M. Grimaux.--“Gentlemen, I believe that I have said all that I desired
to say in order to wash from my honor imputations that ought not to
remain in an official document; but I venture to add that my conviction
grows more and more certain. I declare it again. Neither insults or
threats or revocation can touch me, for truth wears an impenetrable
cuirass. We have entered on a path which we shall follow to the end. We
desire the truth, and we will have it. We will pursue this path from
which nothing shall turn us, for we are of those who want the light,
complete light. Our consciences are thirsty for justice.”
As M. Grimaux left the witness-stand, M. Zola arose and shook hands
with him, and M. Grimaux said something to him in a low voice.
M. Labori.--“Be good enough, M. Grimaux, to say aloud what you have
just said to M. Zola.”
M. Grimaux.--“I said that I had never seen M. Zola before; I now see
him for the first time.”
The last witness of the day was M. Louis Havet, professor in the
College of France, and member of the Institute.
_Testimony of M. Louis Havet._
The witness first dealt with the similarities in handwriting between
the _bordereau_ and the Esterhazy letters, and contrasted them with the
letters of Dreyfus, pointing out especially that in the _bordereau_ and
the Esterhazy letters the capital _J_’s are written half above and half
below the line, while the _J_’s of Dreyfus always stop at the line.
Passing then from handwriting to orthography, M. Havet testified as
follows:
“Both Captain Dreyfus and Major Esterhazy spell well. They make no
mistakes regarding the _s_ in the plural, or in other matters of that
sort. But let us examine some orthographic minutiæ,--the accents and
the cedilla. Captain Dreyfus is not much of a grammarian; he has not
the soul of a grammarian, and he often forgets to put a cedilla where
one is needed, writing, for instance, _français_ or _façon_ without
a cedilla, or perhaps he will put a cedilla where there should be
none,--for instance, _forçe_ and _souffrançe_ with a cedilla. In this
he is capricious. He writes the word _annonçant_ now with and now
without the cedilla. And the same as to the accents. If he writes
the preposition _à_, which should have a grave accent, he sometimes
gives it a grave accent and sometimes does not. He also uses needless
accents. The word _nécessaire_, which has an acute accent over the
first vowel, is written by him with an accent over each e. With
Esterhazy it is quite the contrary. He is very careful about his
accents, and his hyphens, and all the little details of orthography.
He puts a grave accent over the preposition _à_ not only when it is
a small letter in the middle of a phrase, but when it is a capital
letter at the beginning of a sentence. Now, the _bordereau_ and Major
Esterhazy’s letters show absolutely the same orthographical habits,
while the _bordereau_ differs totally in this respect from the letters
of Captain Dreyfus.
“Again, as to choice of words. There are many ways of speaking French.
One may speak French correctly, or one may make blunders. Now, in
the _bordereau_ there are incorrect turns of phrase which seem to
indicate a writer unfamiliar with the language, or accustomed to think
in a foreign language. ‘_Sans nouvelles m’indiquant que vous désirez
me voir, je vous adresse cependant, monsieur, quelques documents
intéressants._’ The word _nouvelles_ is one that would never be written
in such a connection by a Frenchman perfectly acquainted with his
tongue. Such a Frenchman would say _sans avis_. The author thought in
German and translated into French. But let us go on. ‘_Sans nouvelles
m’indiquant que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse cependant,
monsieur._’ Instead of this, an educated Frenchman, with the instinct
of his language, would say: _Quoique je n’ai pas reçu d’avis me disant
que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse_. Or else he would separate
the phrase. The phraseology of the _bordereau_ is sometimes found
in the commercial style, but not at all in the literary style, and
is written especially by foreigners imperfectly acquainted with the
French language. Farther on, à propos of a certain document, occurs
this expression: ‘_Chaque corps en reçoit un nombre fixe_.’ The words
_nombre fixe_ properly mean here that there is always the same number
for each corps,--that each corps, for instance, receives fifty. But
that is not what the author of the _bordereau_ meant. He meant that
each corps receives a definite number, a number known in advance,
enabling it to be determined whether all the copies are returned. But
he did not know the proper word. It is such an error as a professor
would point to as a proof that his pupil did not know French, or was a
foreigner.
“Now, Captain Dreyfus writes perfectly correct French. There never
are any mistakes of phrase in his letters. Take this, for instance:
‘_J’ai légué à ceux qui m’ont fait condamner un devoir_,’ etc. It is
impossible to find a better phrase than that; and so it is throughout.
If it were a schoolboy’s copy, the teacher would write ‘Very good’
in the margin. I have sought in vain for an error of this sort in
Captain Dreyfus’s letters. But in Major Esterhazy’s such errors
swarm. In a letter in which he struggles against financial troubles,
he says: ‘_Telles et telles personnes doivent avoir conservé toutes
traces de cette affaire_.’ This phrase, instead of _toutes les traces
imaginables_ is one that occurs in the famous Uhlan letter: ‘_Je ferai
toutes tentatives pour aller en Algérie_.’ It is a phrase peculiar to
Major Esterhazy.
“The writing of the _bordereau_, without the shadow of a doubt, is that
of Major Esterhazy. The orthographical habits are his habits, and, as
regards choice of words, it is quite impossible that Captain Dreyfus
should have written the _bordereau_, while, on the contrary, it is
perfectly natural that Major Esterhazy should have written it.”
This ended the day’s proceedings.