With the opening of the session, Attorney-General Van Cassel began his
summing-up.
_Speech of Attorney-General Van Cassel._
“Gentlemen of the jury, a man well known in letters goes in search of
a militant newspaper, comes to an understanding with it, and publishes
an article which shows either irresponsibility or shamelessness. He
declares that a council of war has rendered a verdict in obedience to
orders. ‘Let them prosecute me in the assize court, if they dare.’
Well, here we are. But where are your proofs, those precise and
irrefutable proofs that the council of war has rendered a verdict in
obedience to orders? During the twelve sessions which you have just
passed through not once has this question, the only one before us, been
posited. But, though you have attempted no proof, you have shrunk from
no violence. How intolerable the situation in which you have placed
the generals whom you have brought to this bar! The attitude of the
insulters has been on a level with the insults. You have drawn upon
yourselves the eloquent reply of General de Boisdeffre, who said to
you: ‘My officers are brave people. They began by submitting without
reply to sustained attacks. If they have been drawn from their silence,
you have only yourselves to blame,--you and the odious provocations of
which you made them the object.’
“The experts in the Esterhazy case worked separately, and arrived by
different methods at identical conclusions. They had the originals
before them. The experts cited by the defence had examined only
doubtful copies,--doubtful as to their origin, doubtful as to their
authenticity. M. Paul Meyer, director of the Ecole des Chartes,
who advises his pupils to study nothing but originals, should have
followed his own teaching. I say nothing of the international experts
that gravitate around M. Bernard Lazare, undertaker of revision. They
are surrounded by too much money and too much mystery to warrant me
in dwelling on their testimony. I attach the same authority to the
declaration of M. Stock, who has declared here that not one, but
numerous secret documents were communicated to the council of war. As
M. Bernard Lazare’s publisher, he has too plain an interest in the
multiplication of documents.
“Alfred Dreyfus alone was in a position to procure the documents
concerning the national defence which are enumerated in the
_bordereau_. General de Pellieux and General Gonse are in a position to
know more about that than anybody else. After what they have told you,
it is impossible to doubt. But I shall say no more about the Dreyfus
case. It would be a violation of the authority of the thing judged.
“Dreyfus belongs to a rich and powerful family, which continues to
keenly feel the deep sorrow of having seen one of its members convicted
of high treason. This campaign has been carefully prepared. It began
in the press before ending in parliamentary incidents and judicial
proceedings.
“Never has the government varied in its declarations. General Billot
has always declared that Dreyfus was legally and justly condemned. The
government did not obstruct the investigation. General de Pellieux’s
examination was an open one, and was conducted freely. Major Ravary
acted with the same independence. The judges who acquitted Major
Esterhazy came to their decision in full liberty of conscience. In
short, the behavior of the government demonstrates its respect for law
and the dignity of justice.
“‘L’Aurore’ accuses it of being influenced by political considerations.
Only this morning that newspaper had the audacity to say that France is
given over to the sabre, that the republic is in danger. General Billot
has already replied to it from the tribune of the chamber. ‘Who dares,’
he asked, ‘to pretend that there is a single officer in the ranks of
the army who contemplates an attack on the republic? There has never
been found but one, and he was forced to take refuge in suicide.’ Such
is the legal attitude of the government, which I contrast with your
revolutionary method. You have done nothing here but open an audacious
discussion on the thing judged. But it is not permissible to relapse
into judicial anarchy. The legal method of revision was open to you.
Why did you not apply to the keeper of the seals?
“What do the ‘intellectual revisionists’ know of the trial of 1894,
that they can pretend that it was irregular? Nothing. The public has
no element of proof, so far as the Dreyfus case is concerned. All
cases of spying are decided behind closed doors. Twenty-seven accused
persons have appeared since 1885 before the police courts, charged with
this abominable crime; four before the councils of war; one before the
assize court. In every case closed doors, for reasons of a superior
order, have been declared. One of the accused was acquitted.
“M. Demange was the first to render homage to the perfect honesty of
the judges of Alfred Dreyfus. The accused appeared, surrounded by all
desirable guarantees. He was protected by his uniform itself. Before
the minister of war will consent to bring one of his officers to trial
for high treason, his guilt must be perfectly clear. So I ask yourself
on what grounds honorable men like M. Scheurer-Kestner and M. Trarieux
can take their stand, to maintain that an irregularity has been
committed. They must have the gift of double sight, which permits them
to look at once into the secret documents belonging to the minister of
war and into those belonging to the Dreyfus family.
“Colonel Picquart obeyed an unfortunate inspiration when he opened
the doors of the war department to his friend Leblois, who had no
business there, and showed him secret documents which he ought never to
have read. In vain does Colonel Picquart try to dispute this illicit
communication. You have heard here the respectful, but firm, denial of
his testimony, given by Adjutant Gribelin, who, General Gonse tells
you, is a model servant. I add that the mysterious telegrams signed
‘Speranza’ and ‘Blanche,’ addressed to Colonel Picquart at Tunis,
could have come only from his own acquaintances. The same signature,
‘Speranza,’ appears in letters sent to him in 1896 and opened at the
war department.
“Major Esterhazy has been the object of two judicial examinations.
They have resulted in nothing. If he appeared before the council of
war, it was on the formal order of General Saussier, who, although
Major Esterhazy’s innocence had been recognized, was desirous
of a public trial because of the notoriety that the matter had
gained. Contrary to the usual practice, only a part of the trial
took place behind closed doors. M. Mathieu Dreyfus was invited to
produce his proofs in public. He did not produce a single one. Nor
did M. Scheurer-Kestner, who also testified in public. Under these
circumstances, what could the representative of the government do?
Public prosecutor and accuser are not always synonymous terms. For
my part, I have many times abandoned accusations that were not
established. And do not claim either that the trial was one-sided. The
council of war listened to persevering and convinced accusers,--Colonel
Picquart and M. Leblois. The acquittal was regular, deliberate, legal,
pronounced unanimously by judges belonging to different branches of the
army, designated according to priority of service, and under no other
obligation than that of their honesty and their conscience.
“As for Major Esterhazy, the letters published, after they were
procured by indirect and censurable methods, and perhaps tampered with,
created a deplorable atmosphere about him. It is not fitting that I
should dwell upon that matter here, after the examination undergone
at this bar by a patient mute, who broke his silence only to cry his
suffering, while they tortured him with questions as if applying
red-hot irons to living flesh. The victim had been judiciously chosen
as a substitute for the condemned man of 1894.
“It is not true, as certain newspapers have declared, that after the
acquittal Major Esterhazy was the object of a manifestation on the part
of the members of the council of war. This is proved by the following
letter, which General de Luxer has just addressed to General Billot.
_M. le Ministre_:
Several newspapers have said that the members of the council of war,
after the session, surrounded Major Esterhazy, shook hands with him,
and congratulated him. I have the honor to report to you that no such
manifestation occurred. According to the provisions of the law, the
verdict was rendered in the absence of the accused, and was read to
him afterward by the clerk, before the assembled guard, in the absence
of the members of the council. The judges of the council of war have
all told me that they did not see Major Esterhazy afterward, either
in the court-room, or out of it, or in the street. Be good enough to
accept, etc.