_Testimony of M. Grimaux._
The court next listened to the testimony of M. Grimaux, honorary
professor in the Faculty of Medicine, professor in the Polytechnic
School, and member of the Institute.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” said the witness, “the defence has summoned
me here because I signed a petition in the chamber of deputies in
which we said that, disturbed by the irregularities of the trial of
1894, by the mystery surrounding the Esterhazy trial, by the illegal
searches of the premises of Colonel Picquart, and by the methods of
examination pursued by the military authorities, we demanded that the
chamber of deputies should maintain the legal guarantee of citizens.
Why did I and so many others sign this protest? I will tell you. But
first I must point out to you the singular movement that enlists the
interest of so many scientists, _littérateurs_, and artists, men who
do not follow the fluctuations of politics, and many of whom could
not tell you the names of the members of the cabinet. But all rise up
today, because they feel that the liberty and honor of the country
are at stake. Doubts and then conviction have gradually come to me by
an examination of official documents undisputed. In the first place,
though not an expert, I saw the similarity between Major Esterhazy’s
handwriting and that of the _bordereau_. The reports of the latest
experts have sustained me. Then I carefully studied the indictments,
weighed their value, and came to a conclusion. This conclusion is
that never would any man in the habit of reasoning consent to sign
such documents. There is nothing in them but unproved insinuations,
idle tales, and contradictory reports of experts. My conviction was
further strengthened by the Esterhazy trial. First by the report of
Major Ravary, in which he accuses of forgery, upon the strength of
Esterhazy’s stories, one of those brilliant young officers who are the
hope of the country, and in which he says also that a secret document
was stolen from the war department, passed into the hands of a veiled
lady, and was given by her to Major Esterhazy. And Major Ravary does
not seem to be astonished, but rather finds it perfectly natural, that
this secret document, which in 1895 the minister of war refused to
communicate to the honest M. Scheurer-Kestner, should be carried about
the city by veiled ladies. Then the singular way in which the trial
was conducted, the judge suggesting answers to the accused whenever
the latter became embarrassed; and, finally, the contradictions of
the experts, who declared that the document was not written by Major
Esterhazy, but was of his handwriting, in contradiction with the first
experts, who had declared that it was of the handwriting of Dreyfus.
Thus the first experts were grossly mistaken, and with them the seven
officers, the seven judges, who, in the loyalty of their souls,
condemned Dreyfus. It was said also that this document is a tracing
from Esterhazy’s handwriting, and M. Ravary finds that very natural,
and does not inquire who could have done the tracing. So that we arrive
at this singular reasoning: Dreyfus made the tracing, because he is a
traitor, and the proof that he is a traitor is that he made no tracing,
but made a _bordereau_.
“I do not wish to abuse your patience, gentlemen, but I must tell you
that I have arrived at my unshakable conviction in spite of disguised
threats and attempts at intimidation.”