The Judge.--“Did you ever see the original?”
M. Meyer.--“I have seen only _fac-similes_, the original not being
visible to the naked eye of the profane. One witness has testified here
that the _fac-similes_ resembled forgeries, and that nothing is less
like the original than these _fac-similes_. It is clear that, if they
resemble forgeries, they do not resemble the original. But I believe
that this witness, who is not accustomed to the precise formulation
of thought, went farther than he intended. I shall try to dissect his
declaration, and see what there is in it. These _fac-similes_ are
produced by what is known as the Gillot process. It is a zinc relief,
the zinc being eaten in certain parts. When a plate of this sort is
put on a rotary press, the zinc crushes a little, and the letters fill
up. But this effect can be discounted in advance, and any comparison
of writings should eliminate all difference between clear and filled
letters. The process is not a particularly good one, but it has the
advantage of being cheap; and, besides, it does not lend itself easily
to retouching, which is a guarantee of sincerity. It alters in no way
the form of the letters. If a person is in the habit of crossing his
_t_’s on the bias, on the bias the crosses will remain. If he crosses
them horizontally, they will remain horizontal. There is no possibility
of error of this sort. The witness referred to says that the
_fac-simile_ resembles a forgery. No. There is the sort of alteration
that I have pointed out, and there is another equally unimportant.
The original is written on two pages, while the _fac-simile_ is on a
single page for convenience of publication. But this difference is
purely external, and has no bearing on the form of the letters; so I
do not see what they mean when they say that the _fac-simile_ does
not resemble the original. Let me say, in passing, that I have had
a conversation with M. Bertillon about all sorts of things. He said
to me,--I quote him because it is a point of fact and not a point of
reasoning,--‘These _fac-similes_ are not so bad.’ M. Bertillon knows
photography and knows this process of reproduction. Consequently it
seems to me audacious to say that the _fac-simile_ resembles a forgery.
“But the day after the deposition of the witness in question certain
newspapers said: ‘It is a forgery.’ Such is the way in which a legend
springs up. An inexact report in the first place, then a falsehood
mingles with it, and then you have the legend. Well, the legend must
be destroyed absolutely. I should like the witness who said this
_fac-simile_ resembled a forgery to explain to me how it is, seeing
that this _fac-simile_ was published at the beginning of 1896, that
anyone could have had the idea of making a _fac-simile_ of Major
Esterhazy’s handwriting, when at that time he had not been heard of in
connection with the case. Well, these _fac-similes_ show the writing
of Major Esterhazy; as to that I have no sort of doubt. Is it Major
Esterhazy’s hand? Ah! here is a distinction, and a subtle one. At
least it seems to me subtle. It appears to result from the report of
the experts in the second trial. I do not know that report, but I have
read in a newspaper that it is the theory of these experts that the
_fac-simile_ is the writing of Major Esterhazy, but not his hand. That
may be; I do not know. I have tried two or three hypotheses to explain
this dualism,--on the one hand the writing, on the other the hand. I
will spare you these hypotheses. I think it would be hardly charitable
on my part to attribute them to the experts, because I, their author,
consider them absurd. I hope that these gentlemen have found a
hypothesis that has escaped me, and that will explain this difficulty.
“There is a certain way of refuting me, if I am wrong. I do not ask
that the original be brought here,--to ask that would be enormous;--I
ask simply for a more delicate photograph, simply two pages on albumen
paper, something very clear. Or, better yet, I would like glass
negatives. When a photograph is printed, there is always a negative. It
would be as well to bring the negative. Now, by looking at the gelatine
side of the negative, you can see whether it has been retouched or
not. For me this glass plate is as good as the original, except in
one point,--the quality of the paper, which cannot be seen on a glass
plate. From it one could tell whether there is a difference between the
original represented by the photograph and the original more or less
imperfectly represented by the published _fac-similes_. If they will
show me these plates, I will ask nothing better than to confess. If it
proves to be true that the _fac-similes_ made by the Gillot process and
published in ‘Le Matin’ are bad, I will say so frankly. But, if this
request be refused, then I say that I am right. I felt very sad when I
read the demonstration of a certain expert, for I had talked formerly
with this expert, who in some respects is a very remarkable man, and
has invented a really magnificent thing--anthropometry. Well, this
conversation at first interested me--one always learns; then it amused
me, and finally it distressed me, gentlemen. I was distressed to think
that it was possible to entrust an expert examination in so serious
a matter to a man whose methods of investigation it is impossible to
dispute, because they are entirely foreign to common sense.”
M. Labori asked the court to recall the three Esterhazy experts that
they might be confronted with M. Meyer.
The Judge.--“They are bound by professional secrecy.”