(1) A note on the hydraulic check;
(2) A note on the _troupes de couverture_;
(3) A note on the firing manual;
(4) A note relating to Madagascar.
“Well, these are only notes. Anyone who had had anything serious to
furnish, and not simply what he had picked up in conversation, or seen
in passing, would have said: ‘I send you a copy of such and such a
document.’ When one wishes to give value to his merchandise, he points
out its origin. Now, a note indicates simply a personal observation, or
perhaps a little copy of something or other drawn from memory, or from
the newspapers, or from some other source. I note also this,--that,
in the case of the only authentic document, which is not of capital
importance, the firing manual, the author of the _bordereau_ said:
‘Project of a firing manual,’ adding: ‘This last document is extremely
difficult to procure,’ thus showing the difficulty that he had in
procuring it. Now, could Major Esterhazy have obtained these points of
information?”
The Judge.--“That is the question.”
Colonel Picquart.--“I say: ‘Yes.’ When the famous dispatch brought
Major Esterhazy’s name to my attention, I, in search of information,
applied first to a person belonging to his regiment, who said to me:
‘This man has singular ways. He has been twice to the artillery firing
schools, and he asked permission to go a third time at his own expense.’
I know that he explains these frequent visits by saying that he had a
country house not far from the Châlons camp. But I would like to know
whether on each occasion he went to the Châlons camp. The last time,
yes; but the other times I do not think that he did. I cannot assert
it,--because I never assert anything of which I am not sure,--but it
seems to me that one of the firing schools was at Mans.
“Another thing. An agent informed us that a major wearing decorations,
and about fifty years old, was furnishing documents to a foreign power,
especially documents concerning artillery and firing. This points
to the conclusion that Esterhazy could give information concerning
artillery.
“A third thing. The member of Esterhazy’s regiment to whom I applied
told me that Esterhazy had asked him whether he knew anything about the
mobilization of artillery. Why did he desire to know that? Consequently
I believe that Esterhazy could furnish a personal note as to what he
had seen of the hydraulic check and the modifications in artillery
formations. The newspapers have said that this matter of a modification
in artillery formation was the subject of a legislative bill, and was
known, before its introduction, to not a few senators, deputies, and
journalists. Now, Esterhazy knew not a few deputies, and was a frequent
visitor at newspaper offices.
“Concerning the statement of the _bordereau_, in relation to the
_troupes de couverture_, that some modifications will be made by the
new plan, I maintain that this expression evidently came from someone
not connected with the department, and, if desired, I will go into
detail on that matter, but behind closed doors.
“Now I pass to the note concerning Madagascar. It has been said that
it could not have been known at the beginning of 1894 that there would
be a Madagascar expedition. In the first place, this is simply a note
relating to Madagascar. It has nothing at all to do with a project for
the participation of land forces in a Madagascar expedition. It may
have been copied from a geographical document. There is nothing to
indicate that it was of a military character. If it should be said that
it must have been of a military character, I would answer that, since
the first Madagascar expedition, there has been every year a question
of sending somebody there; and I have received letters from many of
my comrades, who, knowing that I had served in the colonies, asked me
if I could not give them some information, in view of the widespread
report that there was to be a Madagascar expedition. I mention this
to show that in the beginning of 1894 there was already much talk
about Madagascar, though it was not then known that there would be an
expedition in which the land forces would take part.
“Now as to this passage from the _bordereau_:
(5) The project of the manual of artillery campaign practice. This
last document is very difficult to procure. I was able to have it at
my disposal for a few days only. The minister of war sent a definite
number to the corps, and for these the corps are responsible. Each
officer must return his copy after the manœuvres.
“Are those the words of an artillery officer connected with the war
department? ‘The minister of war has sent a definite number to the
corps.’ Why does he talk of the corps? That seems to me to indicate an
officer not connected with the department.
“Now I must speak of two very serious matters in the _bordereau_.
It contains this phrase: ‘Unless you wish me to have it copied _in
extenso_.’ Now, one who wishes to have a document copied _in extenso_
must have someone at his disposition to make the copy. The writer does
not say: ‘Unless I copy for you,’ but ‘Unless you wish me to have it
copied.’ When my attention was called to Esterhazy, I said to myself:
How, in 1894, could he have had at his disposition secretaries, persons
who could copy? The person to whom I applied for information said to
me: ‘Esterhazy has always had documents copied for him at home by
secretaries, and he is even now having some copied.’ Furthermore,
this party said: ‘Esterhazy in 1894 was a major,’--that is, he had a
secretary under him. The information that Esterhazy was then a major
astonished me, for the _bordereau_ says: ‘I am about to start for
the manœuvres,’ and majors generally do not take part in the spring
manœuvres. But, on consulting the reports of the 74th of the line, I
found there the statement that Major Esterhazy will take part in the
manœuvres. Thus I found all the evidence in harmony.
“General de Pellieux spoke yesterday of a secretary named Mulot whom I
had questioned. It is perfectly true, and General de Pellieux got the
information from me. I ask the jurors to remember the letters written
to me by General Gonse, and the testimony given here by General Gonse
on February 9. General Gonse, in his letter, told me not to continue
with the experts, but to try to find out how the documents were
obtained and copied. In his testimony General Gonse said that it was
necessary at that moment for me to question the artillery officers with
whom Major Esterhazy might have been at the manœuvres and the firing
school, and find out what they perhaps had copied. Well, gentlemen, I
am astonished that I am now reproached at having sent for Mulot, who
was one of the two secretaries employed by Esterhazy. I thought that,
if I could be reproached with anything, it was with having questioned
only him; and I will tell you why. I had been advised to question the
sub-officers, but very discreetly, so that the matter would not be
noised abroad. Well, the difficulties that I met convinced me that
it was impossible to get this information without asking for it. So
I sent for Mulot, and said to him: ‘There have been indiscretions in
the press. The minister desires to know if any documents have been
copied in the offices that should not have been.’ He answered: ‘I was
the secretary of Major Esterhazy, and copied such and such documents,’
which he enumerated. I could not press him without putting him on
the track that I was following. He told me that Esterhazy delivered
many lectures, and that he had to copy for him passages from books.
I remember only one thing. He spoke to me of a manual. I believe
that I showed him the manual of artillery practice, and asked him if
that was it. He said: ‘No.’ Then I allowed him to go, and I did not
follow up the matter, because it was not possible to do so without
compromising Esterhazy and giving rise to rumors. But I am astonished
that under these circumstances, it being known that I had questioned
Mulot unsuccessfully, Mulot should have been the only one cited before
the council of war. I am astonished that they did not summon the other
secretaries whom Esterhazy had employed, and especially the secretary
that he employed in the spring of 1896 to copy sundry documents for
him. One fact is patent,--that at that time the colonel of the 74th
gave to Major Esterhazy a confidential document. Its delivery is proved
either by a receipt or by a note in that report. Well, at that time
Major Esterhazy was employing someone to copy documents or plans for
him at home. It would have been interesting to know whether he employed
some one to copy the document that his colonel gave him.
“There is another thing, which has deeply saddened me. I hardly think
it was General de Pellieux’s intention, but it seems to me that he
insinuated yesterday that it was my desire to engage in a corrupt
conspiracy against this man. Possibly I spoke to the general of his
military situation. Possibly, on the other hand, he first spoke to me
of it. But I cannot suffer such a charge to be made against me. There
had never been any mention of Mulot’s deposition. I had seen him in the
witnesses’ room, but I simply said ‘Good day’ to him, adding: ‘You did
not think that you would come here, did you?’ And it was only yesterday
that I learned through General de Pellieux’s testimony what was thought
of me in the matter.”
General de Pellieux, recalled, declared that he could answer
concerning two points only.
“I said yesterday,” he testified, “that the writer of the _bordereau_
was an officer, an officer in the war department, and a licentiate. I
said that he was a licentiate, because in the war offices the officers
are somewhat confined by their services, and an officer in one bureau
would find difficulty in furnishing information from another bureau,
whereas a licentiate goes from one bureau to another, and consequently
is in a position to furnish information from many. It is true that
Major Esterhazy was at the manœuvres and at the firing schools, but
the note on Madagascar, since it was not until August that the matter
was elaborated in the war department, could not have been furnished
by Esterhazy, because at that time he had been to the firing schools
and the manœuvres, and did not go again after August 16, while all
the licentiates were at the manœuvres until the end of August. I care
nothing for the importance of the documents enumerated; what I wish
to prove is that they were not furnished by Esterhazy. One word more.
Colonel Picquart says that Mulot’s deposition was made behind closed
doors. True, but the investigation was not behind closed doors, and in
the investigation he made the declaration that I spoke of yesterday. He
made it in presence of Major Ravary, and Major Ravary’s report was not
read behind closed doors. Send for Mulot; he will corroborate me.”
M. Labori.--“We shall be glad to send for any witnesses that are
desired. We wish to do nothing to increase the darkness. I ask that
each of the documents be examined individually. Let Colonel Picquart
give his explanations, and let such of them as may be contested be
discussed, one by one.”
General Gonse then came to the stand.
“The documents enumerated in the _bordereau_ are, first, the note on
cannon 120, and the way in which its hydraulic check works. Well, the
piece 120 is a piece which at the time of which we speak was still
new. Its check was new. Knowledge of it was confidential and extremely
technical. I am not acquainted with the check, and I never saw the
piece fired. It is fired only under special conditions. It may be that
infantry officers have seen it fired, but only from a distance, and
certainly they are not in a position to furnish any serious information
regarding it, which indicates that this note is a technical note that
could have come only from an artillery officer.”
The Judge.--“What is the second point in the _bordereau_?”
General Gonse.--“The _troupes de couverture_. There is nothing
confidential here. These are troops that go to the frontier when war
is declared, to cover the mobilization of a certain region and to
prevent incursions of the enemy. They come from points not far from the
frontier, either on foot or by rail. Well, in the month of April, or
early in 1894, the staff reconstituted the plans for the transportation
of the _troupes de couverture_. These new plans could not have been
known outside of the staff. At this time was made also a plan for the
general concentration of the army. But that plan it took a long time to
finish, and the plan regarding the _troupes de couverture_ went into
force in the spring, while the plan of concentration was not completed
and put in force until the end of 1894, or the beginning of 1895.
Meantime there were some modifications, some changes of garrison among
the _troupes de couverture_, some modifications in the organization of
artillery; consequently the _bordereau_ states the truth when it adds
to the note concerning the _troupes de couverture_ that there have been
some modifications in the plan. Only an officer of the general staff
could have known these modifications and furnished the note regarding
them. No officer of troops, not even an officer of a division staff,
could have given this information.
“It is certain that anybody may make notes about Madagascar, but in
1894 a note on Madagascar was made, destined for the minister of
war,--a secret note indicating measures to be taken, measures that
concerned the expedition, a whole series of secret and confidential
matters. When the _bordereau_ announced this note, we were extremely
surprised. It did not occur to anyone that the reference might be to a
note taken from a newspaper or magazine. As to the firing manual, we
never give the manual of artillery practice to infantry regiments; so
it seems, too, that only an artillery officer could have furnished that.
“Colonel Picquart said just now that I prescribed the course that he
should follow in his investigations, telling him to question artillery
officers, which he did. But he fails to say that the result was
negative. He went to an artillery regiment in garrison at Versailles,
and questioned the officers. But the information given him was
negative. Colonel Picquart told me so himself.”
Colonel Picquart.--“I questioned an artillery officer of a regiment in
garrison at Versailles, having previously obtained the authorization of
the colonel; but I did not go farther for the same reasons that kept me
from further questioning the secretary, as I have already stated. Now
I come to the question of the _bordereau_. Dates must not be confused.
There were manœuvres in the autumn of 1894, but the _bordereau_ was
written in April. What struck me were the words: ‘I am about to start
for the manœuvres.’ It was not the autumn manœuvres that were then
approaching.”
General de Pellieux.--“One word. The _bordereau_ was not written in
April. I appeal to General Gonse.”
M. Labori.--“It has always been said at the war department that it was
written in April.”
General de Pellieux.--“Not at all.”
M. Labori.--“This is an interesting point. Will you ask whichever of
these gentlemen it is who knows, at what date the _bordereau_ was
written, and at what date it was seized; and, when I say seized, I mean
at what date it fell into the hands of the minister?”
General Gonse.--“It reached the department toward the end of September,
1894.”