tunis.”
The Attorney-General.--“M. du Paty de Clam declares in his letter, like
all the members of the council of war, the hearing of whom has been
abandoned because it was evident that it could not be exacted, that
professional secrecy prevents him from giving any information whatever.
Consequently there is no reason for rejecting his excuse. But M. Labori
points out that Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam was interested as a
witness in an examination not yet finished, but opened on the complaint
of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The reply to this is manifest and
direct. There can be no confusion here between M. Zola and the _gérant_
of ‘L’Aurore’ on the one hand, and Colonel Picquart on the other. The
latter has lodged a complaint which is being regularly examined, and it
is for him alone to intervene if he sees fit. But his proceeding is the
proceeding of a third party, so far as these defendants are concerned.
From no point of view, then, do the arguments that have just been
presented seem to me well founded.”
M. Labori.--“Will the court permit me to indicate the matters
concerning which M. Zola desires to hear Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de
Clam, and the connection between them and the verdict of January 11?
In 1892 Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, who had not then risen to
his present office, was in very close relations with the de Comminges
family, whose society Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart also frequented.
Mlle. Blanche de Comminges and her brother, Captain de Comminges, have
been summoned here as witnesses.”
The Judge.--“I regret to inform you that Mlle. de Comminges is sick,
and that she has sent a doctor’s certificate.”
M. Labori.--“We hope that she will be well again within forty-eight
hours. There are many sick people in this case. We shall have something
to say concerning the things that are happening in this matter to
prevent witnesses from coming, and we shall expose all intimidations
and threats. Mlle. de Comminges knew Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart and
Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam. At the beginning of the campaign in
relation to Major Esterhazy, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart received at
Tunis two singular dispatches. One of them read: ‘All is discovered.
Speranza.’ The court will remember that this is a signature which
has been met already in the Esterhazy trial. The other dispatch
said in substance: ‘It is known that Georges (that is the name of
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart) is the author of the telegram. All is
discovered. Blanche.’ By Blanche was meant Mlle. Blanche de Comminges,
and that this was understood by the military authorities is proved
by the fact that they demanded of Mlle. Blanche de Comminges certain
specimens of her handwriting. She protested, and lodged a complaint,
as did Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. These dispatches, then, were
forgeries. It would be interesting to find out who the forgers are.
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart attributes one of them to the police agent,
Souffrain, and we have summoned him. We hope that he will come, and
then we shall have an explanation. As for the other telegram, we are
curious to know how there could have started from certain circles
which must be in touch either with the minister of war or with Major
Esterhazy a dispatch signed Blanche which Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
was expected to consider as coming from Mlle. Blanche de Comminges. We
should like to hear Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam concerning these
matters, and others of an earlier date in which he has been mixed up,
and which relate exclusively and very closely to Major Esterhazy. They
happened in 1892, and we shall have need also of the testimony of Mlle.
de Comminges on the same subject.”
The Judge.--“There is no question here of Mlle. de Comminges. The
question is of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam.”
M. Labori.--“But it is Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam whom
these matters concern. He was induced at a certain moment, on the
intervention of one of his most eminent superiors, General Davout,
to restore to the de Comminges family certain correspondence. I
cannot be more precise on this point, and the court understands why;
but the matter is in the hands of the prefect of police. One day
Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam said that a certain letter belonging
to this correspondence was not in his hands, and that he could not
give it up directly, because it had fallen into the hands of a woman,
but that it was not very difficult to see her, and that the only thing
necessary was to hand her a 500-franc bill in exchange for the letter.
Then, it seems, on the demand of Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam,
a meeting was appointed at the _cours la Reine_, at the very spot to
which came the singular veiled lady of Major Esterhazy. There, in the
presence of witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam entered
into conversation with the veiled lady, with whom he remained a long
time, and to whom he pretended to have given a 500-franc bill, which,
however, no one had sent to him. Then he brought back the letter to
transmit it anew to the de Comminges family. These are facts concerning
which I can say nothing more, in presence of the interested parties. I
can furnish only indications.”
The Judge.--“But I do not see the relation between what you have just
said and the matter for which your client is prosecuted.”
M. Labori.--“You shall see. M. Zola does not hesitate to think that the
veiled lady, far from being in relations with Colonel Picquart, as they
have not feared to state in official reports, and as Major Esterhazy
loudly and audaciously charges, belongs to the circle of certain
members of the staff, or to the circle of Major Esterhazy himself. Now,
concerning this veiled lady we shall have to have explanations. For
how can you expect us to prove that a guilty man has been acquitted in
obedience to orders, if we do not begin by proving that he is guilty,
and by establishing consequently the various circumstances which could
culminate in his guilt? Under these circumstances it is for us to
examine in detail, in order to get complete light, points that in no
way concern the national defence, which has been abused. It is our
indisputable right to seek light on Major Esterhazy’s means of defence,
which have been welcomed in another place with a facility that they
will not meet at the hands of this jury.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“At the trial of Major Esterhazy, and in the
course of his examination, reference was made to the veiled lady,
and this mysterious person was taken so seriously that the president
of the council of war asked the accused if he could not give some
indications concerning this lady, who had given him the mysterious
rendezvous. I conclude therefrom that in the Esterhazy trial, with
which we are necessarily concerned, the veiled lady was in question,
and that therefore all that concerns her is well within our case.
Again, Major du Paty de Clam, in his letter, says that he cannot come
here to testify, because he was a judicial officer of police in the
first examination. The court perhaps remembers that in this very place,
in the case known as the Prado case, they heard Examining Magistrate
Guillot, who came to testify concerning facts that took place in his
private office. The presiding judge was a Paris magistrate. Now, what
was done in the Prado case can be done in this case, and I do not see
that the fact that Major du Paty de Clam played a part in another
inquiry is a reason why we should not hear him here.”
M. Labori.--“Another thing. This is the first time that I have known
witnesses to be judged according to the utility of their evidence. M.
du Paty de Clam is not sick, nor is he detained, so far as I know, by
the duties of his military office. He does not know upon what points he
is to be examined, or what we shall ask him. It is his duty to appear
in this case. We have to question him as well on matters of fact as
on matters of morals pertaining exclusively to the Esterhazy case,
and not at all to the Dreyfus case. Under these circumstances it is
indispensable that M. du Paty de Clam should appear at this bar. If we
question him upon points in regard to which he can take shelter behind
professional secrecy, he will take such shelter, and will not answer.
And even then it will be our right to make a motion before the court,
asking whether, as a matter of law, M. du Paty de Clam can cut himself
off behind professional secrecy. M. du Paty de Clam refers to closed
doors. Well, if closed doors are necessary in this assize court, we
will have them. With a jury, closed doors have no terrors for us. But
we shall ask no questions concerning the national defence. None are
involved in this affair.”