The Judge.--“Point out what you like.”
M. Labori.--“I intend to do so. You think to turn the course of the
debate, because General de Pellieux is here alone.”
The Judge.--“I have told you that you have not the floor. Do not oblige
me to take measures. Go on, General.”
General de Pellieux.--“I thank you, _Monsieur le Président_.
“The _bordereau_ contains this item: ‘A note on the hydraulic check
of 120, and the way in which this piece is managed.’ This is the
expression of an artillery officer. In speaking of this piece an
artillery officer says ‘the 120.’ An infantry officer would never say
that. He would say ‘the piece 120.’ Moreover, the artillery guard their
secrets very carefully. Although I have been chief of staff of an army
corps, I am not acquainted with the hydraulic check of the piece 120.
It has been said that this knowledge would have been acquired at the
manœuvres. It is absolutely impossible to see the operation of this
piece at the manœuvres, and I, who was present at the manœuvres of 1896
and 1897, am unfamiliar with it. Furthermore, this paragraph must refer
to a report that exists in the war department on the way in which this
hydraulic check has behaved in experiments. Only an officer of the war
department could have given information on this point. No infantry
officer ever saw the piece 120 fired. Though I have been present at
firing lessons, I never saw it fired.
“The _bordereau_ contains also a note concerning _troupes de
couverture_, and I call your attention to the second paragraph: ‘The
new plan of mobilization involves some modifications.’ How could an
infantry officer in garrison at Rouen have known anything about the
_troupes de couverture_? It has been said that Esterhazy, being a
major, was in possession of his regiment’s plan of mobilization. True,
but in the plans of mobilization of regiments, especially of regiments
that have nothing to do with _couverture_, there is no compromising
detail. These plans simply specify the measures to be taken to make
the regiment ready for transportation. The regiment does not know even
where it is going. Deposited in the colonel’s office are what are
called _fiches_. These _fiches_ of transportation give only a point of
departure and a point of arrival. At the point of arrival the regiment
receives new _fiches_ from a staff officer sent by the minister of war,
and only there does it learn its final destination. Consequently Major
Esterhazy could not possibly have given any detail regarding _troupes
de couverture_. His regiment did not furnish such troops, and the
regiments that do could give details only concerning the hour of their
departure. And how could Major Esterhazy know anything of a new plan in
progress of elaboration? Such a thing could have been known only to an
accomplice in the war department.
“Thirdly, the _bordereau_ contains a note on a change in artillery
formations. How could Major Esterhazy have known anything about that?
There is no artillery garrisoned at Rouen.
“Fourth, the _bordereau_ contains a note relating to Madagascar.
Gentlemen, the _bordereau_ is certainly not of earlier date than March
14, 1894, since it speaks of a document that did not appear until
March 14, of which I shall speak directly. It is certainly of earlier
date than September 1, at the time at which it was seized. Well, at
that time it was known only in the war department what part the land
forces were to take in the Madagascar expedition. The question was
not agitated until the 16th or 17th of August, 1894. These details,
then, must have been given by an officer of the war department; Major
Esterhazy at Rouen could not possibly have known of preparations for an
expedition in which a part of the land forces would participate.
“I come now to perhaps the most serious point,--‘the note concerning
the manual of artillery campaign practice, March 14, 1894.’ This manual
has never been in the hands of an infantry officer. A very few copies
were sent to artillery regiments. It is hardly known to the officers in
the war department, except those of the third division,--the artillery
division. Major Jamel had it in his drawer in the war department, and
it was at the disposal of the incriminated officer whom I refuse to
name here. There has been an endeavor to prove that Major Esterhazy
once had this manual in his hands, and for that purpose an appeal was
made to the testimony of a Lieutenant Bernheim, who happens to be an
Israelite, and who came to testify. This officer was obliged to admit
that he did not communicate the manual to Major Esterhazy; that what
he communicated was an artillery regulation regarding siege pieces,--a
regulation which anybody can buy, which does, indeed, contain
interesting details regarding the firing of such pieces and something
about the firing of all other pieces, and which Major Esterhazy had
made use of in preparing a lecture on artillery to be delivered to
his regiment. And right here I ask permission to relate an incident.
M. Picquart sent for a certain Mulot, Major Esterhazy’s secretary,
presented to him a firing manual, and said: ‘This is the document,
is it not, that you copied?’ Mulot answered: ‘Not at all. I copied
extracts from a firing manual, but it was a much larger manual than
that, containing the rules for firing certain pieces.’ Whereupon M.
Picquart said to him: ‘Your recollection is not very exact. Go home and
think about the matter, and, when you have thought about it, write to
us. You belong to the reserves, and, if you need any permits, apply to
me, and I will see that you get them.’
“Now, gentlemen, I am coming to the end. What is left of the
scaffolding that has been constructed? Not much, in my opinion; and yet
on it rests the infamous accusation that the council of war acquitted
a guilty party in obedience to orders. Gentlemen, I have not a crystal
soul; I have a soldier’s soul, and it revolts against the infamies
heaped upon us. I say that it is criminal to try to take away from the
army its confidence in its chiefs. What do you think will become of
this army on the day of danger,--nearer, perhaps, than you think. What
do you think will be the conduct of the poor soldiers led by chiefs
of whom they have heard such things said? It is to butchery that they
would lead your sons, gentlemen of the jury. But M. Zola will have won
a new battle, he will write a new ‘Débâcle,’ he will spread the French
language throughout the universe, throughout Europe from whose map
France has been wiped.
“One word more. Much has been said of revision. Revision--and I shall
not be contradicted by my comrades--is to us a matter of absolute
indifference. We should have been glad, had Dreyfus been acquitted. It
would have proved that there was no traitor in the French army. But,
gentlemen, what the council of war of 1898 was not willing to admit was
that an innocent man should be put in Dreyfus’s place, whether Dreyfus
was guilty or not. I have done.”