The Attorney-General.--“I have but a single observation to
make,--namely, to recall my declaration of the opening day that the
law is absolutely opposed to any attempt at revision in the assize
court. I asked the court to exclude from the trial the Dreyfus file
and the Esterhazy file. I foresaw all that is taking place here. It is
because we have allowed ourselves to be drawn upon the ground which the
defence had chosen and prepared that all this has occurred. Under these
circumstances I have only to remain on the ground where I first placed
myself, and on that ground I call for an open debate, but only on that
ground.”
M. Labori.--“I do not ask the floor to plead. Nevertheless it
is fitting that the defence should say a word in answer to the
attorney-general, and I thank the court for allowing me for once to
take the floor.” [Murmurs of protest in the court-room.]
The Judge.--“For ten sessions this has been going on.”
M. Labori.--“What has been going on, and what is increasing, is the
unfitting manifestations which the court makes no effort to suppress.
The attorney-general seeks shelter behind the words that he uttered on
the opening day. He has seen nothing of what has been going on during
the last ten days, if he thinks that we are still at the point where
we were when he rose for the first time, on February 7, 1898. The
facts have taken it upon themselves to prove that, in presence of a
situation so serious as this, procedure and its subtleties are of no
avail. I said, when I rose the first time: ‘Do you imagine that you
can stop a torrent by placing yourself in the middle of it?’ You see
that this torrent flows on. But the attorney-general could not have
chosen a more inopportune moment for placing himself in opposition to
the full explanations that we desire. Was it the accused who threw into
the trial the incredible declarations that were heard here yesterday,
and that could not resist ten minutes’ examination? We have nothing
to do with them. Generals have come here every day to plead, not
only with the oratorical talent that some of them possess, but with
their authority, with their uniform, with their stripes, with their
decorations” ...
The Judge.--“I shall take the floor from you, if you go on in that
tone; it the last degree of impropriety.”
M. Labori.--“I do not accept the word ‘impropriety.’ There is nothing
improper in my words. I say that these generals have come here to
plead. Is that improper? I say that they have pleaded here not only
with their talent. Is that improper?”
The Judge.--“No.”
M. Labori.--“I say that they have pleaded also with all the authority
given them by the love of this country for its flag, which it wrongly
confounds with them, for the flag is to be confounded with nobody. The
flag is a symbol. [Cries of Enough! Enough!] Silence for those who do
not respect justice in default of respect for defence. Really, who is
it that is guilty of impropriety here, I ask?”
The Judge.--“The impropriety is in exciting the protests that you
excite.”
M. Labori.--“Pardon me, this trial has now risen to such a point
that such opinions as those which you have just uttered, _Monsieur
le Président_, have no weight with me, whatever my respect for your
functions. And you shall not stop me, except by depriving me of the
floor. It would not be the first time, and, if the trial goes on in
this way, I am afraid that it will not be the last. That said, I
resume my explanations at the point where I left off. I say that the
attorney-general could not have chosen more inopportune circumstances
to remind us of his words on the opening day. These generals have
brought into the trial, not facts, but assertions, which we are
forbidden, I do not say to contradict, but to discuss and examine.
This is not the moment to protest against the revision that we desire.
Ah! yes, in spite of all obstacles, by virtue of the forces that truth
and the sentiment of justice impart, we have been making this revision
here for the last ten days, and it is because we are making it so
successfully that by violent, morally violent, and illegal means they
are trying from day to day, by demolishing each stone of the edifice
that is rising in spite of everything, to make against us a sort of
counter-revision. Well, there shall be no counter-revision here, unless
we have the right to reply. The debate has now risen far above the
condemned man on Devil’s Island, who is interesting not because of
his suffering, for there are so many men who suffer, and in so many
different ways, that one more or less does not make much difference.
He is interesting only because he suffers in violation of law, by a
verdict rendered in the name of the people, in the name of the country.
The trial has risen far above Esterhazy, far above M. Zola and M.
Perrenx. It has risen above everybody. It is justice, liberty, and
right that are now in question, and it is in their name that I offer
_in abstracto_ the motion which I have just offered.
“You also, gentlemen of the court, have responsibilities here. Do
not answer our motion by equivocations. Do not say that I have asked
for the floor for an argument. It would not be true. Confront the
question as it is put. You are to tell us, gentlemen, if new forms of
justice are to be inaugurated in this country. Neglect the tumult of
an audience which does not know why it rages. Neglect the passions of
people who trustingly believe in assertions that cannot be examined,
and could not stand examination for a second. Do not forget that
perhaps we are at a turning-point in the history of this country; and
that you are about to render a decree the consequences of which no one
can measure.”
The court then rendered the following decree:
After listening to the accused and their counsel, and to the public
prosecutor, and after deliberating in conformity with the law;
Considering that, on the spontaneous demand of General de Pellieux,
the latter declared at yesterday’s session a fact relating to the
Dreyfus case, and that, in support of his declaration, he invoked the
testimony of General de Boisdeffre;
Considering that the latter, at today’s session, has confirmed the
declaration of General de Pellieux;
Considering that, in the terms of the decree of February 7, the court
has ordered that all incidents relating to the Dreyfus case should be
excluded from the trial, and that consequently every question relating
to these incidents must be excluded as of no utility and contrary to
the aforesaid decree;
Considering that consequently the presiding judge was right in
refusing the floor to the defence for the putting of any question
under this head, and in ordering that the trial should be proceeded
with;
Adopting, furthermore, the reasons indicated in the aforesaid decree;
Considering, as concerns Major Esterhazy, that the presiding judge,
after having summoned the witnesses to the bar, invited the counsel of
M. Zola to put to him such questions as he might deem useful, and that
the counsel refused to put any questions at that moment, and that the
presiding judge had to question him officially;
Considering, further, that the direction of the trial belongs
exclusively to the president of the assize court in conformity with
the law;
For these reasons,
The court declares that the presiding judge was right in refusing the
floor to the counsel of the accused for the putting of any question to
Generals de Pellieux and de Boisdeffre;
Declares that Major Esterhazy will be recalled to the bar, if there is
occasion;
Rejects consequently the motion of the defence, and declares that the
trial shall be proceeded with.
At this point M. Clemenceau inquired if General de Pellieux had
fulfilled his promise to obtain from the minister of war an
authorization of the production of the Uhlan letter. General de
Pellieux answered that the minister of war must have written to the
court in regard to it; but the court declared that nothing had been
received from General Billot.
Then M. Clemenceau asked that the court order a guard to protect Mme.
de Boulancy on her way to the court-room, she being in the building,
but fearing to traverse, unprotected, the distance of one hundred and
fifty feet between the point where she was and the court-room. The
request was denied.
Then Colonel Picquart was recalled to the stand.
M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy has had in his hands a document known as
‘the liberating document.’ It is directly connected with the Esterhazy
case, and is the document that was seen in a certain file concerning
which Colonel Henry testified. It has been declared that this file was
shut up in a closet on the 15th or 16th of December, 1894, and was not
taken out again until it was seen on the desk of Colonel Picquart in
the presence of M. Leblois. Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows
about that file?”
Colonel Picquart.--“Colonel Henry’s testimony was incorrect. The file
was taken from the closet in the interval, I have not to say for what
circumstances, or for what purpose. But Colonel Henry’s statement is
not correct.
“Another thing. General Gonse said that the document beginning: ‘That
scoundrel D----’ had been in the hands of several persons,--his own,
Major Henry’s, Adjutant Gribelin’s, and mine. Well, I say that it has
been in the hands of other persons. I need not enumerate them, but one
of the persons who had it in his possession for some time is Colonel du
Paty de Clam.
“I say further that, when this file was shut up in my closet from the
end of August to the beginning of November, 1896, I was not the only
one who could get it. There were at least two others who knew how to
open my closet,--Adjutant Gribelin and Major Lauth. Colonel Henry also
spoke of certain secret documents, extra-secret. I should violate my
professional duty, if I were to enumerate the contents of that file.
Until the minister of war shall relieve me from the obligation of
professional secrecy, I shall have nothing to say regarding this. But
I believe that Colonel Henry somewhat exaggerates the importance of
certain documents therein. Evidently they are not documents for the
public, but, considering the fact that the _bordereau_ and the dispatch
have been spoken of here, there are certainly other documents in the
file which could be spoken of. In fact, there are certain of them whose
authenticity it would be well to verify, one especially which arrived
at the moment when Major Esterhazy needed to be defended against the
charge that he was the author of the _bordereau_, and when it was
necessary to prove that the author of the _bordereau_ was someone else.
Well, it has been produced, it seems, for it was never shown to me;
but I have heard of it, and its origin has not been stated; probably
it fell from heaven. But, in view of the moment of its production, and
the language in which it is framed,--language absolutely improbable,--I
think that there is reason to consider it a forgery.”
M. Labori.--“The document of which Colonel Picquart speaks is the
document alluded to here yesterday?”
Colonel Picquart.--“It is the document of which General de Pellieux
spoke. If he had not spoken of it yesterday, I would not have spoken of
it today. It is a forgery.”
General Gonse was then recalled for confrontation with Colonel
Picquart. But he declared that he could do no more than repeat the
declaration already made by General de Boisdeffre.
Major Esterhazy was then called to the bar.
_Testimony of Major Esterhazy._
M. Labori.--“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer
me. Consequently, in conformity with the law, I ask him no question,
but I ask the court to ask him what he thinks of the writing of the
_bordereau_, and to call his attention to the fact that the question is
put by the court.”
The Judge.--“I repeat the question to Major Esterhazy. You are asked
what you think of the writing of the _bordereau_.”
Major Esterhazy.--“Although you do me the honor to convey to me this
question, _Monsieur le Président_, it is still the question of M.
Labori. Consequently I will not answer.”
M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, will you ask Major Esterhazy if
he has in his hands the letter that Captain Brault wrote to him in
1893 to ask him for his handwriting--either Captain Brault or a forger
signing the captain’s name?”
The Judge.--“Will you answer?”
Major Esterhazy.--“I will answer none of the questions put to me. That
is flat.”
M. Clemenceau.--“I ask permission to continue the experiment. And,
as the witness may at any time change his mind, I will ask all the
questions that I have to ask. The witness will answer or not. Will you
ask the witness how he entered the French army,--by way of St. Cyr, by
way of the Polytechnic, or otherwise?”
The Judge.--“You hear the question.”
Major Esterhazy.--“Always the same reply.”
M. Clemenceau.--“At what time was the witness connected with the
French information service? Has he not said that he was connected with
it twenty years ago? Did he not say that before the council of war?”
No answer.
M. Clemenceau.--“I will continue. Did the witness ever know a person
answering to the name of Mme. de Boulancy?”
The Judge.--“Will you answer this question?”
Major Esterhazy.--“None, _Monsieur le Président_.”
A few “Bravos” were heard in the court-room.
M. Clemenceau.--“I beg the court to permit all these manifestations
on the part of the public. If you will permit me, I will even join in
them, because I consider that the witness has adopted the only plan
open to him. Placing myself where he stands, I will applaud every time
that he refuses to answer the questions that I shall ask him. Does the
witness admit that he wrote a letter to Mme. de Boulancy containing
the following passage: ‘The Germans will put all these people [meaning
Frenchmen] in their right-place before long’?”
The Judge.--“Major Esterhazy has declared that he will not answer.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Pointing out that the witness has previously admitted
the authenticity of this letter, I continue. Does the witness admit
that he wrote a letter containing the following passage: ‘There is the
beautiful army of France; it is shameful. And if it were not a question
of position, I would leave tomorrow. I have written to Constantinople.
If they offer me a position that suits me, I will go there, but not
without first administering to all these scoundrels a pleasantry of my
own’?”
After waiting a moment and receiving no reply, M. Clemenceau continued:
“Are not the passages that I have just read contained in letters whose
authenticity the witness admitted to General de Pellieux? [Silence.]
“Did not the witness deny to General de Pellieux the authenticity of a
single letter, called the Uhlan letter, in which the passages that I
have just read do not occur?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Did not the witness admit that the following passage
occurred in a letter written by him to Mme. de Boulancy: ‘Our great
commanders, poltroons and ignoramuses, will go once more to fill the
German prisons’?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that the passage just read was
contained in a letter whose authenticity he did not deny to General de
Pellieux?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that he wrote to Mme. de
Boulancy a letter containing the following passage: ‘I am absolutely
at the mercy of this hussy, if I make the slightest mistake with her;
and it is a situation which is far from pleasant. I hate her, you may
believe, and I would give everything in the world to be today at Sfax,
and send for her to come there: one of my horse soldiers, with a gun
capable of going off by chance, would cure her forever.’” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that this letter was produced
before General de Pellieux, and that he did not deny its authenticity?”
[Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on. The major has told you that he will not answer.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Does the witness admit that all these letters
containing the insults to the army and its commanders which I have just
read were written after the war of 1870 and 1871?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“_Monsieur le Président_, I am going to read a letter
the authenticity of which the witness denies, and, after that, I will
ask him a question.”
M. Clemenceau then read the Uhlan letter, and followed it with this
question: “This letter having been seized at Mme. de Boulancy’s, does
the witness pretend that Mme. de Boulancy is a forger?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“In certain interviews it has been stated that Major
Esterhazy had declared that Mme. de Boulancy was either mad or a
forger. Does the witness maintain that declaration?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Has not the witness once stated that the Uhlan letter
could not have been written by him, since he writes ‘Uhlan’ in the
Hungarian fashion, while in the letter it is written as it is usually
written in France?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Does not the witness know that his argument on
that point has been met by the statement that, in a letter whose
authenticity cannot be denied, since it was seized at the law office of
M. Lortat-Jacob, there is mention of the Uhlan, and that the word is
spelled as in the letter to Mme. de Boulancy?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“What is the explanation of the word ‘crime’ contained
in a letter that I have read, and in which Major Esterhazy indicated
that perhaps he would be obliged to commit a crime? What crime had he
in mind? Did he mean, as certain newspapers have stated, that he would
be ready to kill himself?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“If that be his explanation, how can he admit the other
affirmation made to a witness, M. Autant, that Major Esterhazy was at
that moment a man who was ready to kill himself, when Major Esterhazy
declared before the council of war that he was not a man to kill
himself?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“You have no more questions?”
M. Clemenceau.--“Yes, _Monsieur le Président_. Does the witness admit
having written other letters to Mme. de Boulancy and recently two
telegrams?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“At first did not the witness deny all these letters?”
[Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“After the motion made before the court, did not
Major Esterhazy admit that the passages indicated in the motion were
correct, notably the following: (1) ‘General Saussier is a clown, whom
the Germans would not have in a circus;’ (2) ‘On reaching Lyons, the
Germans will throw away their guns, and keep only their bayonets, to
drive the Frenchmen before them’?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Concerning the first passage, did not Major Esterhazy
declare that he was simply reporting remarks made by German officers at
a dinner where French officers were present?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Concerning the second passage, has not the witness
declared in an interview that the phrase was his, but that it was his
estimate of the way in which the city of Lyons is defended? Concerning
the first passage, will Major Esterhazy explain to the court how it
happened that French officers were able to be present at a dinner where
foreign officers indulged in such remarks, and how it happens that
the French officers, and notably Major Esterhazy, did not protest?”
[Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“In the passages that I have just read Major Esterhazy
repeatedly indicates that he was exasperated; yet has not Major
Esterhazy received excellent testimonials from his superiors?”
[Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“On the eve of the appearance of Major Esterhazy before
the council of war, the chief of staff said in a testimonial that
he is ‘of the most distinguished superior officers, and of elevated
sentiments,--one who can aspire to the highest positions in the
hierarchy’; the brigadier-general, that M. Esterhazy ‘is distinguished,
remarkably endowed, has all the qualifications of a commander, and has
a future’; the general of division, that he is ‘a superior officer of
personal value.’ Now, will the court ask the witness if he was not
a little surprised when he heard these testimonials read before the
council of war?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Were not the causes of his surprise (1) that he has
been short of money, and, to use his own expression, had been to the
people whose trade it is to lend money; (2) that he speculated on the
stock exchange, as indicated by M. de Castro. [Silence.] I may go on,
_Monsieur le Président_?”
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Has not Colonel Picquart said that the witness was
short of money, and did he not give the names of officers who had given
him bad reports concerning Major Esterhazy? Was not the witness’s
acquaintance with General Guerrier another reason for his surprise?
The witness has declared that his premises were robbed; when were they
robbed?” [Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Before the council of war, the witness was a little
confused in his replies on this point. He was unable to explain
himself. Perhaps he would like to explain himself in the assize court?
[Silence.] Did the witness ever prefer a complaint on account of this
robbery?”
The Judge.--“Will you answer?”
Major Esterhazy.--“No, _Monsieur le Président_.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Was this robbery proved otherwise than by the
affirmations of Major Esterhazy? [Silence.] Did Major Esterhazy reply
to the council of war: ‘I supposed that it was M. Mathieu Dreyfus? I
would not have believed that it was an officer. When they told me that,
I was dumbfounded.’ Does the witness adhere to the reply? [Silence.]
If he adheres to it, how can he explain his answer that M. Mathieu
Dreyfus was guilty of this robbery in 1896, when at that time he could
not have known the name of M. Mathieu Dreyfus? [Silence.] How did the
witness learn that he was suspected of having written the _bordereau_?”
[Silence.]
The Judge.--“Go on.”