M. Labori.--“Major Ravary was the first to establish officially, in
a report that has been read publicly, the existence of what is known
as the secret documents in the Dreyfus case. This is a point wholly
pertinent to the discussion, since M. Zola and his fellow-defendant
are authorized to prove that an illegality was committed in 1894 and
covered in 1898. Therefore it is indispensable that M. Ravary be heard,
and I shall have the honor to make a motion to that effect.”
The Judge.--“I have received a letter from General Mercier, in which
he says that the prosecution of M. Zola deals only with the Esterhazy
verdict, with which he had nothing do. He says that he has received
from General Billot an authorization not to appear.”
M. Labori.--“I am greatly surprised that General Mercier, like so
many others, should constitute himself judge of the question whether
it is incumbent upon him to appear before the court. The minister of
war may confine his complaint within limits, but he has no right as
complainant to pursue the shocking and monstrous course of interposing
an obstacle, not juridical, but material to the facts that we wish
to establish. General Mercier is a witness of the first importance.
Perhaps he will read tomorrow in the newspapers what has occurred at
this first hearing, which is given in the presence, not of fifteen
hundred persons simply, but of all France. M. Zola declares that in
1894 General Mercier, then minister of war, constituting himself judge
in a council of war, did, after the hearing was over, outside of the
discussion, without the knowledge of the accused, without examination
of the accused upon the matter, and without even submitting it to his
counsel, communicate to the council of war a secret document, and a
document, for that matter, of no significance. If that is not true, let
General Mercier come here tomorrow and say so. If it is true, I have no
further use for him.”
The judge then announced that Major Rivals and the court clerk,
Vallecalle, had notified him that they would not appear.
M. Labori.--“The complainant is represented here by the
attorney-general. We should like him to inform us whether the
minister of war has given to all these witnesses, as to General
Mercier, an authorization which to them would have been more than an
authorization,--that is, an order. If the attorney-general does not
know, I would like him to put the question to the minister of war
between now and tomorrow, in order to give us an answer.”
M. Zola.--“In short, we should like to know whether these persons have
received orders from Billot, or are acting on their own initiative.”
M. Labori.--“Have they been ordered not to come? If so, let it be
stated frankly, and the court tomorrow will pass upon our motion, which
possibly will ask for a postponement of the case, in order that it may
be judged when we are in full possession of the facts.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The president of the republic refused to sign
the decree of the minister of justice summoning M. Billot; then M.
Billot authorized General Mercier not to appear in the assize court.
Knowing the beginning of the story, we are interested in knowing
the sequel, and I ask the attorney-general to inform us at the next
hearing if the other officers, of a lower grade than that of General
Mercier, have likewise been authorized by their superiors not to appear
in court. If so, I may be permitted to express my astonishment that
there has not been found a person in all this hierarchy to understand
that there is one thing which is above the minister of war,--namely,
justice. We thought so until today.”
The court then presented the refusals of Colonel Maurel, president of
the council of war of 1894, M. Autant, architect, and M. Eichmann, who
sat in the first council of war; and the defence, as in the previous
cases, insisted upon their appearance.
The Judge.--“A letter from General de Boisdeffre reads as follows: ‘I
do not need to tell you that, out of respect to the jury and deference
to the court, I would willingly appear, but I have been in no way
connected with the Esterhazy case, which was conducted entirely by
the military government of Paris. Outside of professional secrecy,
therefore, I could furnish no useful information.’”
M. Labori.--“All these witnesses seem to imagine that they constitute
a caste apart and independent, and that it is permissible to them to
rise above the law, above justice itself, and personally constitute
themselves judges of the question whether they are useful or not
as witnesses in a trial. Consequently in the case of General de
Boisdeffre, as in the other cases, we insist and we protest.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“We are a little at sea. In the letters read,
some witnesses declare that they will not come because they know
certain facts, while others, like M. de Boisdeffre, declare that they
will not come because they do not know any facts in this case. We do
not know which of these two observations is sound, but it is impossible
for both of them to be. It is interesting also to the jurors to know
that former cabinet ministers, who are by no means the first comers,
MM. Guérin and Trarieux, former keepers of the seals, and M. Raymond
Poincaré, former minister of finance, have responded to the summons.
It is certain that they would have had nothing to fear, if they had
written to the court that they could not come. These former cabinet
ministers come; yet among the military officers we cannot get a single
witness. I believe it is well for the jurors to remember that.”
The court announcing that ex-President Casimir-Perier would appear,
the defence withdrew its motion for his further summons. But M.
Labori then offered a formal motion that MM. d’Ormescheville, Ravary,
General Mercier, Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Autant, Eichmann, de
Boisdeffre, and Captain de Comminges be forcibly constrained to appear.
And he submitted a further motion that Mlle. Blanche de Comminges be
constrained to appear, unless it should be found that her illness was
genuine, and that, in the latter case, a commission should be appointed
to visit her and ask her the following questions:
(1) Is she aware that her name has been used in writing to Colonel
Picquart?
(2) How did she become aware of it?
(3) Did she not give the nickname “demigod” to Captain Lallement?
(4) Does she know whether this name was used in a telegram which is
said to have been a forgery?
(5) Had Colonel du Paty de Clam any reason for entertaining a
revengeful feeling toward her and her family?
(6) Is it not within her knowledge that he resorted in 1892 to very
serious manœuvres, notably the employment of anonymous letters?
(7) Was not this matter put in the hands of M. Lozé, prefect of
police, and did not General D---- have to intervene?
(8) Did not Colonel du Paty de Clam arrange, for the restitution of a
letter, a scene that took place at _cours la Reine_, in which a veiled
lady appeared?
After hearing these motions, the court adjourned for the day.