After a renewed demand on the part of the defence for the production
of the original of the _bordereau_, and a refusal of the court
to order its production, M. Paul Moriaud again took the stand to
testify concerning the Uhlan letter. In this letter he pointed out
various peculiarities tending to identify M. Esterhazy as the writer,
especially the _x_ form given to the letter _n_, giving the word
“Uhlan” the appearance of “Uhlax,”--a peculiarity which had been
pointed out in the _bordereau_ a year previously by an expert to whom
M. Esterhazy’s writing was unknown.
M. Moriaud was confronted with M. Varinard, who persisted that the
Uhlan letter is a forgery, though saying that he could not give his
reasons without having the original before him. The defence then asked
for the production of the letter.
M. Clemenceau.--“Does not General de Pellieux think that it is of
interest to the honor of the army to know whether a French officer
wrote such a letter?”
General de Pellieux [advancing to the bar].--“Of the highest interest.
On this point I agree with the defence, and there is not a single
officer who does not share my sentiment. Major Esterhazy’s letters were
written in 1882. I myself ask for their production.”
It was agreed that the letter should be produced the following day, and
publicly examined by experts. Before the closing of the incident M.
Clemenceau asked General de Pellieux whether any alterations to which
the letter had been subjected must not have occurred while it was in
Mme. de Boulancy’s possession.
General de Pellieux.--“Surely; it was placed under seal by me.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Under open seal (by sealing a thread passed through
the corner of the document). Does not that sort of seal leave the
document uncovered?”
Testimony was then given by M. Giry, professor in the Ecole des
Chartes, and by Dr. Hericourt, editor of the “Revue Scientifique,” to
the effect that the similarity between the writing of the _bordereau_
and that of Major Esterhazy amounts to identity, after which Colonel
Picquart was called to the stand.
M. Labori.--“Yesterday General de Pellieux declared that Major
Esterhazy could not have procured in 1894 the documents enumerated in
the _bordereau_. What has Colonel Picquart to say in answer to that?”
Colonel Picquart.--“I should not have approached this question, if it
had not been brought up here yesterday; but now my duty to tell the
truth obliges me to give my opinions in regard to this _bordereau_. I
beg that my words may not be misinterpreted. Some things that I shall
say perhaps will contradict what General de Pellieux has said, but I
believe it my duty to say what I think. Permit me to view this question
of the _bordereau_ in a general way. I am accustomed to deal with these
questions, having been occupied with them on other staffs, prior to my
service of a year and a half as chief of the bureau of information.
Well, the _bordereau_ enumerates documents of much less importance, in
my opinion, than that which has been attributed to them. I note in the
first place this passage: