M. Leblois.--“Thereupon the comte de Comminges went to General Davout,
and asked him to insist that these conspiracies should cease. General
Davout sent for Major du Paty de Clam, and, as a result, the anonymous
letters stopped entirely. But there remained a letter in the hands of
Major du Paty de Clam, and the comte de Comminges insisted upon its
restitution. General Davout helped him to bring this about, if I am
correctly informed. But, however that may be, Major du Paty de Clam
restored the letter under the following circumstances. He said that
this letter had fallen into the hands of a woman, and that she would
not part with it unless the sum of 500 francs was paid to her. So he
convoked certain members of the family on the bank of the Seine, near
the Jardin de Paris, at ten o’clock in the evening. There came a woman,
carrying an umbrella, whom Major du Paty de Clam approached. After
conversing with her a few minutes, he came back, saying: ‘I have just
handed this woman an envelope containing a 500-franc bill. In exchange,
she has given me the letter that you desire, in another envelope.
Here it is.’ They opened the envelope, and, to be sure, found the
letter. It is evident that there was something very strange about all
this,--something useless, to say the least.”
The Judge.--“But what relation has all this to the charge against the
defendants?”
M. Labori.--“I am ready to explain at once. It is our contention that
the veiled lady, far from being in relations with, or in the circle of,
Colonel Picquart, as has been insinuated, was in relations with certain
members of the war department, and that those who have aided Major
Esterhazy in his campaign may well have been in relation with certain
members of the war department. That is the bearing of the question.”
The Judge.--“At what time did the events in connection with this
letter occur?”
M. Leblois.--“In the spring of 1892, and, if I am not mistaken, the
restitution took place on Good Friday of that year.”
_Testimony of M. Scheurer-Kestner._
The next witness was M. Scheurer-Kestner.
M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, will you ask M. Scheurer-Kestner
under what circumstances he was led to concern himself with the
facts which revealed to him that the authorship of the _bordereau_,
attributed in 1894 to Captain Dreyfus, was really to be attributed to
Major Esterhazy, and what steps he took in the matter afterwards?”
The Judge.--“Monsieur Attorney-General!”
The Attorney-General.--“It is always the same question.”
M. Labori.--“It _is_ always the same question, and I understand why you
are always ready to welcome it in the same manner.”
The Judge.--“M. Scheurer-Kestner, you are to tell us of Major
Esterhazy, but I beg you not to say anything of the Dreyfus case,
concerning which we will not hear a word. Tell us of the Esterhazy
case, but not of the Dreyfus case.”
M. Scheurer-Kestner.--“I note what you say, _Monsieur le Président_.
Last July I learned that, at the office of the general staff, in the
bureau of information, in September, 1896, Colonel Picquart, who was
then a major and the chief of this bureau, had discovered, in the
course of investigations undertaken _à propos_ of other matters, but
relating to Major Esterhazy, that there had been a mistake in 1894 in
attributing the _bordereau_ to M. Alfred Dreyfus. I learned at the
same time that, as soon as Colonel Picquart had made his discovery, he
made haste to consult M. Bertillon, who had been one of the experts
consulted in 1894, and who, without any hesitation, had attributed
the _bordereau_ to Alfred Dreyfus. Colonel Picquart, showing him the
_bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, but without telling
him whose handwriting it was, asked him what he thought of it, and
M. Bertillon said to him: ‘Ah! the forgers have succeeded. It is no
similarity; it is identity.’ Colonel Picquart came back with this
reply, and asked his chief to continue an investigation in this
direction. He proposed to General Gonse, among others, to submit the
documents to a new expert examination, and General Gonse dissuaded him.
There is in existence a correspondence which was then exchanged between
General Gonse and Colonel Picquart. I took pains to become acquainted
with this correspondence, for it was of great value to me, being of
a nature to settle my opinion. The correspondence being communicated
to me, I was convinced by reading it that General Gonse accepted the
opinion of Colonel Picquart, who was paving the way for a revision of
the trial. It seems to me indispensable, in order to enlighten the
jurors, that I should read this correspondence to them.”
The Judge.--“No, that is not possible.”
M. Labori.--“We must have the light, and I consider it indispensable
that these letters should be put in evidence.”
The Judge.--“The law requires that witnesses shall testify without the
aid of any document. However, if the attorney-general is not opposed to
it, I shall not oppose it.”
The Attorney-General.--“General Gonse and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
have been summoned. They will testify concerning the letters, if they
see fit.”
M. Labori.--“I suggest that M. Scheurer-Kestner be authorized to hand
the letters to the court.”
The Attorney-General.--“It is not possible. The government should have
been notified of them at the proper time.”
M. Labori.--“M. Zola could not do so, as he did not then have the
letters in his possession; but he called upon the attorney-general,
as the representative of the complainant, to put these letters in
evidence, thereby complying as far as possible with Article 52 of the
law of 1881; therefore I have the honor to offer a motion” ...
The Judge.--“Oh!”
M. Labori.--“Oh! _Monsieur le Président_, if you knew how much pain it
gives me, as a man of the world, to thus make you suffer.”
The Judge.--“Permit me to tell you, before you offer your motion, that
it is impossible. Article 52 of the law concerning the press does not
permit the production of documents not previously announced.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“The law obliges us to announce documents.
We ought to have announced the letters of General Gonse. Why did we
not do so? It is well that the jurors should know. We did not do so,
because these letters have already been produced at one hearing,--the
hearing of the council of war,--and under the following circumstances.
Colonel Picquart was asked: ‘Have you General Gonse’s letters?’ He
answered: ‘They are in my pocket.’ The president of the council of war
then asked: ‘Will you give them to me?’ Colonel Picquart handed him
the letters. The president of the council of war took them and placed
them with the documents of the case, without having them read. So
that, in order to conform to the law, we had to give notice of letters
which had been confiscated, as it were, by a president of the council
of war,--letters which were not at our disposal, and which only the
attorney-general could produce.”
The Judge.--“Offer your motion. But, after all, if M. Schemer-Kestner,
instead of reading them, wishes to say what they contain, he may do so.”