General de Pellieux.--“But I add that I do not admit his right to do so
without a legal warrant.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I ask General de Pellieux, who knows the law, and
who can explain whether a search is legal, if the search of Colonel
Picquart’s premises was illegal.”
General de Pellieux.--“Show me that it is illegal.”
The Judge.--“Were you not a judicial officer of police?”
General de Pellieux.--“Yes, and had the right to make a search. The
military code will show it.”
M. Clemenceau.--“The military code declares that the search, to be
valid, must be made in the presence of the interested party. If you had
found a document of any value, Colonel Picquart could have claimed that
it had been brought to his apartment in his absence.”
M. Labori.--“Besides, M. Picquart was not accused. There was only one
accused,--Major Esterhazy. He was accused by the chief of the bureau of
information to whom this service had been entrusted because he was the
most worthy of it, and it was his premises that they searched.”
General de Pellieux.--“I am evidently ignorant regarding procedure. At
every step I took the advice of a magistrate, M. Bertulus.”
M. Labori.--“Was it M. Bertulus who suggested to General de Pellieux to
search the house for smuggled matches?”
General de Pellieux.--“I gave a police commissioner a search-warrant.
If the police commissioner offered this pretext in order to carry out
his orders, he is responsible.”
M. Labori.--“Did General de Pellieux, when entrusted with the duty of
investigation, order Major Esterhazy to observe absolute discretion,
and stay at home instead of exercising his liberty,--a liberty which he
used in going daily to the offices of ‘Le Jour,’ ‘La Libre Parole,’ and
other newspapers?”
General de Pellieux.--“I did, and in writing.”
M. Labori.--“How well, in the opinion of General de Pellieux, were his
orders obeyed by Major Esterhazy?”
General de Pellieux.--“I do not say that Major Esterhazy fully obeyed
my orders, but from the moment that he received them the communications
to the press became, I observed, less numerous.”
Colonel Picquart.--“Can these gentlemen say that they have seen a
single letter on which I have caused a post-office stamp to be placed?”
The Judge.--“It is not claimed that you have done that. The claim
simply is that you asked if it were possible to have such a thing done.”
The court then recalled Major Ravary.
M. Labori.--“Why did M. Ravary, in his report, in which he accumulated
all arguments tending to depreciate Colonel Picquart’s merit, omit
the incident relating to the question attributed to Colonel Picquart
concerning the placing of stamps on a letter or a dispatch?”
M. Ravary.--“There were an abundance of matters that I could have cited
in proof of irregularities on Colonel Picquart’s part. I did not need
to put all of them in my report.”