In convalescence here, I read deposition of Jaurès. Have already
contradicted in “Libre Parole.” Beg you, _Monsieur le Président_, to
excuse my absence, and read to the jury the following declaration:
Never did I make the remarks reported by Jaurès. Never did I hear
Esterhazy use such language. Once Esterhazy said in my presence: “They
thought me ruined because of the resemblance in handwritings. If there
is a resemblance, I shall prove that Dreyfus has imitated my writing.”
I saw Esterhazy seven times. Never did I hear him say anything other
than that. Therefore I protest against the Jaurès account, which is a
veritable falsehood, the more blameworthy because I, being sick here,
cannot appear before the court. Therefore I count on you, _Monsieur
le Président_, to establish the truth, and beg you to accept the
assurance of my distinguished sentiments.
M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, we do not complain at all at the
introduction of these documents into the trial. Only I permit myself to
point out that no notice of them has been given, and we shall ask the
same right for documents emanating from us.”
The Judge.--“These are not documents of the trial.”
M. Labori.--“If, in the course of the trial, we receive documents of a
similar character, we shall ask the court to read them.”
The Judge.--“I have read these by virtue of my discretionary power.”
M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, it is to your discretionary power
that we shall appeal.”
M. Jaurès.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I regret more than anyone that
the health of M. Papillaud does not permit him to be here, for I am
sure that, before the clearness of my declaration and the precision
of my recollections, he would not be able to maintain his denial
for a moment. I declare once more, under oath, that M. Papillaud
twice said to me that he had heard M. Esterhazy say to him, when ‘Le
Matin’ published the _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_: ‘I felt that
I was ruined.’ I give the circumstances in detail. Once he said it
as we were leaving the senate, after M. Scheurer-Kestner had made
his interpellation. We had met at the foot of the grand staircase,
and we were talking of the result of the session. We agreed that, in
spite of appearances, M. Scheurer-Kestner had obtained an important
result in securing the admission of the _bordereau_ as evidence in the
investigation. That was the starting-point of a conversation concerning
the _bordereau_, in the course of which M. Papillaud said to me: ‘If it
were only a matter of the _bordereau_, the thing would be soon settled,
for I am convinced that the _bordereau_ is the work of Esterhazy. I
know that by the agitation that he showed when, at a time when his
name had never been uttered in connection with the affair, he said,
on seeing the _fac-simile_ in ‘Le Matin,’ that he felt that he was
ruined.’ Another time, in the Salle des Pas-Perdus of the chamber, I
approached M. Papillaud, who was standing in a group of journalists,
and said to him: ‘How can you still march behind this man after the
publication of the letters in “Le Figaro?”’ He answered: ‘We can the
less march behind him because, when he came to the office of “La Libre
Parole,” he showed a singular agitation in consequence of seeing the
_bordereau_ in “Le Matin.” He felt that he was lost. From that moment
I, who was, and am still, convinced of the guilt of Dreyfus, said to my
friends in the office of “La Libre Parole:” “At any rate we will not
march behind Esterhazy.”’ These, gentlemen, are precise affirmations,
and, since I was not present just now when M. Papillaud’s telegram
was read, I may be permitted to point out to the jurors the singular
conditions under which this contradiction was obtained. To facilitate
M. Papillaud in his contradiction, an inexact version of my testimony
was telegraphed to him. ‘La Libre Parole’ reproduces this morning the
telegram that was sent to M. Papillaud, which says that I declared that
M. Esterhazy said to M. Papillaud: ‘I feel myself ruined.’ That is not
what I said. I repeated exactly a much more serious remark,--namely,
that fifteen months before, on seeing the _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_,
Esterhazy felt himself ruined. I am astonished that this disavowal
could have been obtained from M. Papillaud, unless they distorted the
meaning and text of my words, and my astonishment is the greater since
all the newspapers, with the exception of ‘La Libre Parole,’ have
printed my deposition exactly. And it is surprising that that paper,
which is directly interested in the incident, is the only one that has
not reproduced it exactly. But I understand the interest that they
have in denying the remark. It is twofold. In the first place, it is
extremely serious in itself, as a moral indication of M. Esterhazy’s
state of mind fifteen months ago, and, secondly, it demonstrates,
contrary to the allegation of General de Pellieux, that between the
_fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_ and the _bordereau_ itself there is
not the difference that he has proclaimed, and the proof is that M.
Esterhazy, before the council of war, where I was present, recognized
a striking resemblance between his own handwriting and that of the
_bordereau_, having previously recognized the same resemblance between
his own handwriting and that of _fac-simile_. Therefore there is no
difference between the _fac-simile_ and the _bordereau_.”
The judge then reread the telegram from M. Papillaud, and M. Jaurès
added:
“I reassert most absolutely the declarations made in my deposition.
I add that in controversies between friends--for the most intimate
friends have been divided for many weeks past--many have not agreed
with me as to the case of M. Esterhazy and the conduct of the trial.
And to these I have often made use, especially in discussion with my
friends of ‘La Dépêche,’ of the statements made by M. Papillaud.”
M. Labori.--“Gentlemen of the jury, ‘La Libre Parole’ of this morning
publishes under the heading, ‘The Defender of Zola,’ the following
note, the meaning of which it is impossible for me to misunderstand.
One of our readers asks us if we know a member of the Paris bar, of
German origin, naturalized as a Frenchman, who married an English
Jewess, and whose father, still a German, is now a railroad inspector
on the other side of the Rhine. Is this question aimed at M. Labori,
the theatrical defender of Zola? At any rate it is certain that,
like all who are engaged immediately or remotely in the anti-French
conspiracy, M. Labori has foreign attachments. He married a young
woman named Ockey, a Protestant by origin, after her divorce from M.
Pachmann, a German, if I am not mistaken, by whom she has children,
whom their father visits in their new family. I give this information
to show that M. Labori has been under influence not precisely
nationalistic, though I take good care not to follow his example in
bringing into the matter women who have nothing to do with it.
“Gentlemen of the jury, upon this note I shall make no comment. I
answer with facts, and, as I am determined to let nothing stop me in
the task that I have undertaken, and as I expect other attacks to be
made, I declare that I answer once for all. This is my reply: I am not
naturalized. I was born at Reims, of a French father. My wife is not
an Israelite. M. Pachmann so seldom makes visits at my house that I
have not the honor of his personal acquaintance. He is not a German;
he is a Russian. He was born at Odessa; his father was a professor in
the Odessa University; his brother is now a Russian senator at St.
Petersburg. My father was an Alsatian. For forty-five years he has
been in the service of the Eastern Railway Company. In that capacity
he was in the campaign of 1870, during which he was entrusted, at the
camp of Châlons, with the embarkation of the French troops. In 1871
he was delighted to receive, at the Reims railway station, from the
hands of the Prussians, the service of the French railways. It was
in that period of his life, perhaps, that he was called upon for the
greatest proof of his patriotism. Since 1871 he has been entrusted,
in unison with the military commissions, with the organization of the
national defence over the line of railway with which he is connected.
Seven years ago, in January, 1891, if I am not mistaken, my father was
decorated with the order of the legion of honor, at the request and
by the mediation of the fourth bureau of the staff of the minister of
war, and it was General de Boisdeffre who announced his decoration to
him, with the congratulations that he thought it his duty to add. Such,
gentlemen of the jury, is my reply. I simply ask you to judge from this
incident of the value of certain attacks and certain assertions.”
After these incidents the witness-stand was again taken by M.
Bertillon, who declared, in answer to a question, that he had not
succeeded in obtaining from the war department the documents of which
he had spoken on Saturday.
M. Clemenceau.--“Under what conditions did M. Bertillon ask for them,
and under what conditions were they refused?”