At the opening of the session the court rendered a decree denying the
motion of M. Clemenceau that a magistrate be appointed to further
examine Mme. de Boulancy regarding the contents of the letters from
Major Esterhazy, basing the denial on the ground that the witness
had already declined to specify the contents of the letters, and
that therefore it would be fruitless to question her further. The
witness-stand was then taken by General de Pellieux, who made the
following statement:
“I recognize that, of all the _fac-similes_ that have appeared, that
published by ‘Le Matin’ most resembles the _bordereau_, but I wish
to point out an essential difference. The _bordereau_ is written on
both sides of thin paper and in pale ink, the writing on the back
being much darker than the writing on the front; consequently, when
the _bordereau_ is photographed, the photograph necessarily shows
something of the back as well as the front, so that, to print these
_fac-similes_, it has been necessary to remove the traces of the
writing on the back by some photographic practice with which I am not
familiar. The defence absolutely rejects all the expert testimony made
by sworn experts who have had the originals before them, and admits
all expert testimony made by experts who have seen only _fac-similes_
or photographs. The defence has even tried to turn into ridicule
the testimony of sworn experts, and has brought to this bar some
professional experts, but especially amateur experts, even a dentist;
and, further than that, it has brought here--a fact which I leave the
jury to judge--a foreigner, a foreign lawyer.
“When M. Mathieu Dreyfus wrote his letter to the minister of war,
he said: ‘I accuse,’--and in that respect he showed himself a
forerunner,--‘I accuse Major Esterhazy of being the author of the
_bordereau_.’ I sent for M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and he asked for an expert
examination of the _bordereau_. I pointed out to him that he rejected
the first expert testimony based on an examination of originals, and
I said to him: ‘Will you accept the second?’ He did not answer, and
I concluded that, if the expert examination proved unfavorable, he
would ask for still others, which he did. The _bordereau_ was found
insufficient; so they had another document in reserve, the dispatch.
There has been testimony to show how far this document is from being
authenticated, and any government that had prosecuted an officer
on the strength of such a document would have covered itself with
ridicule. So, when M. Picquart insisted that Major Esterhazy should be
prosecuted and arrested on the strength of this simple document, he was
separated from the war department. And I think that he was treated very
indulgently.
“Much has been said of the writing of the _bordereau_, but its contents
have not yet been referred to. I ask your permission, then, to take
this _bordereau_, which has just been shown to me, and examine, point
by point, whether it was possible for Major Esterhazy to procure the
documents that were mentioned in it.”
M. Labori.--“I ask that Colonel Picquart, who is now present at the
hearing before M. Bertulus in the matter of the complaint against the
Speranza forgery, be summoned to court to hear the testimony of General
de Pellieux.”
The Judge.--“Go on, General.”
M. Labori.--“I ask permission to offer a motion. I ask for the presence
of Colonel Picquart here.”
The Judge.--“You have not the floor. Go on. General.”
General de Pellieux.--“I pretend to prove here, documents in hand,
that the officer who wrote the _bordereau_ is an officer of the war
department, an officer of artillery, and, furthermore, a licentiate. I
ask for a copy of the _bordereau_ as it appeared in ‘Le Matin’.”
M. Labori.--“I ask you to send for Colonel Picquart. I protest against
the absence of Colonel Picquart.”
The Judge.--“I will send for Colonel Picquart when I get ready.”