At the beginning of the sixth day’s proceedings Colonel Picquart
resumed the witness-stand, and asked permission to make a declaration
that would make clearer the spirit of his testimony of the day before.
This being granted, he said:
“I believe that the expression used by M. Zola when he declared
that the military judges had condemned in obedience to orders went
a little farther than he thought. What happened, at least, as I
believe, was this. General de Pellieux, out of respect for the thing
judged, thought it his duty to keep the matter of the _bordereau_
out of his investigation. Major Ravary, whose investigation followed
that of General de Pellieux, was certainly influenced--perhaps
unconsciously--by the view of his superior. He even gave me proof
of this,--I can say it here, where many things have been said
already,--when, after I had said to him: ‘The witnesses will not be
unearthed, until you have caused Major Esterhazy to be arrested,’ he
answered: ‘I cannot have him arrested. My superiors have not thought
it proper to do so, and I do not see that anything has come into my
hands which should change their decision.’ The judges belonging to the
council of war found themselves confronted with an examination which
was, in my opinion, incomplete. In view of the proofs laid before them,
they decided the matter according to their conscience, and to show you
the liberty of mind that presided over their deliberations I declare
here that one of them, toward the end of the session, said this (and
I admire his courage): ‘I see that the person really accused here is
Colonel Picquart. Therefore I ask that he be called, in order that
he may say to us whatever he may deem necessary in addition to his
deposition.’”