_Testimony of M. Ranc._
The next witness called was M. Ranc, member of the senate. He
testified as follows:
“M. Zola’s good faith is complete and absolute. I know, _Monsieur le
Président_, that you would not allow me to speak of the violation
of the law and of the right of defence committed in the trial of
1894 by the non-communication to the defence of a secret document.
I will simply say, then, _Monsieur le Président_, that M. Zola was
legitimately surprised by the way in which the second trial was
conducted, by its mere pretence of an examination, or what seemed
such to many people, and which certainly was the merest phantom of a
contradictory discussion, since the complainant was not represented,
since there was no confrontation of experts with experts, and since,
after a reading of the indictment, which was really a plea in favor
of the accused, they ordered closed doors so far as the testimony
of Colonel Picquart and the handwriting-experts was concerned. That
alone, in my judgment, is enough to explain and to justify the feeling
of generous indignation which prompted M. Zola. He is after truth and
justice, and what he has done is, in my eyes, the act of a man of heart
and great courage.”
_Testimony of M. Pierre Quillard._
M. Pierre Quillard, man of letters, who was present as a disinterested
spectator at the Esterhazy trial, succeeded M. Ranc upon the
witness-stand.
“As M. Zola is accused,” said he, “of having slandered the members of
the council of war, reproaching them with having acquitted in obedience
to orders, I believe that the impressions of a disinterested spectator
may be useful in enlightening the religion of the jurors. We first
listened to the indictment drawn up by M. Ravary. I suppose that the
jurors are familiar with this document. It is indeed a remarkable
document, very remarkable for its touching admiration of the eloquence
of General Billot, and especially for the quite unusual kindliness
exhibited toward the accused. And this kindliness seemed especially
remarkable to those of us who were already familiar with the indictment
of M. d’Ormescheville, seeing as we did that the same matters which
were made a ground of complaint against that officer were cited in
glorification of Major Esterhazy,--for instance, the fact of being a
polyglot, and the fact of interesting himself in questions outside of
his service. This indictment was, in reality, an argument against one
of the witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. I felt at once that
the disposition of the military court was favorable to M. Esterhazy.
This impression was confirmed by the way in which the examination was
conducted, and by the attitude of the court toward the witnesses. I
do not wish to flatter the civil magistracy, but I believe that, as
a rule, the civil magistrates study for themselves and in detail the
documents relating to the matters submitted to them. Not so at all with
the council of war, at least apparently. Every time that a specific
document was referred to, the president of the council and the clerk
had to appeal to M. Tézenas, M. Esterhazy’s lawyer. We are willing to
believe that some of the documents cited were not of great importance,
but here is an incident which seems to me notable and characteristic.
M. Mathieu Dreyfus had declared in his testimony that in June, 1894, M.
Esterhazy had written a letter in which he declared himself to be in a
situation so frightful that, to extricate himself and his relatives, he
perhaps would be obliged to commit a crime. It seems to me that this
was a document of high importance in the case, but the president of the
council had forgotten it, and M. Tézenas had to be called on to furnish
the quotation. The document was handed to General de Luxer, who, after
looking at it for some time, said: ‘There are four pages, it is very
long;’ and then M. Mathieu Dreyfus went up to the bench and pointed
out the specified phrase to the president. I was also very much struck
at the kindly way in which M. Esterhazy’s examination was conducted.
Whenever he suffered from lapse of memory, he had only to say: ‘That
is not important,’ in order to cause his questioner to desist from
pressing him. When M. Scheurer-Kestner said in his testimony: ‘Being a
man, I may be mistaken,’ this expression of honesty was welcomed with
sneers by the persons opposite him. Then closed doors were ordered,
and, while one can understand the necessity of secrecy so far as
certain testimony is concerned, no one has yet been able to see how the
formation of s and x concerns the national defence. They came there
in search of light, and I affirm that no attentive person went away
without a conviction that men in power, if they had not given orders,
had manifested a desire for a thickening of the darkness, rather than
for light.”