General de Pellieux.--“What opinion do you expect me to express?”
The Judge.--“Were you familiar, in the Esterhazy case, with the
communication of secret documents by Colonel Picquart to M. Leblois?”
M. Clemenceau.--“That is not what we are talking about. It is agreed
that, when General de Pellieux learns that a document accusing Major
Esterhazy is communicated to a third party, he is indignant. It is
established, on the other hand, that, when a document accusing another
officer is carried about Paris, he has no opinion. General de Pellieux
has said that he caused a search to be made of M. Picquart’s premises.
May I point out to him that M. Picquart was a witness, and ask him
also why he did not cause a search to be made of the premises of M.
Esterhazy, who was the party accused?”
General de Pellieux.--“It was absolutely useless to search the
premises of Major Esterhazy, as that had been done during eight months
by Colonel Picquart.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Eighteen months had elapsed between what General
de Pellieux calls the searches of Major Esterhazy’s premises by M.
Picquart and the Esterhazy investigation. I repeat: How did it happen
to occur to General de Pellieux to search the premises of a witness,
and not the premises of the accused?”
General de Pellieux.--“I did not cause a search to be made of Major
Esterhazy’s premises, because I was a judicia officer of police and did
not deem it necessary.”
General de Pellieux then stepped down, and the defence offered the
testimony of MM. Dupuy, Guérin, and Poincaré concerning the secret
document, which testimony the court declined to hear for the usual
reasons, and the hearing of which M. Labori insisted on by the usual
motions. Then the stand was taken by M. Thévenet, former minister of
justice.
_Testimony of M. Thévenet._
Being asked what he thought of the good faith of M. Zola in writing the
article, “I Accuse,” he said:
“I am absolutely convinced that M. Zola acted in good faith, and these
are my reasons. In the Esterhazy case there was an astonishing gap,
which I consider very important. The examination had shown that Major
Esterhazy had received from a veiled lady on several occasions the
copy of a secret document which existed in the office of the minister
of war, and which demonstrated, it was said, the guilt of Dreyfus.
Well, I say very frankly to the jury that what struck me in this
military examination was that this matter of extreme importance was
not thoroughly looked into. If the veiled lady really existed, why did
they not search for her with much activity and patience, and why was
not this important matter gone into thoroughly? I am astonished--and
in parliament I am not alone in this astonishment--that the military
authorities dropped this matter without a fundamental examination. If
a secret document of this character had been taken from the office
of the minister of war, a secret document on which everybody’s eyes
were fixed, and which was securely locked in a closet, it was for the
interest of the national defence that serious measures should be taken
to avoid other leaks of this sort, for other secret documents might be
similarly embezzled by this woman, or by some one in her confidence.
Moreover, it would have been easy to make such an investigation. This
woman had arranged meetings in somewhat strange spots; she had been
taken there in cabs on two occasions, if my memory serves me; and Paris
cabmen never exhibit a failure of memory when the courts call on them
for testimony. Hence the cabman, and perhaps the woman, could easily
have been found. At any rate, a serious investigation should have been
made to find out how the document was taken.
“If the veiled lady is a legendary character,--which is possible, for I
believe that in this case there are many legends,--the question was no
less serious. For then the problem arises: how could a secret document,
from the office of the minister of war, showing the guilt of Captain
Dreyfus, have been communicated to Major Esterhazy, when it had not
been communicated to Captain Dreyfus, whom this document accused? I can
understand that M. Zola’s conscience has been troubled. And it is not
only his that has been troubled. I can understand how M. Zola could
arrive at the belief that the second council of war, inexactly informed
by an inadequate examination, had perhaps misjudged.”
M. Thévenet was then asked by M. Labori what he thought of M. Zola’s
good faith in writing that sentence in his letter to President Faure
in which he accused the second council of war of having covered the
illegality of the first council of war, in obedience to orders, by
committing in its turn the crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty
person. The witness answered:
“It is said that neither Dreyfus or his council were made aware of
a secret document, which nevertheless had been communicated to the
members of the council of war that condemned Dreyfus. Well, gentlemen,
I am astonished that this question, which has been under discussion so
long, has not been settled already. It is, in my opinion, not simply
the only question involved in this trial, but the capital question
of this entire discussion. It should have been met at the beginning,
and it seemed to me--I ask your pardon for this allusion--that it was
possible to answer it very frankly by a yes or a no. I have read the
reports of the trial, and I have been surprised that this question,
which has been asked, if I am not mistaken, has been met by silence.
It has been put to honorable generals who were able to answer, but who
considered themselves bound by professional secrecy. I say, gentlemen,
that here we touch a question which is not simply a point of law,
but a much higher principle,--that of the liberty of defence, the
imprescriptible right which every accused man has of knowing on what
evidence he is accused. Is it true, yes or no, that the first council
of war considered documents that were not made known to M. Demange or
to Captain Dreyfus? That can be answered by a yes or a no. They make
no answer. What does that mean? If they had answered yes, the court
of appeals would have passed upon it. Would that have established the
innocence of Dreyfus? Not at all. He would have come again before
the council of war, before military authority itself, and military
authority, after examining the documents and submitting them to Dreyfus
and his counsel, would have decided whether Dreyfus was guilty. But in
that case Dreyfus would have had a chance to defend himself against
documents that he had been permitted to read. Perhaps there would have
been a second conviction. I do not know. But the trial would have
been complete, the law would have been respected, and the liberty of
defence--human dignity, I should say--would have been safeguarded.
I declare, for my part, that, if the minister of war had come here
to give his word of honor that no communication had been made to the
council of war which judged Dreyfus, I should have bowed before his
word. But let him give it. This it is that disturbs public opinion, and
prolongs, and perhaps will perpetuate, this trial, which is an evil for
everybody and an evil for the country.”