The third day’s proceedings began with a statement of the judge
that, in refusing to hear Mme. Dreyfus the day before, concerning M.
Zola’s good faith, he had supposed that the question to be put to her
concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case.
Therefore the court desired the defence to specify whether the question
concerned M. Zola’s good faith in the matter of the Dreyfus case, or
his good faith in the matter of the Esterhazy case.
M. Labori.--“I do not understand. M. Zola has committed an act which is
considered criminal. We maintain that it is an act of good faith, and
we ask the witness what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith. As to the
Dreyfus case and the Esterhazy case, they are connected only indirectly
with the Zola case.”
The Judge.--“There is no Zola case. I can question Mme. Dreyfus on the
good faith of M. Zola only so far as the Esterhazy case is concerned.”
M. Labori.--“The court will act according to its understanding. It is
the sovereign judge. But we are the sovereign judges in the matter of
the questions that we wish to put, and to us the question of good faith
is indivisible. A man who commits an act commits it either in good or
in bad faith, and we have not to inquire whether his faith is good
concerning this point or that point. I do not know what Mme. Dreyfus
will answer, but I ask that she be questioned in a general way as to
the good faith of M. Zola in writing his letter.”
The Judge.--“There must be no confusion here, no arriving by indirect
methods at that which the decree of the court has forbidden.”
M. Labori.--“I allow no one to say that I pursue indirect methods.
I have neither the face or the attitude or the voice of a man who
does things indirectly, and, if there are any indirect methods
used here, I leave the entire responsibility--I do not say to the
attorney-general--but to the complainant, the minister of war. I insist
that the question shall be put as I framed it, and, if the court
refuses, I shall offer a motion.”
The Judge.--“I will question Mme. Dreyfus concerning only the second
council of war that tried the Esterhazy case.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I am informed that witnesses are present in the
court-room, though the trial is now in progress. It seems that General
de Boisdeffre, General Mercier” ...
The Judge.--“The trial is not in progress.”
M. Clemenceau.--“It is essential that the witnesses should not be
present at any part of the trial before their deposition” ...
The Judge.--“The day’s debate has not begun.”
Nevertheless the military officers, who formed a group in the middle of
the room, were then excluded, and Dr. Socquet, the expert physician who
had been sent to examine the health of those witnesses who had pleaded
illness, took the stand.
He reported that M. Autant had been seized on the previous Sunday
with an attack of renal colic, but had now recovered, and was in
the witnesses’ room. As to Mme. de Boulancy, he said that her case
offered all the symptoms of angina pectoris, and that, considering her
condition, her appearance in court would be attended by serious danger.
M. Clemenceau.--“I gather from the doctor’s testimony that it is
materially possible for Mme. de Boulancy to come to this bar, but that
the doctor thinks that the excitement would be bad for her. I ask him,
then, supposing that this question had been put to him; ‘Do you believe
that Mme. de Boulancy could appear before the examining magistrate
in the presence of Major Esterhazy?’ would he have thought that that
excitement would be bad for her?”
Dr. Socquet.--“I cannot answer. It is evident that the surroundings in
the assize court are different from those in the office of an examining
magistrate.”
Being questioned as to Mlle. de Comminges, he said that her physician,
Dr. Florent, told him that she was the victim of a nervous affection,
and had heart trouble so clearly defined that she was liable to
fainting-spells on entering a room the temperature of which was a
little above the ordinary.
M. Clemenceau.--“The jurors will note that these two ladies, Mlle. de
Comminges and Mme. de Boulancy, were at their residences, and that
their own physicians were present.”
Dr. Socquet.--“No, their physicians were not present.”
M. Clemenceau.--“The expert just said that the physician of Mlle. de
Comminges told him a certain thing.”
Dr. Socquet.--“That was in his certificate.”
These preliminaries over, the witness-stand was taken by General de
Boisdeffre.
_Testimony of General de Boisdeffre._
M. Labori.--“Will General de Boisdeffre tell us first what the document
was that Major Esterhazy brought to the minister of war some time
before his appearance before the council of war?”
General de Boisdeffre.--“That document relates to the Dreyfus case;
consequently I cannot speak of it without violating the decree of the
court and my professional secrecy.”
M. Labori.--“I am glad to learn that it relates to the Dreyfus case,
but Major Esterhazy made use of it as a means of defence, and described
it by an interesting phrase which General de Boisdeffre no doubt has
heard,--‘the liberating document.’ Moreover, the minister of war gave
Major Esterhazy a receipt for it; therefore it concerns exclusively
the case of Major Esterhazy. So I ask General de Boisdeffre what the
liberating document is.”
General de Boisdeffre.--“Professional secrecy does not permit me to
answer.”
M. Labori.--“Professional secrecy can be invoked only by persons
capable of receiving confidences because of their profession. Where
there is no profession that involves such confidences, there is no
secrecy. General de Boisdeffre has received no confidences, and, if he
has, we do not ask him to betray them. As chief of staff of the army,
he has acted as an official, and, if he invokes any secrecy, it can be
only that which seems to have been devised in many respects especially
for the necessities of this case, and which is called the secret of
State. When the secret of State is invoked by a government, we are at
liberty to ask if there is a reason to recognize it. That question will
arise when the members of the Dupuy cabinet shall come to the stand.
When it is invoked by a former president of the republic, we bow with
deference, because the president of the republic is irresponsible.
But General de Boisdeffre is a responsible official. Respect for the
army is never shown to a person, but to a symbol or an ideal, and it
is based on the confidence that we have in those who represent it, and
on their ability to answer at any moment for all their acts before
the justice of the country, represented here by twelve jurors who are
France, and to whom everybody owes explanations. General de Boisdeffre
is in the presence of justice. He can escape by no appeal to secrecy.
Therefore I ask the court to put my question again.”
General de Boisdeffre.--“I have the profoundest respect for the justice
of my country. Perhaps I do not know how to make the legal distinctions
that have just been pointed out, but I consider the secret of State a
professional secret. That is my reply.”
The Judge.--“Let us pass to another order of ideas.”
M. Labori.--“I pass not to another order of ideas, but to another order
of questions. Can General de Boisdeffre tell us anything about the
veiled lady?”
General de Boisdeffre.--“I know absolutely nothing about the veiled
lady, and have not heard her spoken of except by the newspapers.”
M. Labori.--“It is not only the newspapers that have spoken of her;
she was a means of defence employed by Major Esterhazy before the
council of war in the public part of the trial. I should like to know
whether either the minister of war or General de Boisdeffre ordered any
investigation concerning her.”
General de Boisdeffre.--“We did all that we could to find out who the
veiled lady was, but we found out nothing.”
M. Labori.--“Does General de Boisdeffre declare that he does not know
at all whence the veiled lady came, or with whom she was connected, or,
on the contrary, does he know that she had some sort of relations with
Colonel Picquart?”
General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about it.”
M. Labori.--“Can General de Boisdeffre tell us how the liberating
document got away from the war department?”
General de Boisdeffre.--“I know nothing about that, either.”