The second day’s hearing began at half past twelve with the
announcement of the court that, before proceeding to the hearing of the
witnesses, there were new excuses to be read. The first was from Major
Esterhazy, who wrote as follows:
I have been accused by M. Mathieu Dreyfus of the crime of high
treason, and my judges have acquitted me by a unanimous decree of
the council of war. Today I receive, at the instance of a simple
individual, M. Emile Zola, a summons to appear as a witness in his
trial in the assize court. It is plain, on the other hand, that in
this trial the object of M. Zola is at the same time to revise by a
revolutionary method the decree of acquittal rendered in my favor,
and to sully, by representing them as criminals, the judges whom
I respect. Such is the work in which M. Emile Zola invites me to
participate. Under such circumstances I consider that I am not obliged
to respond to M. Zola’s summons.
M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy was present yesterday. It does not become
me to inquire what suggestions he obeys today. I have not consulted
M. Emile Zola, but I can say this for myself: it was a feeling of
high discretion that led us to summon Major Esterhazy. He will not
be here as an accused person, since he has been acquitted, and we
consider his case a thing judged. But we have a right to the testimony
of Major Esterhazy for the purpose of proving M. Zola’s good faith.
Major Esterhazy refuses. So be it. I do not insist. We will discuss his
_rôle_ without him.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Pardon me. For my part, I do not give up his
testimony. I have some questions to put to Major Esterhazy in the name
of the _gérant_ of ‘L’Aurore.’ I demand that he be summoned again, and,
if need be, forced to come.”
The next letter was from a widow Chapelon, who declared herself
afflicted with influenza.
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Mme. Chapelon appeared at the office of
‘L’Aurore’ a week ago; it was after she had been notified. She asked
that her name be struck from the list of witnesses. She was asked
why. She replied that she was soliciting for her son a scholarship at
Chaptal, and that, if she were to testify, they would not give it to
her. M. Perrenx informed her that this was not a good reason, and that
she was required to come to the assize court and tell the truth. She
went away, slamming the doors, and saying: ‘If you force me to come, I
will tell the opposite of the truth.’ I insist that this witness shall
come, and I demand that, as in the case of Major Esterhazy, she be
brought to court after a second summons.”
The Judge.--“There is a doctor’s certificate.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I ask that an expert physician be sent to her. The one
who is to see Mme. de Boulancy can see her too.”
The court then rendered its decision on the motions of the day before,
ordering that Dr. Socquet be sent to examine Mme. de Boulancy,
Mlle. Blanche de Comminges, M. Autant, and the widow Chapelon,
and that a second summons be served upon Captain Lebrun-Renault,
Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, Major d’Ormescheville, Major
Ravary, General Mercier, MM. Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Eichmann,
General de Boisdeffre, and Major Esterhazy, directing them to appear on
February 9.
_Testimony of Mme. Dreyfus._
The calling of the witnesses was then begun, the first to take the
stand being Mme. Lucie Dreyfus, wife of ex-Captain Dreyfus.
M. Labori.--“I would like Mme. Dreyfus to have the goodness to tell
us what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith, and in this connection to
make known to us under what circumstances in 1894 she learned of her
husband’s arrest, and what was the attitude at that time of Colonel du
Paty de Clam, who was then only a major.”
The Judge.--“What has that to do with the case?”