_Testimony of General Gonse._
After General de Pellieux, the court recalled General Gonse, and asked
him: “Who are the lawyers of the minister of war?”
General Gonse.--“MM. Nivart and Danet.”
The Judge.--“Can a lawyer representing the minister enter the offices?”
General Gonse.--“No.”
The Judge.--“With whom must he correspond?”
General Gonse.--“With the controller.”
The Judge.--“Had Colonel Picquart been authorized to receive a lawyer
in his office?”
General Gonse.--“Certainly not.”
The Judge.--“Are there questions of spying concerning which lawyers are
consulted?”
General Gonse.--“None. Concerning these questions we apply directly to
the military prosecuting officer, when it concerns a soldier, and to
the government prosecuting officer, when it concerns a civilian.”
The Judge.--“What do you think of Adjutant Gribelin?”
General Gonse.--“All that is good. He is a servant beyond compare, of
absolute discretion, knowing all the secrets of our offices, and in
whom I have the greatest confidence. I add that he is as modest as he
is intelligent.”
The court then called Adjutant Gribelin, the keeper of the archives.
The Judge.--“What I am going to ask you is of the highest importance.
Did Colonel Picquart really ask you to have a postal stamp placed on
the Esterhazy dispatch?”
Adjutant Gribelin.--“Yes, he asked me if I could not have a postal
stamp put on that document. I swear that it is true.”
Adjutant Gribelin then stepped down, and the court called Major Lauth.
The Judge.--“Did Colonel Picquart ask you to cause every trace of tear
to disappear from the photograph of the dispatch that he was to make?”
Major Lauth.--“Yes. He wanted to make the staff believe that he had
intercepted the document in the mails. I remember that I said to him:
‘But, if you cause these tears to disappear, you will take away all
value from the document, which should be kept in the condition in
which it was brought to you.’ To which he answered: ‘You will be there
to certify that this document is really in the handwriting of such a
person.’ I answered him so loudly that my protest was heard through the
partition: ‘Never in my life. I do not know this handwriting. It is a
counterfeited handwriting.’”
_Testimony of Colonel Picquart._
The witness-chair was then taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. Being
asked his residence by the court, he answered: “Mont-Valérien.”
M. Labori.--“Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows of the
Esterhazy case, of the investigation that he made, and of the
circumstances that accompanied or followed his departure from the war
department?”
Colonel Picquart.--“In the beginning of May, 1896, the fragments of
a letter-telegram fell into my hands. These fragments were pasted
together by an officer in my service, Major Lauth, who was then a
captain. When he had done this, he brought me this card-telegram, which
was addressed to Major Esterhazy. I do not remember the exact language
of its contents, but everything seemed to indicate that between Major
Esterhazy and the writer of the card there were relations which seemed
to me suspicious. Before submitting this card to my superiors, it
not being a proof against Major Esterhazy, but simply a presumption
considering the place whence it came, I had to make inquiries regarding
it. I applied to an officer who knew Major Esterhazy, and who had
been in the same regiment with him. I need not dwell on the nature of
the information that was furnished to me, but it was not favorable to
Major Esterhazy, and it led me to continue my investigations as to his
manner of life and general conduct. The result was not favorable to
him. Major Esterhazy was always short of money, and was continually
meeting with many little difficulties; and there was this strange
thing about him,--that, while far from occupying himself exclusively
with his profession, he nevertheless manifested a great curiosity
about documents relating to matters purely confidential and having a
peculiarly military interest. My inquiry having reached that point,
I considered myself authorized to say to my superiors that there was
reason to seriously suspect an officer of the French army. My superiors
told me to continue. There is one thing that we generally do in dealing
with a person whose behavior seems suspicious. We take a specimen of
his writing, and compare it with documents in our possession. As a
result of this comparison, our suspicions may be confirmed or may be
weakened.
“So I began to look into Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, contrary
to what has been often said, especially in a letter written to me by
Major Esterhazy, I carried on my investigation by perfectly regular
methods. With the consent of my superiors I went to the colonel of
the regiment to which Major Esterhazy belonged, and asked him for
specimens of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting. He gave them to me in the
form of letters relating to the military service. As soon as I had
these letters in my hands, I was much astonished at the resemblance
between the handwriting and that of the famous _bordereau_, of which so
much has been said. But, not being an expert in handwriting, I had no
right to trust to my individual impressions. That is why I had these
documents photographed, concealing, as has been said, in a deposition
which I have read in the newspapers, such words as ‘My Colonel,’ or
else the signature, or any other indications that might identify the
writer; and I showed the photographs thus obtained to two persons
thoroughly qualified in the matter, one of whom was M. Bertillon and
the other Major du Paty de Clam. M. Bertillon, as soon as I showed him
the photograph, said: ‘It is the handwriting of the _bordereau_.’ I
said to him: ‘Do not be in a hurry. Take this specimen, and examine
it at your leisure.’ He replied: ‘No, it is useless. That is the
handwriting of the _bordereau_. Where did you get it?’ ‘I cannot tell
you.’ ‘Well, is it of an earlier date?’ ‘No,’ I answered, ‘it is of
a later date.’ ‘Then,’ said M. Bertillon, in these exact words, ‘the
Jews have had some one practising for a year to get the handwriting of
the _bordereau_, and they have succeeded perfectly; that is plain.’
The second person to whom I showed a sample of the handwriting was
Colonel du Paty, then major. I let him have it but a few minutes,--five
minutes, I think,--and then he said to me: ‘It is the handwriting of
M. Mathieu Dreyfus.’ To explain this I must tell you that Colonel du
Paty pretended that, in order to write the _bordereau_, Alfred Dreyfus
had made a mixture of his own handwriting with that of his brother. The
pointer was a valuable one for me.
“There was still another thing that drew my attention to Major
Esterhazy. An agent had told an officer in my service,--I do not know
whether it was a superior officer or the head of a battalion,--let
us say, a superior officer, about fifty years of age,--that he had
furnished such and such documents to a foreign power. Now, these were
the very documents spoken of to me by the comrade to whom I applied
upon my discovery of the card-telegram.
“Now, I come to a period when I was entrusted by General Gonse
with the task of inquiring whether the documents referred to in the
_bordereau_ could have been copied for the benefit of Major Esterhazy.
I knew that Major Esterhazy had not a few of the documents which he
procured copied at home. I had been told to apply to the secretaries
whom he had employed, in order to try to find out from them whether
he had really copied these documents. It was a very serious matter. I
confess that at that moment I considered my task almost finished. I
said to myself: here is a card-telegram which has put me on the track
of the major. It is not a document upon which he could be convicted,
but it is a pointer. Then we have the testimony of an agent. This, too,
is not so tremendous, but yet it reveals an astonishing coincidence.
This agent says: ‘Here is a man who furnishes such or such a thing;’
and, on the other hand, here is a man who says to me: ‘This officer
asks for such a thing.’ And, finally, there was a resemblance of
handwritings, which to me was important. And there is another thing
to be added to the long list. I do not wish to speak more precisely,
or to further unveil the secret. But Major Ravary, in his report,
speaking of me, says: ‘The belief of this officer seemed completely
established when he had reported that a document on file with the other
secret papers applied to Esterhazy rather than to Dreyfus.’ Well,
that is true. On examining the secret documents, as has been said by
Major Henry, I saw that one of them applied, not to Dreyfus, as has
been said, but clearly to Esterhazy. Following the orders of General
Gonse, I tried to find out whether Major Esterhazy’s secretaries had
copied documents referred to in the _bordereau_ or included among those
designated by the agent of whom I have just spoken. I did not continue
long in this direction. I saw that it was impossible to divulge the
thing without departing from the discretion within which I confined
myself, whatever may be said, and I stopped. I questioned but one
person, a certain Mulot, who appeared as a witness before the council
of war, and who told me that he had been ordered to copy into books
certain insignificant things, among which, in my opinion, the firing
manual was not included.
“Then there happened a thing which caused me a little embarrassment
in my operations,--the article in ‘L’Eclair.’ At that time I was
absolutely convinced that Esterhazy was the author of the _bordereau_.
Well, when the article appeared in ‘L’Eclair,’ I said to myself: here
is a man who is going to admit what he has written; and I confess that
that obscured matters not a little. I knew perfectly well that the
article in ‘L’Eclair’ did not come from me. On the other hand, at the
office of the minister of war, without saying anything very precise,
the general manner seemed to give the idea that it came, not from
me, but from my surroundings. I protested vigorously, and asked in
writing that an investigation be made to find out who communicated this
document to ‘L’Eclair.’ The investigation was not made.
“Later a second incident happened, which was to me even more
disagreeable. The publication in ‘Le Matin’ of the _fac-simile_ of
the _bordereau_. A thing that especially struck me in the publication
of this _fac-simile_, which has also been attributed to me, was the
omission of the few lines written by Dreyfus under the dictation of
Colonel du Paty de Clam. These lines, to be sure, appeared in print,
but the writing was not reproduced, and I believe that, if it had been,
it would have made an unfavorable impression regarding those who were
desirous of attributing the _bordereau_ to Dreyfus.
“In short, these various incidents had produced a certain
embarrassment, and I saw clearly that I would do well not to continue.
Meantime came the announcement of the Castelin interpellation.
I received an order to start on a mission the night before this
interpellation,--that is, November 16, 1896. I should say that after
the publication of the _bordereau_ by ‘Le Matin,’ or about that time,
Esterhazy came to Paris, where his attitude was extraordinary. I
believe that some one saw him the day after the publication running
through the streets like a madman, in a pouring rain. The witness is
here, and will be heard. They would not hear him at the inquiries.
Before the Castelin interpellation M. Weil, a friend of Esterhazy,
received an anonymous letter, telling him that he and his friend were
going to be denounced as accomplices of Dreyfus. It appears that
Esterhazy received an anonymous letter to that effect, but I cannot
certify to the fact so far as M. Weil is concerned. I will not amplify
concerning the various and ever-changing phases of my mission. Leaving
Paris November 16, I reached Tunis January 13 by way of the Alps and
many other places. Until then, my relations with my superiors had been
perfectly cordial. I received letters from General Gonse, in which he
always shook my hand very affectionately. I must speak of one thing
that happened while I was absent, and which I did not know of until
General de Pellieux’s investigation. I believe that I shall be clearer
if I speak of it now. After I had left Paris, I received information
from General de Pellieux that my mail was being opened in my former
office. As I could not tell anyone where I was going, I had left word
at home that all my letters should be addressed to the war department.
Consequently all my mail passed through the department, and General de
Pellieux told me that all my letters were opened. I confess to my shame
that I did not perceive that they had been opened.
“Now I pass to the time that I spent in Tunis. And I come at once
to the month of June. Since the beginning of the year I had received
a certain number of letters that said: ‘But, when I go to the war
offices, they always tell me that you are on a mission, and that
you will soon return.’ I concluded that they were not telling the
truth to these worthy people, and I pinned to one of these letters a
note,--rather sharp, I confess,--which I addressed to Major Henry in
returning him the letter. This note read nearly as follows: ‘I wish
that it might be said once for all to the persons who inquire for me
that I have been relieved of this service. I have no reason to be
ashamed of that, but I am ashamed of the lies with which my departure
has been surrounded. Enough of mystery.’ That was written May 18.
Early in June I received from the major, who previously had been my
subordinate, a letter which I have here, in which he says that, after
investigation, it is possible to explain the word ‘mystery’ by the
following facts: (1) opening of a correspondence for reasons foreign
to the service, and which nobody has ever understood,--this is an
allusion to the seizure of Major Esterhazy’s correspondence; (2)
attempt to suborn two officers of the service, to induce them to say
that a document classified in the service was in the handwriting of a
certain person,--I must say at once that these two officers have been
transformed into one, and I do not know what has become of the second;
(3) opening of a secret file of papers, followed by indiscretions
prompted by motives foreign to the service.
“In the way in which these things were explained I saw at once
insinuations, accusations, something extremely serious. I suspected
that conspiracies were on foot. I even said to one of my superiors
that this letter would not have been written, if there had not been
something behind it. I answered directly that I had received the letter
of May 31, and that I formally protested against its insinuations, and
against the way in which the facts were stated. And then, not being
at ease, for I did not know where all this was going to take me,--it
was to take me to Gabès and to the frontier of Tripoli,--I thought it
my duty to take precautions for my safety. I started for Paris, took
counsel first of some military personages, and then went to M. Leblois,
who was my friend, and for the first time, showing him this letter, I
told him that I had been mixed up in the Dreyfus and Esterhazy cases.
I told him so much about the first two paragraphs of this letter as
was necessary for my defence, but I said nothing to him of the third
paragraph, which seemed to me to relate to secret matters. At the
same time, both as a deposit and that they might serve later for my
defence, I gave to M. Leblois a certain number of letters from General
Gonse,--I believe that there were fourteen in all, two of which have
been published lately in the newspapers against my will,--together with
my replies and some letters relating to my mission. I had previously
destroyed such of these letters as related to matters of the secret
service, especially a letter in cipher concerning sundry small matters.
I left it entirely with M. Leblois as to the time when he should
intervene, and as to the use that he should make of the documents that
I placed in his hand. He has acted as seemed best to him, and I approve
of his course.
“Then I went back to Sousse, and heard nothing more of these matters,
until it was made known in the press that M. Scheurer-Kestner was
concerning himself with the Dreyfus question. At that time I was _en
route_ for the south. I had already started, when I was summoned to
Tunis, where they asked me questions which at first seemed to me rather
singular. They asked me in the first place if I had not allowed a
secret document to be stolen by a woman. It was very easy for me to
answer that I had never carried any documents away from my offices, and
that there was no sort of possibility of a woman’s taking from me a
document of this sort. Then a very curious thing happened. I received
almost the same day, first, a letter from Major Esterhazy, second, a
telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ and, third, a telegram signed ‘Blanche.’
Major Esterhazy’s letter said in substance: ‘I have received lately a
letter in which you are formally accused of having bribed sub-officers
to procure for you my handwriting. I have verified the statement and
found it to be true.’ I do not know how he verified it. Nothing was
said about it at the investigations. He said also: ‘You have withdrawn
documents from your service to constitute evidence against me. The fact
of the collection of such evidence is established. I have a piece of it
in my possession at the present moment.’ At the same time I received a
telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ saying: ‘Stop, demigod, all is discovered;
matter very serious.’ What seemed to me very serious was not the
investigation, but the fact that Major Esterhazy wrote my name without
a _c_, and that the letter was addressed to Tunis. I made a connection
between these two things in my mind. Now, the telegram signed ‘Blanche’
was not at all of the same sort. In the first place, the spelling of
my name was correct, then my garrison, Sousse, was clearly indicated,
and, finally, the writer was certainly familiar with my inquiries
concerning Esterhazy, for the telegram read: ‘We have proofs that the
dispatch was manufactured by Georges.’ It immediately occurred to me
that the dispatch referred to was the Esterhazy dispatch. The whole was
signed ‘Blanche.’ With these three documents in my hands, I did not
hesitate a moment. I telegraphed to Tunis for authorization to go and
see the general. I carried him a copy of the three documents, with a
letter from the minister of war, saying to him: ‘I have just received
these three documents. They come from Major Esterhazy, or from some
one connected with him. I ask an investigation.’ A fact that struck me
later--for the light has come to me only gradually--was the reference
of ‘La Libre Parole’ to this matter in very clear terms on November 15,
16, and 17, though these two telegrams and this letter did not reach
me until November 10 or 11. Now to telegraph to the general, to go to
Tunis, and to write to the minister of war took me until Monday, so
that the letters could not have reached Paris before Friday. They were
able, then, to publish in Paris on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday what
did not take place at Tunis until Friday. On reaching Paris, I had
been obliged to give my word of honor that I would see nobody before
seeing General de Pellieux. I had no right to see M. Leblois until
after General de Pellieux’s investigation. On coming before General de
Pellieux, I was informed by him that he was going to hear me concerning
the Esterhazy case. And he did hear me concerning it for an entire
afternoon. I said to him what I have just said here. The session was
a stormy one. There were two others, but at those there was scarcely
any mention of Major Esterhazy. At the last two sessions I was obliged
to defend myself almost all the time, although simply a witness. The
first session was devoted to the examination of documents that had
been seized upon my premises at the time of the search. This search
astonished me somewhat at the time. Later I understood it. It had been
made in consequence of another anonymous letter addressed to General
de Pellieux, in which he was told that, by searching a servant’s room
at No. 3, Rue Yvon-Villarceau, he would find some interesting things
relating to the matter in hand. I suppose that it was difficult for
them to conceive that an officer could have charge, for seven years
in succession, of very confidential things, and have secrets at his
disposal, and yet not have on his premises a single note relating to
his service. There was nothing there. I never took to my home a single
note relating either to the service of information as I conducted it
in the war department at the time when I took my departure, or to the
service that I have performed since. They found nothing to seize,
except some letters from relatives and friends. And they kept only
a letter from Mlle. de Comminges, which was signed ‘Blanche,’ like
the famous telegram. I believe that this letter is still in General
de Pellieux’s collection of documents. I do not know where General
de Pellieux got his information concerning what they call the moral
elements of my case, but I must say that this information surprised me.
General de Pellieux told me to my great astonishment that I concerned
myself with hypnotism, with occultism, with turning-tables, and that I
was nervously diseased. I do not know what all that means; I never saw
a table turn in my life.
“I come now to Major Ravary’s investigation. To Major Ravary I repeated
what I had said to General de Pellieux. With him, too, I had three
sessions. But he seemed like a man who was trying to find out what I
had done, and was very little concerned about what Major Esterhazy had
done. I told him that there were moral proofs in abundance, and I gave
him some pointers. At the time when I left Tunis, where, in spite of
the reports that had already been spread, there were people thoroughly
in sympathy with me, several persons came to see me, notably Colonel
Dubuche, who was about to retire from the service, and who sent me this
message: ‘I know Major Esterhazy; in 1892, at Sfax, there was an affair
of malversation which was to take him before a council of inquiry, if
not before a council of war.’ Major Sainte-Chapelle, who brought me
this communication, added that another important witness was M. Giquel,
a retired commander of squadrons, then resident at Sfax. Well, these
gentlemen told me that, thanks to the great forbearance of the military
authorities and his supplications, Major Esterhazy, or, rather, Captain
Esterhazy, as he was then, had escaped the council of inquiry and the
council of war. Again, General Laroche’s son, who is at Tunis, holding
a government office, told me that Major Esterhazy had been under the
surveillance of his father, when the latter was in command of the
sub-division of Constantine. Finally, Major Esterhazy was well known
in the province of Constantine, and not favorably. I told Major Ravary
that these things were said to me of Major Esterhazy. The first time,
he answered me. That was very well. When, later, I repeated it, he made
the same answer; but this piece of moral evidence did not appear in
this report. They always said to me: ‘Oh! Esterhazy! why, we know him
better than you do,’ and still nothing was said in the report. As I had
seen in a previous investigation that much stress was laid upon moral
proofs, I concluded that such proofs must have a certain importance.
“Major Ravary seemed to me very little inclined to summon witnesses
whom I designated to him as persons who could give valuable
information. I had designated M. Weil. M. Ravary took note of my
suggestion the first time, and then a second; and finally I said to
him: ‘I absolutely desire that this witness be summoned.’ He was
summoned. I had also pointed out to Major Ravary the things on which it
was necessary to lay stress. I told him that he should see the persons
who had copied documents for Major Esterhazy, that he should ascertain
from what officers Esterhazy had procured information, that he should
find out what Esterhazy’s financial situation was in 1893 and 1894,--in
short, that he should do all that there was to do and all that has not
been done. On the other hand, Major Ravary strongly insisted on the
various matters with which I was reproached,--the matter of causing
the disappearance of tears from the photographs of the card-telegram,
and of having endeavored to make one of my officers say that such a
document was in such a handwriting, etc. They placed enormous weight
upon these things, and also upon the episode of the lady who had lived
in my house. I looked upon this as a sort of _hors d’œuvre_ from the
standpoint of the Esterhazy investigation.
“I was reproached with having kept the fragments of the Esterhazy
dispatch in my closet for a long time. When Colonel Sandherr was at the
head of the service, he had gradually let this branch of the work fall
into the hands of Major Henry and Captain Lauth. It was the rule then
that Major Henry, who received the documents, should sort them out and
hand them to Captain Lauth, and it was only when this task was finished
that they were given to the chief of the service. When I assumed charge
of the service, desiring to know things for myself, I ordered that all
documents be given to me first, and later I handed them to Captain
Lauth. That seems a small matter, but unquestionably it changed the
habits of these gentlemen, and caused them some annoyance. When the
accusations against me began, they recalled this matter, and found it
singular that I did not do as my predecessor did, but, instead, put
documents into my closet, that I might afterwards hand them myself to
the officer designated to look into them. Another reproach against me
was that of having carefully effaced all evidence of tear from the
photographs that had been made of this card-telegram. There were two
reasons for that, the first of which is the less important. A document
of this sort, when it is cut into little bits, becomes much clearer
when the tears no longer show. It can be read more easily. The second
reason is this. If the document had circulated in the office of the
minister of war with the tears as they originally were, it would have
been said: ‘It is a torn paper.’ Well, there had been very serious
indiscretions concerning the Dreyfus _bordereau_, and their origin
was known a little too well. I was determined, having a very great
responsibility in the matter, that those who had no need to know the
origin of this document, and under whose eyes the photograph might
pass, should have no indication of the manner in which this document
reached me. The principal thing in the courts is the original, the card
itself; the photograph goes with a collection of papers, first to the
minister of war, then to the chief of staff, etc., but the document
itself, especially a document as fragile as a telegram torn into I
know not how many pieces, remains at a given spot. It is shown to two
or three persons at most, and, if there is a trial, it is produced.
Those are the reasons that led me to so carefully efface the tears from
the card-telegram. They ask me why; they make it a cause of reproach;
but for what reason I do not see, since the famous _bordereau_ was
subjected to the same operation. It has been said to me: ‘But after?’
After, it was too late. I had a little foresight, and that excited
mistrust,--I don’t know why. Then they reproached me with having tried
to make an officer say that this was the handwriting of a certain
person. That occurrence was simply this: I was examining this document
with Captain Lauth. The captain said to me: ‘But this document has no
sign of authenticity. It ought to have a date, a post-office stamp.’
Thereupon I said to him: ‘But you can testify whence it comes; you know
the handwriting very well.’ He answered: ‘Oh! no, never; I do not know
this handwriting.’ Note that it happened exactly like that. There was
not one word more or less. And I believe that Captain Lauth’s testimony
could not be different from mine from that point of view. He attached
no suspicious character to my question, as is proved by the fact that
we have remained on the best of terms. He has received me at his table,
which is not a usual thing between an inferior and a superior. Now,
if I had tried to suborn him, and to impose upon him an opinion that
was not his own, the action would not have permitted us to remain in
friendly relations. Later, when things were coming to a head, they
gathered up all these little matters, and made use of them.
“There is another thing which shows very clearly how these
little matters can be used. One need only read the report of M.
D’Ormescheville to see how the massing of insignificant things may lead
to grave accusations. Never in my life did I have any intention of
getting a postal stamp placed upon this document.
“In the Ravary report there is another important thing. It is said
that Major Henry, entering my office, found me _en tête-à-tête_ with
M. Leblois, having between us a collection of secret documents, from
which we had taken a photograph document upon which was written: ‘That
scoundrel D----.’ Already General de Pellieux had spoken to me of that,
but he had said that it was Gribelin who had seen me. He said nothing
to me of Major Henry. I said to him: ‘Never did I have that collection
of documents in my hands while Leblois was in my office.’ Moreover, I
thought that it was at the time of M. Leblois’s vacation, but I did
not know at what time he returned. I went to M. Leblois to get these
two dates, and I reported them to General de Pellieux. If I am not
mistaken, Gribelin placed this interview in the month of October. At
the council of war, when this charge was brought against me, I asked to
be confronted with Colonel Henry, and he maintained that he had seen
us together, with these secret documents between us. I asked him to
fix the date. He said: ‘That must have been on my return from leave,
in the beginning of October.’ Major Henry certainly did not know that
M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and returned November 7. Nor did he
know that I had asked M. Gribelin for this collection of documents
the latter part of August, and handed it to General Gonse personally
early in November. Unfortunately I do not know the exact date, but it
was one of the first days of November. Gribelin, too, showed a rather
short memory, for he has pretended under other circumstances that this
collection of documents was found in my closet after my departure. Now,
General Gonse has very frankly stated that I gave him this collection
of documents several days before my departure. My departure took place
on November 16. I left my service November 14, M. Leblois came back to
Paris November 7, which was a Saturday, and the 8th was a Sunday; then
this discovery must have been made between the 9th and the 14th, and
yet during that time I had not the documents in my possession, having
given them to General Gonse.
“Another thing has occurred to me. General de Pellieux showed me the
photograph bearing the words: ‘That scoundrel D----.’ This photograph
is anything but clear; one is obliged to look very closely into it
to see anything at all. Now, I ask if a person entering a room can
identify such a document at once, and see on it the words: ‘That
scoundrel D----?’ Finally, if I had any interest in showing this
document to M. Leblois, it seems to me extraordinary that, considering
the limited dimensions of this file of papers, and considering the
fact that I had it at my disposal for two months, I did not pass it
to M. Leblois. But it seems that, having these documents before me, I
left the door open while I was with M. Leblois, and chose that moment
for the very serious act of communicating a document to a person not
qualified to have knowledge of it. At any rate, I testify absolutely
that never did I show a file of secret papers to M. Leblois, absolutely
never, and that I never spoke to him of any such file.
“Now there are other matters to which I must refer. I read the
testimony given yesterday by General de Pellieux, and in it I found
things that astonished me. In my second interview with the general he
said to me: ‘You have caused Esterhazy’s premises to be searched.’ I
did wrong in accepting his statement. I did not cause Major Esterhazy’s
premises to be searched, and I wish now to explain very clearly what
actually took place. After the publication of the article that appeared
in ‘L’Eclair,’ which had given Esterhazy warning that the _bordereau_
was known, one of my superiors suggested a search. I confess that I
did not think it an opportune moment for a search, it seeming to me
that the search should have been made previously. Esterhazy having been
warned, he had undoubtedly removed all evidence from his premises.
Yet, desirous of doing what was asked of me, I spoke of the matter to
the officer who was watching Esterhazy. I said to him: ‘This is what
they ask me to do, but I believe that a search would prove fruitless.’
He answered: ‘He has gone to Rouen, but I do not know whether he
has moved his effects.’ I think the officer told me that there was
a sign indicating that the apartment was to let. He went to see the
apartment, and brought back as proof a visiting-card, on which a few
words were written. He told me that much paper had been burned in the
chimney, and that was all. I returned the card to him, and told him
to put it back in the place from which he took it. When General de
Pellieux questioned me concerning this matter, he told me that the
house had been ransacked, and false keys had been made, and that this
was proved by the discovery of a key in excess of the usual number. I
did not know then where he had obtained this information, but at the
hearing before the council of war I found out. The information was
given by Esterhazy; so that the statements made yesterday by General
de Pellieux are almost exactly the statements of Esterhazy. He says
that the search was continued at intervals during eight months. Before
the council of war Esterhazy said that it lasted I know not how much
longer. If it lasted, it was not my fault, because I was not in Paris.
The event of which I have just spoken occurred toward the end of
October. If anything happened afterward, I am not responsible for it.
As to the correspondence, General Pellieux said that for eight months
I intercepted Esterhazy’s letters in the mails. The card-telegram
was written in May. I did not begin my investigations until early in
July. Esterhazy left Paris the latter part of August to attend the
military manœuvres, and did not return until late in October or early
in November. I do not find eight months between July and the middle of
August.”
At this point, Colonel Picquart having finished his deposition, the
court interrupted the proceedings to render a decree granting M.
Clemenceau’s motion that a magistrate be sent to examine Mme. de
Boulancy, and appointing for that duty M. Bertulus, who was General
de Pellieux’s consulting magistrate during his investigation. The
examination of Colonel Picquart was then resumed.
M. Labori.--“Was not Colonel Picquart present as a delegate from the
minister of war at the trial of a case of spying, or, to be precise, at
the Dreyfus trial? For this is a question of fact that does not touch
the thing judged.”
Colonel Picquart.--“I prefer not to answer.”
M. Labori.--“Is there in the war department a file of documents that
makes Major Esterhazy’s guilt inadmissible?”
Colonel Picquart.--“I do not know, but I do not think so.”
M. Labori.--“When Colonel Picquart was thinking of inquiring whether
M. Esterhazy was not the author of the _bordereau_, did any of his
superiors at any time say to him: ‘Stop; there are certain proofs that
Major Esterhazy cannot be the author of the _bordereau_?’”
Colonel Picquart.--“No, that was never said to me.”
M. Labori.--“To what does M. Picquart attribute the numerous and
complex machinations of which he has been the victim?”
Colonel Picquart.--“I shall be able to answer that more definitely,
when M. Bertulus’s examination has been finished. At present I believe
that the purpose of these machinations was to prevent Esterhazy’s guilt
from being shown.”
M. Labori.--“Does the witness think that Major Esterhazy took part in
these machinations, directly or indirectly?”
Colonel Picquart.--“Yes.”
The Judge.--“You simply think so?”
Colonel Picquart.--“I think so.”
M. Labori.--“Does the witness think that these machinations were the
work of Major Esterhazy alone, or does he think that Major Esterhazy
had accomplices?”
Colonel Picquart.--“I believe that he had accomplices.”