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.”
General Gonse.--“After the firing lessons.”
M. Labori.--“Pardon me; it says after the manœuvres; and that is very
interesting, for here is an officer going to the manœuvres, who can use
this document during the manœuvres, having not to restore it till after
the manœuvres. Then I ask General Gonse: Why is this document difficult
to procure, and why could the officer in question have it for a few
days only?”
General Gonse.--“Regarding that, you should ask an officer of the
third division,--the artillery division of the war department. I give
only an opinion. I believe that, when these documents exist only as
projects, the copies are numbered. They give perhaps ten to a regiment
of artillery; these ten copies must be restored intact after use of
them, so that, if they gave only ten, and there were thirty or forty
officers, no single officer could keep his copy long. But this is only
a supposition, because the distribution does not concern me. I know it
only by hearsay.”
M. Labori.--“But just now it was necessarily an artilleryman. I say, at
any rate, that it is necessarily a corps officer, for he would have a
manual only during the time of the manœuvres. Is that General Gonse’s
interpretation?”
General Gonse.--“Yes. But that does not prove that it is a regiment
officer. It must be an artillery officer, and not an officer of a
regiment of infantry, for this manual never goes to the infantry.”
The Judge.--“You said just now that it must be an artillery officer and
a licentiate.”
General Gonse.--“It was not I who said that; it was General de
Pellieux. But I corroborate him, because the enumeration of the
documents in the _bordereau_ concerns the artillery division. The
hydraulic check does not concern us at the staff. It is a technical
matter in the artillery domain. The matter of the _troupes de
couverture_ concerns at least three bureaus of the staff,--the first,
third, and fourth. The writer of the _bordereau_ then must have been an
officer initiated in the work of these three bureaus.”
The Judge.--“My inquiry concerned the words ‘and at the same time a
licentiate.’”
General Gonse.--“The licentiates remain two years with the staff,
passing six months in each of the four bureaus.”
General de Pellieux.--“The _bordereau_ says: ‘A certain number of these
documents were sent to the corps.’ An infantry officer would have said:
‘A certain number of these documents were sent to the artillery corps.’”
M. Clemenceau.--“Would an artillery officer at the firing lessons have
refused to lend his manual to a major of infantry?”
General Gonse.--“It is certain that it might have been done, because
there is no distrust of the officers of infantry; but, if I remember
rightly, the information obtained by Colonel Picquart from the
artillery officers was to the effect that Major Esterhazy paid very
little attention to what was going on on the firing grounds, and spent
his time in smoking cigarettes.”
M. Labori.--“Then what becomes of that extraordinary zeal which was
made so much of before the council of war, to explain Major Esterhazy’s
strong desire to go to the manœuvres at his own expense? Why was he so
zealous, if he wanted to do nothing but smoke cigarettes? If he had
asked an officer to lend him the manual, he would not have done so in
order to follow the firing, for it is our contention that he wanted it
in order to deliver it to a foreign power.”
Colonel Picquart.--“General Gonse said that the writer of the
_bordereau_ must have been a licentiate who had passed through the
first, third, and fourth bureaus. Well, this _bordereau_ has been
attributed to a person who had not reached the third bureau at the time
of the appearance of the _bordereau_, and who was then in the second
bureau, which relates to foreign armies. If, then, this person had had
anything to deliver, it would have been other things,--for instance,
how much we know about the status of foreign armies.”
A recess was then taken, and, when the court came in again, General de
Pellieux asked to be recalled.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” said he, “I have an observation to make
concerning what has just taken place. So far, we have kept strictly
within the bounds of legality. We have said nothing of the Dreyfus
case, and I do not wish to speak of it. But the defence has just read
publicly a passage from the report of Major d’Ormescheville, which was
made behind closed doors. I ask, then, to speak, not of the Dreyfus
case,--I shall not speak of it,--but I say, as Colonel Henry said:
‘They want the light; they shall have it.’ At the time of the Castelin
interpellation in 1896, a thing occurred which I desire to point out.
There came to the war department--and notice that I do not speak of the
Dreyfus trial--absolute proof of the guilt of Dreyfus. This proof I
have seen. There came to the war department a paper the origin of which
cannot be contested, and which contained these words: ‘There is going
to be an interpellation regarding the Dreyfus case. Never tell the
relations that we had with that Jew.’ Gentlemen, the note is signed. It
is not signed with a known name, but attached to it is a visiting-card,
and on the back of this card are a few words making an unimportant
rendezvous signed with the same name that is signed to the document,
and the visiting-card bears the name of the person. Well, gentlemen, a
revision of the trial has been sought by indirect methods. I bring you
this fact. I make the declaration on my honor, and I appeal to General
de Boisdeffre in support of my testimony.”
M. Labori.--“I ask the floor for a moment, not to answer General de
Pellieux, but to point out immediately the necessary consequence of his
words, so far as this case is concerned. I ask the floor, _Monsieur le
Président_, to say two words.”
The Judge.--“Two words only?”