The proceedings opened with an application for the floor from Colonel
Picquart, who desired to vindicate himself against aspersions cast
upon him by witnesses and by the newspapers. Referring first to a
statement of “Le Petit Journal” that he was a divorced husband, and was
having his children brought up in Germany, he declared that he was not
married, that he had never been, that he had no children, and that, if
he had any, he would not have them brought up in Germany. Referring
next to the statement of General de Pellieux that he, Colonel Picquart,
had endeavored to stimulate the testimony of Mulot by promising him
certain favors, he said that General de Pellieux knew him only through
the three interviews that they had had on three afternoons, and that he
would like some military commander who knew him better to be called to
testify regarding his character. “I will cite you,” said he, “one man
whose past is glorious, who has shed his blood on many battle-fields,
a man who has been mingled with our victories and our sorrows, a man
who certainly cannot be suspected of undue indulgence toward his
subordinates,--I mean General de Galiffet. I am certain that, if
General de Galiffet were called to this bar, he would say what he said
before the council of investigation, where he did not fear to shake
hands with me after saying what he thought of me. I ask that he may
come here to say what he thinks of me. I do not know the proper means
to employ; but I desire it.”
M. Labori sustained the demand of Colonel Picquart that General de
Galiffet be called, but the court ruled that his testimony would be
useless.
In answer to questions put by M. Labori, Colonel Picquart testified
that, while he was at the head of the bureau of information, one
Marchand was connected with that service, who was also an editor of
“L’Eclair,” a “hold-over” from the time of Colonel Sandherr, and that,
at the time of certain publications in “L’Eclair,” M. Marchand was
questioned about them, whereupon he denied being concerned in the
indiscretions, and endeavored, but unsuccessfully, to find out who had
given the documents to “L’Eclair.”
M. Labori.--“Did not General de Pellieux intervene several times, of
his own accord, in the course of Colonel Picquart’s testimony before
the council of war?”
Colonel Picquart.--“Please put that question to General de Pellieux.”
Thus summoned, General de Pellieux advanced to the bar, apologizing for
his appearance in civil costume, declaring that he had supposed his
part in the affair was ended. Instead of answering the question, he
spoke as follows:
“The words uttered yesterday by the attorney-general dictate my duty.
I absolutely refuse to answer any question of the defence not directly
connected with the Zola case. Now I have a word to add. In presence
of Colonel Picquart, I said at a previous session that everything in
this case was strange, but what I find still more strange--and I say it
to his face--is the attitude of a Monsieur who still wears the French
uniform, and who comes to this bar to accuse three generals of having
committed a forgery or made use of a forgery.”
Colonel Picquart.--“In declaring yesterday that in my eyes the document
of which General de Pellieux had spoken was a forgery, I insist that
I had not the least intention of casting suspicion upon the good
faith of my superiors. There are forgeries so perfect that they have
the appearance of a genuine document. For instance, there were the
Norton documents, I believe, which persons high in place thought to be
genuine. My thought should be interpreted from this point of view, and
I object to any other interpretation.”
M. Labori desired to say a few words regarding the incident, but the
court was opposed. “All this,” said the judge, “has nothing to do” ...