The Judge.--“Is this in relation to the Dreyfus case?”
M. Labori.--“It is in relation to a document involved in the Dreyfus
trial.”
The Judge.--“I ask you to say nothing about it.”
M. Labori.--“Yesterday General Mercier thought it his duty to refer
to the Dreyfus case in words which, like all those that come from a
certain direction here, are incomplete. They were received with very
violent manifestations, but I have not been able to obtain anything
additional, because it is an understood thing here that in this matter
anyone can say anything that will injure us, but no one has a right to
say anything that can help us.”
The Judge.--“Pardon me, M. Labori, I believe that I preside here with
all the independence desirable. If I prevent M. Trarieux from speaking
of the Dreyfus case, it is because there has been a decree of the
court. You remind me of what General Mercier said yesterday. Permit me
to add that, if the general said it, it was because I did not have time
to stop him. He spoke too quickly; otherwise I would have prevented
him. You ask questions that violate the decree which we have rendered.”
M. Labori.--“I shall ask all the questions that I think useful to my
offence, whatever your opinion of them may be. You will pass upon them,
_Monsieur le Président_,--and the court with you, for you are not the
sole master,--as you see fit.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I think that the court misunderstands. None of us
intend to violate its decrees. What we wish to point out is that,
in spite of you, _Monsieur le Président_,--you yourself have said
it,--General Mercier made a certain declaration yesterday. We desired
to bring out today either a contradiction or a confirmation of the
words uttered by General Mercier, and, by virtue of a decree of the
court, you say to us: ‘That is not possible.’ The jurors will observe
that for a court of justice this is a singular situation. The charge
may be made, but it may not be contradicted.”
M. Trarieux.--“The charge, whether against M. Scheurer-Kestner or
against M. Mathieu Dreyfus, that they are responsible for the existing
agitation and disorder is quite erroneous and ill-founded. In fact,
there are two ways of obtaining the revision of a judicial error, and
Article 443 of the code of criminal examination defines them. The first
is this: once a condemnation has been pronounced, if it be discovered
that the facts on which this condemnation rest were committed by
some other person than the person condemned, this other person may
be prosecuted, and, if a condemnation is secured, this condemnation
being contradictory of the previous condemnation of an innocent man,
a revision of the judicial error becomes imperative. Thus these two
condemnations necessarily bring about, _ipso facto_, a revision of the
trial. The second method is provided by a law passed by the present
legislature on June 6, 1895, under the government to which I had the
honor to belong. It provides that, if, after a condemnation, a new
fact be discovered which was unknown at the time of the condemnation,
and which is of a nature to establish the innocence of the party
condemned, the matter may be laid before the minister of justice to
induce him to procure a revision of the case. The minister of justice
is asked to lay the matter before the court of appeals, which is judge
in such a matter. Now, it is indisputable that M. Mathieu Dreyfus took
the first method, for, by preferring a formal complaint against Major
Esterhazy, he hoped to secure a condemnation of him, the immediate
consequence of which would have been a revision of his brother’s case.
The question is whether he would not have done better to take the
second method. It seems to be the opinion that he should have applied
to the minister of justice and asked him to lay the matter before the
court. I think that this is a mistaken opinion. Suppose, instead of
making the complaint against Major Esterhazy, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had
applied to the minister of justice for a revision, what new fact could
he have pointed out to induce the minister of justice to lay the matter
before the court of appeals? There was only one,--the similarity of
Major Esterhazy’s handwriting to that of the _bordereau_ attributed by
the verdict of 1894 to Captain Dreyfus. If this had been pointed out
to the minister of justice, it would have been necessary to draw the
immediate conclusion that the author of this handwriting, M. Esterhazy,
was the guilty party. It would have been impossible to lay the demand
for revision before the court of appeals prior to a decision upon this
question after a confrontation with M. Esterhazy. No revision of the
judicial error of which Dreyfus was the victim could have been ordered,
until it had been established in the presence of the party directly
interested, M. Esterhazy, that this error was committed by him, or
that it was the result of his crime, and that he was the author of the
_bordereau_ unjustly attributed to Dreyfus. Therefore the minister of
justice would have had to prosecute M. Esterhazy. But this he could not
have done himself, for the simple reason that M. Esterhazy, being a
soldier, is responsible only to the military courts, and consequently
the minister of justice would have had to hand the matter over to the
minister of war, who would have been charged with the prosecution. If,
then, M. Mathieu Dreyfus had chosen the method of appealing to the
minister of justice, not only would nothing have been gained, but time
would have been lost, for the same result would have been reached by a
circuitous route.”
A group of witnesses was then called, consisting of M. Forzinetti, M.
Lebrun-Renault, and others who had heard M. Lebrun-Renault declare that
Dreyfus had never made a confession to him. But, the court declining
to hear any of them, on the ground that their testimony concerned the
Dreyfus case, they were all obliged to retire.
_Testimony of Doctor Socquet._
Dr. Socquet was then recalled to the stand.
M. Clemenceau.--“I forgot to ask Dr. Socquet whether he found Mme. de
Boulancy at No. 22, Boulevard des Batignolles.”
Dr. Socquet.--“No.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Will he tell the court how he succeeded in finding
her, since that was the only address that he knew?”
Dr. Socquet.--“Through the letter handed to me by _Monsieur le
Président_. He gave me a doctor’s certificate establishing her
sickness, which was accompanied by a letter that gave the address.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I remind the court of an incident that occurred at
the last hearing. I informed the court that Mme. de Boulancy did not
live in the Boulevard des Batignolles, and the court answered: ‘She
does live there, for the doctor’s certificate designates that address.’
Therefore I am at a loss to understand. Does _Monsieur le Président_
recall the incident?”
The Judge.--“Perfectly. I am looking for the address in the letter.”
Dr. Socquet.--“It is on the third page.”