General de Pellieux.--“On the 14th of last November, M. Mathieu
Dreyfus lodged with the minister of war a complaint against Major
Esterhazy. He formally accused him of being the author of the
_bordereau_ that had led to the condemnation of his brother, basing
his accusation upon an absolute similarity of handwriting. On the
16th I received from the military governor of Paris an order to
make a military investigation. I was instructed to give M. Mathieu
Dreyfus an opportunity of proving his charge. I sent for him. He
brought me no proof of any sort,--nothing but allegations. In reality,
my investigation was virtually over, but, in view of the public
feeling that the charge had created, I felt that I could not stop. I
received from M. Scheurer-Kestner the names of M. Leblois and Colonel
Picquart. M. Leblois came. He had a file of documents, composed of
letters, _fac-similes_ of Major Esterhazy’s writing, a telegram in
characters similar to those used in print, which had been addressed
to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and of which I do not recall the terms, and
fourteen letters from General Gonse. He showed me these fourteen
letters, and I read them. I read likewise the drafts of the letters
addressed by Colonel Picquart to M. Leblois. The latter told me that
he had been long in relationship with Colonel Picquart, and had often
been to see him at the war department, and he gave me a history of his
relations with Colonel Picquart. These relations, then, are admitted.
M. Leblois has been at the office of the minister of war, and he has
in his hands letters from Colonel Picquart. For some days there has
been talk of the communication of a secret file. It is admitted that
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart placed General Gonse’s letters in the hands
of M. Leblois. It is admitted that he said to M. Leblois, who repeated
it to M. Scheurer-Kestner, that a file in a war office contained a
document formally accusing Major Esterhazy of treason. Here I will
point out that, in my opinion, there is nothing more secret, nothing
more sacred, in the world than an examination begun against an officer
for the crime of treason. There is nothing in the world so sacred as
a man’s honor, as long as he remains unconvicted of the crime with
which he is charged. Well, Colonel Picquart told M. Leblois that in the
office of the minister of war there was a file containing a document
that formally accused Major Esterhazy of treason. I defy anyone to
contradict me. There you have communication of a secret file, proved
and patent.
“Now I can explain General Gonse’s letters. They do not relate to
the Dreyfus case, but solely to the Esterhazy case. General Gonse
recommends his subordinate to act with the greatest prudence. He tells
him that he does not wish to stop him in his inquiries,--naturally, for
they never stop an inquiry, once it is begun,--but at the same time
he cautions him against taking irreparable steps, such a step as the
immediate arrest of Colonel Esterhazy would have been. I reported to
the military governor of Paris that there was no proof against Major
Esterhazy, but that Colonel Picquart had made a serious blunder from a
military standpoint. As a result of this first report, it appeared that
there had been some confusion, and that it was the intention of the
minister that my investigation should be a judicial one. The governor
did not so understand it, nor did I.
“I immediately began a new investigation, with a clerk, and acting as a
magistrate. I summoned the accused, and confronted him with the charges
against him. But first I had a search made of Colonel Picquart’s
premises. Because of this search I have been bitterly attacked. Let me
say that it was my absolute right, given me by the code of military
justice as a judicial officer of police. Moreover, it was my duty. This
search had been demanded of me, and I could not refuse without being
suspected of an indisposition to get at the truth. So I instituted a
regular search through M. Aymard, a police commissioner connected with
the government of Paris. The results of the search were brought to me
under seal, and I broke the seal in presence of Colonel Picquart. Of
the documents taken I kept but a single letter, to which I will refer
directly. All of the other letters I returned to Colonel Picquart,
after a cursory glance at them. There were numerous letters from
his mother, which I have perfectly respected, and numerous letters
from Mlle. Blanche de Comminges, one of which was the only document
that I retained as being possibly of interest. Then I summoned the
various witnesses whom I had seen in my first investigation, and
examined them on two points. First, concerning the _bordereau_. M.
Mathieu Dreyfus had accused Major Esterhazy of being the author of
the _bordereau_. About this _bordereau_ much has been said. Few
people have seen it; I believe that it would be easy to count them.
But many have seen _fac-similes_, and I, who have seen it, must say
that these _fac-similes_ singularly resemble forgeries, and that to
pretend to base an expert opinion of handwriting on _fac-similes_ that
have appeared in the newspapers is, it seems to me, to go a long way.
Nothing less resembles the newspaper _fac-simile_ than the original
_bordereau_; consequently all the expert testimony made so lightly is
of no value.
“I listened to Major Esterhazy’s defence concerning the _bordereau_.
As it is well known, I will not repeat it. He tried to demonstrate
that it would have been impossible for him to produce the documents
of which the _bordereau_ speaks. The council of war has judged that
matter, and I will not insist. But in the course of Colonel Picquart’s
examination an incident occurred. He spoke to me of the document
of which M. Leblois and M. Scheurer-Kestner had spoken to me, a
card-telegram which, according to Colonel Picquart, was of the same
origin as the _bordereau_. This document was torn,--had been torn and
pasted together. It contained writing which seemed to prove, according
to Colonel Picquart, that Major Esterhazy was in suspicious relations
with an agent of a foreign power. The first thing to be done was to
establish the genuineness of this document, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart
being the only one who had any knowledge of it. It was very certain
that this card-telegram had not been sent to the person for whom it
was intended, and consequently had not reached him. That in itself
was sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the document; it had
not been deposited in the post-office, and bore no post-office stamp.
In examining other witnesses, I spoke of this document, and learned
that attempts had been made to give it the appearance of authenticity
that it lacked. It was desired to have it so photographed as to cause
all traces of tear to disappear, that it might be said: ‘It was torn
afterwards; when it came, it was intact.’ An effort was made also to
have a post-office stamp placed upon it, in order that it could be
said that it had been seized in the mails. To me this document had no
appearance of genuineness. I am astonished that Colonel Picquart, chief
of the bureau of information of a great power,--we have not yet fallen
to the level of the republic of Andorra or of St. Marin,--an officer
who ought to be intelligent, should be naive enough to believe that a
military _attaché_ of a great foreign power would have corresponded
with one of its agents by a card-telegram. A card-telegram left
with a janitor, and liable to be opened by a janitor, or any other
servant,--is it thus that they would have corresponded with Esterhazy?
I confess that I did not believe it. I said to Colonel Picquart:
‘You have sought other proofs against Esterhazy; what means have you
employed of finding them?’ And I come now to a very serious matter. He
confessed that for months, without the order or the authorization of
his superiors, General Gonse and General de Boisdeffre, he had been
seizing in the mails all of Esterhazy’s correspondence. For eight
months he opened that officer’s letters, and was obliged to admit that
he had found nothing. He admitted that without orders he had had that
officer’s premises searched, overturning his furniture, disarranging
his wife’s effects, and ransacking the apartments; and proof exists--at
first he admitted it--that a piece of furniture was forced open, and,
being unable to lock it again, they had a key made for that purpose, so
that today, instead of two keys for this piece of furniture, there are
three. It seemed to me that this was proof of inadmissible manœuvres,
and I confess that, when a council of war acquitted Esterhazy, I was
not astonished. Of my participation in that acquittal I am proud.
I succeeded in showing that there were not two traitors among the
officers, but only one, and that he had been justly condemned. General
de Boisdeffre and General Mercier were allowed to say a word of
Dreyfus; I ask to be similarly authorized.”
The judge refused to allow the request.
M. Clemenceau.--“Just now I heard the witness say that there is
nothing more serious than to communicate documents accusing officers
of treason, especially when these documents were secretly filed in
the office of the minister of war. I ask him, then, for his opinion
concerning the following facts: a secret document was taken from the
office of the minister of war, carried about Paris by a veiled lady,
and handed by this veiled lady to Major Esterhazy, who brought it back
to the office of the minister of war, and, strange to say, the minister
of war gave him a receipt for it. I would like to know the opinion of
General de Pellieux on the withdrawal of this first document.”
General de Pellieux.--“I have no opinion to express.”