The Judge.--“It is a standing decree.”
M. Labori.--“There was nothing like that in the old _régime_. It is
inaugurated in this assize court. I can only bow, while I protest.”
The Judge.--“It is the law, according to Article 270 of the code of
criminal examination.”
M. Labori.--“It is the first time that a court of justice has declared
that a decree rendered constitutes a standing decree, and that all
incidents to come will be decided by the same decree. It is the first
time, and, while I bow before your words, I can only protest.”
The Judge.--“Protest as much as you like. But every time, under the
same circumstances, the same decree will be rendered.”
_Testimony of M. Auguste Molinier._
The next witness was M. Auguste Molinier, a professor in the Ecole des
Chartes.
“I have lived among manuscripts,” said the witness, “for 25 years,
and I have observed them in such detail that now, by signs almost
imperceptible to others, I can recognize the identity of handwritings,
and tell about how long a certain manuscript has been written. I have
had in my hands a _fac-simile_ of the _bordereau_, and, after examining
the formation of the letters therein, and comparing it with letters
written by Major Esterhazy, I affirm, on my soul and conscience, that
I find in Major Esterhazy’s letters all the principal formations that
occur in the _bordereau_.”
The Judge.--“At whose request did you make this examination?”
M. Molinier.--“I made it of my own accord, for, in common with all
Frenchmen, I am interested in this case.”
_Testimony of Mme. de Boulancy._
At this point M. Clemenceau read the report of the magistrate, M.
Bertulus, who had been appointed to put certain questions to Mme. de
Boulancy. The answers of Mme. de Boulancy, as stated in this report,
were in substance to the following effect: that she was in possession
of letters and telegrams from Major Esterhazy, some of which, notably
two telegrams, were of recent date; that she had deposited these
documents in a safe place, intending to preserve them as a means of
self-defence; that the telegrams contained no threat, but urged her
in polite, but most pressing, terms to restore to Major Esterhazy the
letters which he had written to her between 1881 and 1884; that these
letters are perhaps as compromising as the letter in reference to the
Uhlans, and that they say certain rather serious things in regard to
the army and to France; that she would not consent that these letters
should be handed to the judge by those in possession of them, as she
wished to be well armed, in case she should be charged with forgery;
that Major Esterhazy had come to her door four or five times, but that
she had refused to let him in; that, seeing that he was unwilling to
leave the stair-landing, or was too persistent in his attitude toward
the servant, she came to the half-open door, which was secured by
a chain, and asked him to go away, pointing out to him that he was
compromising her; that the object of each of these visits was to ask
for a return of the letters and the telegrams; that she had always
answered that she would not publish them, but must keep them for her
defence; that she told him that the letters that had been published
were published against her will, and in consequence of her too great
confidence in the word of a person whom she had supposed to be a
devoted friend; that Major Esterhazy had never said, in answer to
her refusal, that he would kill himself; that on Saturday, February
5, 1898, when she had already taken up her residence at Neuilly,
Major Esterhazy was seen on the stairs of her previous residence, 22,
Boulevard des Batignolles, by the tenant occupying the floor above; and
that she did not know what attitude Major Esterhazy assumed when he
heard this tenant coming.
M. Clemenceau then offered a motion that a magistrate be appointed
to ask Mme. de Boulancy whether Major Esterhazy did not say in these
letters; first, that “General Saussier is a clown, and we Germans would
put him in a circus;” second, that, “if the Prussians were to come to
Lyons, they could throw away their guns and keep only bayonets, and
still drive the Frenchmen before them.”
The court postponed its decision, and called another witness, M.
Emile Molinier, professor at the Ecole du Louvre, and a brother of
the preceding witness. He testified that the similarity between
the handwriting of the _bordereau_ and that of Major Esterhazy is
absolutely complete. “I will even say,” he added, “that, if a _savant_
were to find in one of the volumes of the National Library by the side
of Major Esterhazy’s letters the original of the _bordereau_, he would
be considered disqualified if he did not say that the _bordereau_ and
the letters were written by the same person.”
M. Molinier was then succeeded by M. Célerier, professor in the College
of Fontenay-le-Comte.
“The _bordereau_ and Major Esterhazy’s letters,” said the witness, “are
absolutely in the same handwriting. The letter _n_ is strangely formed.
Now it is regular, now it becomes an _x_. Thus the word _tenir_ often
appears as if it were the word _texir_. Well, I find the same thing
five or six times out of ten in Major Esterhazy’s letters. One has only
to open his eyes to see that it is absolutely the same handwriting.”
The Judge.--“Who asked you to make this examination?”
M. Célerier.--“M. Bernard Lazare. He asked me if I would make an
examination, and I said yes, and afterwards sent him a report of a few
lines containing my conclusions.”
The Attorney-General.--“Was the witness confronted in another case with
the three Esterhazy experts?”