Resuming his argument at the point at which he had dropped it the day
before, M. Labori continued as follows:
“Let us go back to the autumn of 1894. Dreyfus, who was then Captain
Dreyfus, was arrested on October 14, 1894, but neither the public or
his family, Mme. Dreyfus excepted, knew of his arrest. On October
29 the news leaked out in a rather indefinite way, through ‘La
Libre Parole,’ and on November 1 a more exact account was given in
‘L’Eclair.’ I beg you, gentlemen, to note that the two newspapers
which alone were well informed at the beginning of this case are the
two newspapers that have carried on the most violent and most unjust
campaign in the years that have since elapsed. ‘L’Eclair’ having given
a more precise account, ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 1 published a
very short article, of which I shall read to you but an extract.
“Is it true that recently a very important arrest has been made by
order of the military authority? Is the individual arrested accused
of spying? If the news is true, why does the military authority
maintain a silence so absolute? A reply is necessary.” Such was
the question that we asked on Monday, and the minister of war has
carefully refrained from replying. We had been notified of the arrest
on Sunday, ...
“At once we may ask by whom ‘La Libre Parole’ had been notified.
I questioned General Mercier to find out to whom this indiscretion
should be attributed, and whether any inquiry was made. He answered
that he knew nothing about it, hinting that he attributed it to the
Dreyfus family That theory cannot be accepted. The Dreyfus family knew
nothing about the matter. Major du Paty de Clam, employing threats
toward Mme. Dreyfus, had forbidden her to speak; and, supposing that
she had spoken, you can well imagine that she would not have carried
her secrets to ‘La Libre Parole.’ Consequently, here at the beginning
we find the hand of some one who is in relations both with the
newspapers of which I speak and with the war offices. Who is he? Is he
a superior officer or a subordinate? I do not know, but the relation is
indisputable.
We had been notified of the arrest on Sunday, but, in view of the
gravity of the charge, and the name and position of the guilty party,
we desired to await the result of the examination. Today these reasons
do not hold. Here, in fact, is what our _confrère_, “L’Eclair.” says
concerning our questions: “Several newspapers have published a note
of a few lines, asking if there had been an important arrest for a
crime of high treason. The arrest has been kept secret. The facts,
unhappily, are exact, and much more serious than the question led us
to believe. An officer, not however, a superior officer, is at this
moment in prison at Cherche-Midi; he has committed the most abominable
crime that an officer can commit. He has betrayed his country, and
for venal motives. The examination, which was conducted in secret, is
finished, and the proof materially established.”
“This is an inaccuracy, perhaps a falsehood. Certainly it was the
starting-point of all the stories, each more false than the other,
which from that moment began to fill the columns of the newspapers,
finding no contradiction and spreading error through the public opinion
of the entire country. If I did not wish to save your time, gentlemen,
I could read you extracts from a thousand newspapers of all parties,
affirming most energetically that Dreyfus had relations with German
and Italian spies which had been materially proved; that he had made
suspicious journeys to Belgium or Alsace, in the course of which he
was detected in the act of spying; that he broke open a vault in the
war department, and took therefrom secrets of the most vital interest
to the national defence; that he delivered important documents to the
enemy; and that he had numerous civil accomplices.
“It must be said that the mystery which surrounded the arrest of
Captain Dreyfus opened the way for all these lies, which served as a
foundation for public opinion. On October 13 Dreyfus was summoned to
the war department, and there invited to appear, in civil dress, on
October 15. You understand why. He was to be arrested. The arrest had
already been decided upon, and it was not desirable that he should be
taken in uniform to Cherche-Midi between policemen. That would have
aroused public opinion, and the policy of mystery had already been
resolved upon.
“On the morning of October 15 Dreyfus appeared at the war department.
There he was arrested by Major du Paty de Clam, after an examination
which I shall refer to again hereafter. Then a search was made.
Absolute silence was imposed upon Mme. Dreyfus by reference to the Iron
Mask and assertions that her husband’s life depended upon it. This
silence was maintained for a fortnight. Meanwhile what was happening
at the prison of Cherche-Midi? I had hoped that a man who could speak
to you with authority upon this point would testify here under oath; I
mean Major Forzinetti. He was not allowed to testify, but, thank God!
he has published in ‘Le Figaro’ over his own signature a story with
which undoubtedly you are not familiar, but with which you must be made
familiar, for it is nothing else than his deposition. I am going to
read it to you. I am sure that he is now in this court-room. If it does
not represent his thought at every point, if it is not what he would
have declared under oath, he will contradict me. Here is his story:
On October 14. 1894, I received a secret enclosure from the minister
of war. It made known to me that on the next day, the 15th, at 7
o’clock in the morning, a superior officer would make his appearance
at the prison to convey to me a confidential communication. On the
morning of the 15th....
“Note this, gentlemen. You will see the value of it in my subsequent
discussion. We are at the morning of the 15th. Though Captain Dreyfus,
who was notified on the 13th to appear on the 15th, had not yet been
examined, and was as yet only an object of suspicion, already they were
preparing for him a prison-cell.
On the morning of the 15th Lieutenant-Colonel d’Aboville appeared in
uniform, and handed me a document bearing date of the 14th, which
informed me that Captain Dreyfus, of the 14th regiment of artillery,
and licentiate at the staff, would be entered in the jail-book in the
morning as accused of the crime of high treason, and that I would
be held personally responsible for his person. Colonel d’Aboville
asked me to give my word of honor that I would execute literally the
orders from the department that he was about to communicate to me in
writing and verbally. One of these communications ordered me to keep
the prisoner in the most absolute secrecy, and to see that he had
neither knife, or paper, or pen, or ink, or pencil. He was also to be
treated like ordinary prisoners: but this order was cancelled, when I
pointed out that it was irregular. The colonel ordered me to take such
precautions as I might deem necessary to prevent the incarceration
from becoming known, either in the prison or out of it. He asked me
to show him the rooms set apart for officers, and designated that
which Captain Dreyfus was to occupy. He cautioned me against the
probable steps that the “high Jewry” would take as soon as it should
become aware of the incarceration. I informed nobody, and no such step
was taken in my neighborhood. I add that, throughout the prisoner’s
detention, I never remained a moment in his room except in the company
of the principal police agent, who alone had the key.
Toward noon Captain Dreyfus, in civil dress, arrived in a cab,
accompanied by Major Henry and a police agent. This superior officer
handed me the order for the entry of his name on the jail-book--an
order signed by the minister of war himself, and bearing date of the
14th, which proves that the arrest was ordered before the captain
had been questioned. This shows also that the imprisonment was
effected without the knowledge of the military governor of Paris, who
was notified of it by a superior officer of the staff sent for the
purpose, I having been forbidden to notify him myself. The principal
police agent of the prison (to whom I had given instructions), after
having caused the name of Dreyfus to be inscribed on the register
without anything to indicate who he was, escorted the captain to the
room designated for him. From that time he was buried there alive. No
one was allowed to see him, and his door was never opened except in my
presence. A few moments after he had been placed in his room I went
to see him. He was in a state of tremendous excitement. He seemed a
veritable madman, with bloodshot eyes. He had upset everything in his
room. I succeeded in quieting him, but not without difficulty. I had
an intuition that this officer was innocent. He begged me to give him
writing materials, or to write myself to the minister of war, asking
a hearing for him. He told me the phases of his arrest, which were
neither dignified or military.
Between the 18th and 24th of October Major du Paty de Clam came to
question him, equipped with a special permit from the minister of
war. Before seeing Dreyfus, he asked me if he could not enter his
cell noiselessly, carrying a lamp of sufficient power to enable him
to throw a flood of light upon the captain’s face, whom he wished to
surprise in such a way as to throw him off his guard. I answered that
it was not possible. He submitted him to two examinations, and each
time dictated to him parts of phrases from the incriminating document,
with a view of establishing a comparison of handwritings.
“I beg you to remember these facts, which are the less disputable since
the file contains an official letter written at that time by Major
Forzinetti, in which he tells his superiors of the terrible agitation
of the prisoner,--an agitation bordering on mental alienation.
During this time Captain Dreyfus’s excitement continued to be very
great. From the corridor one could hear him groaning and crying,
speaking in a loud voice, and protesting his innocence. He threw
himself against the furniture and against the walls, and seemed
unconscious of the injuries that he was inflicting upon himself.
He had not a moment’s rest, and, when, exhausted by suffering and
fatigue, he threw himself upon the bed in his clothing, his sleep was
haunted by horrible nightmares. He gave such starts that he sometimes
fell out of bed. During these nine days of real agony he took nothing
but _bouillon_ and sweetened wine, refusing all other nourishment.
On the morning of the 24th his mental condition, bordering
on madness, seemed to me so serious that, anxious to cover my
responsibility, I informed the minister of it, as well as the governor
of Paris. In the afternoon, in answer to a summons, I went to General
de Boisdeffre, whom I followed to the minister of war. The general
having asked my opinion, I answered without hesitation: “They are on a
wrong track. This officer is not guilty.” Such was my conviction, and
it has been only strengthened since. Entering the minister’s office
alone, the general came out again a few moments later, apparently very
much annoyed, to say to me; “The minister is just starting for his
niece’s wedding, and gives me _carte blanche_. Try to manage Dreyfus
for me until his return. Then he will see to the matter.” I was led to
think that General de Boisdeffre had not been aware of the arrest, or
did not approve it. He ordered me to have the captain secretly visited
by the prison physician, who prescribed quieting potions and continual
watch.
Starting from the 27th, Major du Paty de Clam came almost daily to
submit him to new examinations and comparisons of handwriting, the
sole purpose of which was to obtain a confession, which Dreyfus never
would make. Up to the day when this unfortunate was handed over
to the reporter of the council of war, he knew nothing more than
that he was accused of the crime of high treason. The examination
was long and detailed, and, while it was in progress, Dreyfus had
so little expectation that he would be put on trial, and still
less that he would be convicted, that he said several times: “What
compensation shall I ask? I will apply for the cross, and give my
resignation. I told Major du Paty that I would do so, and he has
embodied the statement in his report to the minister. He could find
no proof against me,--for there was none,--any more than could
the reporter-magistrate, who confines himself to inferences and
suppositions, without making any precise assertions.”
A few moments before appearing before his judges, he said: “I hope
that my martyrdom is nearing its end, and that I shall soon be in the
arms of my family.” Unfortunately it was to be otherwise. After the
verdict, Dreyfus was taken back to his room, where I awaited him. At
sight of me he cried out, sobbing: “My only crime is that I was born
a Jew. To this point has my life of labor led me. Why did I enter the
war school? Why did I not hand in my resignation, as my family so
desired me to do?” Such was his despair that, fearing a fatal ending,
I had to redouble my vigilance. The next day his counsel came to see
him. M. Demange, entering his room, approached him with open arms,
and, in tears, said to him, as he pressed him to his breast: “My
child, your condemnation is the greatest infamy of the century.” I was
completely upset.
From that day Dreyfus, who all this time had been without news from
his family,--for so far he had not been allowed to write to them,--was
authorized to correspond with them under the eye of the commissioner
of the government, to whom all letters sent or received were
delivered. I witnessed the only two authorized interviews that he had
with his wife and his mother-in-law. They were very touching.
As soon as the appeal was taken, Major du Paty came again, with a
special permit from the minister for free communication with Dreyfus.
After making inquiries concerning the state of mind of the condemned
man, he went to him, telling the principal agent to remain within call
in case of need. In this last interview, as appears from a letter
written immediately by Dreyfus to the minister of war, Major du Paty
endeavored to obtain a confession of guilt, or, at least, a confession
of an impudent act of bribery. Dreyfus answered that he had never
bribed anyone,--that he was innocent.
On January 4, 1895, I was relieved of my heavy responsibility.
After shaking hands with Captain Dreyfus, I gave him over to the
_gendarmes_, who took him, handcuffed, to the military school,
where, proclaiming his innocence, he underwent his degradation,--a
torture more terrible than death,--and was then sent into exile.
My mission was an extremely sad and painful one, having lived on
terms of intimacy with this unfortunate for three months, my formal
orders being to be present at all his meals and watch him narrowly,
in order that no written communication from without might reach him,
hidden in his food. During all the long years that, by a choice which
has honored me, I have been at the head of various penitentiary
establishments, I have had much experience with prisoners, and I do
not fear to declare openly that a terrible error has been committed. I
have never considered Captain Dreyfus as a traitor to his country, to
his uniform. My immediate superiors knew my opinion from the first. I
declared it in presence of high official and political personages, as
well as before numerous officers of all grades, journalists, and men
of letters. Moreover, the government knew my opinion, for, on the eve
of the degradation, the head of a bureau in the interior department
came to me, sent by his chief, M. Dupuy, to ask me for information
concerning Dreyfus. I answered to the same effect. This official must
have repeated it to his superiors. Now, I declare that up to November
5 last I had never received from any of my superiors any order or hint
to keep silent, and that I have steadily proclaimed the innocence of
Dreyfus, who is the victim either of one of those fatalities which are
inexplicable and impenetrable, or else of an unfathomable conspiracy,
deliberately concocted.
“What I desired to make known to you, gentlemen, was not only the
personal impression of Major Forzinetti,--who, since this campaign
entered upon its acute stage, has been relieved of his position,
but who, until then, had held it, though his superiors knew his
opinion,--but also the singular, bizarre, and mysterious processes to
which they resorted during this examination.
“A secret examination, a romantic examination, followed by closed
doors, closed doors declared under circumstances which I am going to
point out to you by showing you how M. Demange was interrupted during
the public hearing, doors closed in spite of the protests of the press,
which was of one voice in demanding publicity. Picture to yourselves
now the falsehoods that the press circulated, the mystery that hovered
over the affair, the semi-revelations that, from one direction and
another, reveal this prison in the Rue de Cherche-Midi as one of
those fantastic prisons in which go on I know not what frightful and
mysterious things. People necessarily came to the conclusion that
Dreyfus had been caught in direct relations with an ambassador, or
with an ambassador’s secretary, or a military _attaché_. This was the
starting-point of the convictions against which now all argument is
powerless, because, from the first, thanks to all these lies, there
has been effected in many sincere minds one of those crystallizations
which have the character of permanency. To justify so much mystery
two things were necessary: first, absolute respect for the law;
second, a complete knowledge of the case by all who played a part in
it,--examining magistrates, minister’s counsel, prisoner, and judges.
I spoke to you yesterday of the arguments of those honest people who
say: ‘We cannot believe that the judges wilfully erred.’ Upon what
does this argument rest? Upon the conviction that the judges rendered
their verdict in perfect conformity to the law, and in full knowledge
of the cause. Is not this the basis today of the sentiments of those
who talk to us of the thing judged? Would the simple argument that
Captain Dreyfus is a Jew be accepted by anyone? I do not believe it.
Yesterday I spoke severely of anti-Semitism, because I consider it a
doctrine which one should have the courage to combat. Yet I do not
offer a single one of the anti-Semites the insult of believing that
they would accept the argument: ‘Captain Dreyfus is a Jew; therefore
his conviction was justified, whether he was innocent or guilty.’
Then I am right in saying that that which constitutes the strength
of my honest adversaries is the double idea that everything took
place in accordance with law, and that everybody concerned was in
full possession of the facts. Well, gentlemen, nothing of all this is
true. The basis of these honest convictions has no real existence.
Saying nothing at present of the violation of law, the gravity of the
facts was not established, their materiality was not proved. Pressing
visits of Dreyfus to Belgium or Germany,--none. Relations with an
ambassador, or with an ambassador’s secretary, or even with a military
_attaché_, directly proven,--none. For the present, I am obliged to
confine myself to this. We shall come to the rest later. But I must add
that, if there was in the department a photograph of a document that
represented a letter exchanged between two military _attachés_ of the
Triple Alliance,--a letter which they tried later to use as a document
in the Dreyfus trial,--this photograph was in the war department
eight months before the arrest of Dreyfus, eight months before they
thought of him. It does not apply to Dreyfus, as I shall show you
presently. Relations of Dreyfus with the enemy, civil accomplices?
Nothing of the sort; and I speak here according to the indictment,
on the strength of the d’Ormescheville report, to which alone they
have a right to appeal. There is a single document, the _bordereau_,
whose origin is not declared, but is said by General Gonse to tell
against the accused, though they refuse to put him in a position to
contradict it. This writing and the expert opinions upon it,--opinions
which I shall discuss, but which for the moment I refer to only as
contradictory,--these comprise the entire evidence communicated to the
defence. Outside of these, the government knows nothing. One man alone,
General Mercier, who may be a brave soldier, but who surely knows more
of military tactics than of great cases like this, took everything
upon himself. For the absent documents he substituted his impression,
his arbitrary impression, the result of a naive confidence, of an
incredible credulity, in the puerile processes of the examination,
processes which are nothing but the fruit of the imagination--honest,
I admit, but really childish--of his subordinates. In using the word
childish, do I go too far, gentlemen? What, then, is to be thought of
that dictation from the _bordereau_ which was made to Captain Dreyfus
at the moment of his arrest?”
Here M. Labori read the passage from the d’Ormescheville indictment,
describing the dictation from the _bordereau_ to Dreyfus by M. du Paty
de Clam, who notes the agitation of the accused. Then he continued:
“I have a right to say that these are puerile methods of judicial
examination.
“There is the accusation! So far, there is no question of the secret
document. Now for the proof of my statement that General Mercier
substituted his arbitrary impression for absent documents. Does he
speak of other documents to the cabinet? Were any other charges made
known to M. Guérin or to M. Dupuy, who was then a cabinet minister?
No. They had nothing but the minister’s word to determine them to
follow him in the path leading to the dishonor and civil death of an
officer. Listen to an interview with M. Guérin, the authenticity of
which will not be disputed,--an interview reported by M. Marcel Hutin
in ‘Le Gaulois.’ In presence of the jury the cabinet ministers shelter
themselves behind professional secrecy. Not so in the press, and it is
so much the better. Hear, then, what they said before this trial. M.
Guérin, says the author of the article, explained that M. Charles Dupuy
and himself were the only cabinet ministers whom General Mercier made
familiar with the case. Says the former keeper of the seals:
Let me tell you how the Dreyfus case was brought to my knowledge in
1894. There were three of us in the cabinet who were informed of the
examination at the beginning. After a cabinet meeting held in the
office of the minister of war, General Mercier, the minister of war,
asked me to go to the office of the president of the cabinet. The
three being assembled in M. Dupuy’s office, General Mercier told us
that very important documents concerning the national defence had
been communicated by a staff officer to a foreign power, and he gave
the name of the suspected officer, Captain Dreyfus. The belief of
the minister of war was based, in the first place, on the nature of
the documents concerned, of which only Captain Dreyfus could have
had knowledge. They were locked up in the fourth bureau, said our
colleague, with which Captain Dreyfus was connected, and he alone
could have communicated them.
“On this first point, gentlemen, let us try to connect all the complex
incidents of this trial with each of the points that I argue. You
remember the reply made by Colonel Picquart, and also by General Gonse
and General de Pellieux, to the questions that I put to them. Now let
us continue.
Furthermore, the general told me that he had had experts examine the
letter which accompanied these documents, and that they had given an
opinion that it was in the writing of Captain Dreyfus. Finally, our
colleague told us about the dictation from the famous _bordereau_.
When General Mercier had told this story, which, you can imagine, made
a great impression upon us, he turned to me, and said: “I desired, my
dear colleague, to relate these facts in your presence, in order to
ask your advice. I do not wish to rest my opinion solely on the proofs
that have been gathered. I want you to name a counter-expert, so that
complete light may be shed on the authenticity of this important
document.” I made haste to send for M. Baudoin, president of the civil
court of the Seine, who suggested M. Bertillon.
“You see, gentlemen, whether I was right in saying, after M.
Bertillon’s testimony: ‘The accusation, there you have it!’ For,
indeed, it is M. Bertillon who determines the prosecution, because it
is to him that they apply for a final expert opinion.
The minister of war told us that it was through one of his agents that
this document, found in a waste-basket, had been communicated to him.
The cabinet was not informed of the phases of the matter, until after
the arrest of the guilty man.
“Were you aware, _Monsieur le Ministre_, of another document
incriminating Dreyfus, outside of the _bordereau_?”
No, never were any secret documents mentioned to us. I can say to
you that none of my colleagues were informed of the communication
of secret documents to the council of war without the knowledge of
the accused and his counsel. Some time ago I endeavored to recall
exactly, in the presence of my friend and former colleague, Poincaré,
everything that then took place. I asked him if his recollections
agreed with mine, and I found myself entirely corroborated. A single
thing strikes me. Why has there been no frank denial of the secret
communication of documents, which, indeed, would have constituted
closed doors within closed doors?
“And what does M. Dupuy, the president of the cabinet, say to ‘Le
Gaulois’? This:
Never did I know of any document incriminating the condemned man,
except the _bordereau_, and I believe that my colleagues in the
cabinet are in the same position as myself. If any secret documents
were communicated to the council of war, I say frankly that I can
only regret it as absolutely contrary to the law and to the rights of
defence.
“What I wish you now to notice, gentlemen, is that, at the time when
the arrest of Dreyfus was about to be determined upon, there was no
secret document, no charge except the _bordereau_ and the dictation
scene; and that even of these not the entire cabinet, but only M. Dupuy
and M. Guérin, had been informed by the minister of war, proving, as I
have just said, that General Mercier took everything upon himself.
“I know very well that, since, there has been mention of a secret
document. I know very well that a ridiculous document has been
produced,--ridiculous by the confession of those who for a long time
pretended to make use of it, since today they find it so inadequate
that they thrust uselessly into this trial still later documents, which
they describe as absolute proofs. We shall see what they are worth.
But this ridiculous document is that of which they have a photograph,
and which contains the words: ‘That scoundrel D----.’ It is a letter
addressed by one military _attaché_ to another, which was photographed
_en route_, and has this postscript: ‘That scoundrel D---- is becoming
too exacting.’ Let it not be said that this document has no value. Let
it not be said that, if it is not a proof, there are others. It is
the document upon which, from the point of view of pretended guilt,
they have lived for years. We have seen it everywhere, pointed out as
of the highest importance,--in the office of Colonel Picquart shown
to M. Leblois, in the pages of ‘L’Eclair.’ Oh! if it were only an
article from ‘L’Eclair,’ one might say: ‘It is a newspaper invention.’
But Major Ravary has referred to this document in his public report.
It is the document that was in the possession of that ideal veiled
lady. It is ‘the liberating document.’ It is the document for which
the minister of war gave Major Esterhazy a receipt. Major Esterhazy
returned this document to the minister under cover of the staff, and
therefore it must have the value that I attribute to it. It is the
important document. Oh! I know very well that they have invented others
since. When the document was invented, there was mention of others.
They do not lie, these officers, but they equivocate, consciously or
not; in telling only a part of the truth, in not telling the whole
truth, they equivocate. There are other documents in the secret file,
yes, but they have no importance, because they relate as much to one as
to another. M. Picquart has told us that in the secret file there is a
document which applies rather to Esterhazy than to Dreyfus. What does
that mean? Simply that there are documents concerning spying, which
have been placed in the file because they belong there, but which are
no more applicable to Dreyfus than to anybody else. And the proof that
all these other documents are especially inapplicable is that, when
this one no longer seemed sufficient after having been submitted to
discussion, they produced another; and we have heard the declaration of
General de Pellieux, which was the culminating-point of this trial, and
which was intended to change its course, but which, when we have shown
its real significance, will be seen to be only an ephemeral incident.
“Only it was not until after the prosecution, gentlemen, that
importance was attributed to this document. With General Mercier
himself it seems to have been only an artifice, as is proved by the
fact that he, who had no right to distrust his colleagues, said nothing
about it to them when he was preparing the case.
“And then, in itself, from the judicial standpoint, what can such a
document amount to? D----, what does that mean? Really, gentlemen,
since this document was in the war department eight months before
the prosecution of Dreyfus, and no one had dreamed of applying it to
him, must not one have been really hypnotized over the name, or else
weak-minded, to see nothing but Dreyfus in this initial? And then, why
was no importance attached to it at the beginning? Though the name
Dreyfus had been in this document, it might have been the work of a
forger. You know that there have been forgeries in this case. When
Major Esterhazy talks of forgery, he is not disputed. His statement
is accepted because _he_ makes it. But there may be other forgeries,
emanating from other hands and applying to other persons. And, even
though this document were authentic, and however overwhelming it might
be in its significance, it could have no value whatever until it had
been discussed _pro_ and _con_,--until it had been shown to the accused
and his counsel, who perhaps could overturn it with a word.
“Again, is it permissible to disdain the official declarations of
certain foreign governments regarding relations with Captain Dreyfus?
[Murmurs of protest.] I expected these murmurs, and I answer that, if
we had wished, we could have called foreigners to this bar; if they are
not here, it is because we did not wish to call them.”
The Judge.--“I hasten to say that we would not have listened to them.”
M. Labori.--“Very likely, _Monsieur le Président_. That would have
been another question of law, to be discussed after the others. But
it is certain that we considered that in such an affair the light
should be produced between Frenchmen, because it is important that
the foreigner should be on the side of neither party, in order that
tomorrow, if the threatened war should become a reality, we might
all join hands to face the foe, of whom we ask nothing. But, so much
said, is it permissible, as an honest adversary of the foreigner, to
neglect declarations as official as those made in the committee of the
reichstag and at the Italian tribune?”
The Judge.--“No, pass on.”
M. Labori.--“I pass on, _Monsieur le Président_. But I do not think
there is anything in my words that can be attacked by anybody.”
The Judge.--“Pass on, pass on.”
M. Labori.--“Continuing on this point, I say that the foreigner has no
sort of reason to defend traitors. It is contrary to diplomatic usage.
Of course a country does not betray its spies; but it has no reason to
defend them when they are caught. Consequently it must be admitted that
declarations such as those which I have referred to, if not decisive,
must at least be attentively considered, and weighed in the balance.
And for that reason I say to you that nothing at all is left of the
document referring to ‘That scoundrel D----.’
“Moreover, gentlemen, this document seemed of no value to those who
made use of it. There was no mention of it in the d’Ormescheville
report; no question of it in the charges against Dreyfus.
“You know, gentlemen, the source of the document. That matter I have
already explained, but I must return to it for a little. Not simply one
article appeared in ‘L’Eclair’ in September, 1896. A whole campaign was
carried on, and the article of September 15 was itself preceded by an
article of September 10, violent against ex-Captain Dreyfus to the last
degree. Listen to it.
For some hours it was believed that Dreyfus, the traitor, had
escaped. A dispatch has reassured us. He is still in confinement.
How long will his captivity last? Undoubtedly, it is only temporary.
Occult intelligences are at work to free him. This time there has
been no escape, but it is clear that there was a conspiracy. The
report started by a foreign newspaper was not a simple canard. It
was published deliberately, and it rests on a certain fact. We need
no other proof than the emotion which it caused in certain official
circles. Whether they confess it or not, they are still concerning
themselves regarding this report, in spite of the formal denial that
has come from Devil’s Island. An investigation has been opened, and
is being carried on with the greatest secrecy. The false news was
either a premature announcement of a fact that was to have been
accomplished, or it was a part of a plan for defence of the traitor,
shrewdly organized by his friends. The family is the soul of this
agitation,--the family and its accomplices. For there have been civil
accomplices. Perhaps it is time to say so, and to unmask them.
“You see the spirit of this article. Is it attributable to the
friends or the family of Dreyfus? I have already said that that cannot
be maintained. And this is the proper time to say a word of the
communication of the secret file to M. Leblois by Colonel Picquart
in September or October, 1896. Do you know what I think about that?
I think it a petty matter, uselessly and ridiculously magnified. I
think that, when Adjutant Gribelin and Colonel Henry come here in good
faith to say that they witnessed this thing, we are in presence of a
veritable optical illusion.”
M. Labori then recalled the contradictions in the testimony of M.
Gribelin and Colonel Henry, and showed that the pretended visit of M.
Leblois to the war department could not have occurred, as he was not in
Paris. Consequently it could not have been through him that the article
reached “L’Eclair.”
“So ‘L’Eclair’s’ article of September 15, 1896, must have originated
with the staff. Who gave it out? That it is impossible to ascertain,
but it is to be remembered that, at various times in this campaign,
Major Esterhazy has been warned of what was going on at the staff
office, and we may inquire whether the person who conveyed these
warnings is not the person who communicated the article to ‘L’Eclair.’
We have the more reason to be disturbed about this, because there has
been no investigation, in spite of Colonel Picquart’s demand for one.
“And then, gentlemen, what have we to say of all this stage-setting
of which you know, this romantic examination and melodramatic arrest
of Captain Dreyfus in an office arranged with mirrors on the walls,
as is stated in M. du Paty de Clam’s report,--mirrors arranged for
the purpose of surprising the play of his features? What shall we say
of the scene of dictation, of the threats uttered to Mme. Dreyfus, of
the dark lantern by the aid of which, as in the novels of Ponson du
Terrail, they expected to surprise the secret of this guilty man’s
conscience? I do not dare to say that all this had but one object,
but I do say that it had but one result,--that of misleading public
opinion. Do you say that these methods were adopted in sincerity? I
admit it. Has not M. Zola himself admitted it? Listen to what he said.
I accuse Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam of having been the
diabolical workman of a judicial error,--unconsciously, I am willing
to believe,--and of having then defended his calamitous work for three
years by the most preposterous and most guilty machinations.
I accuse General Mercier of having made himself an accomplice, at
least through weakness of mind, in one of the greatest iniquities of
the century.
“Good faith, gentlemen, is admitted; but where have these men of good
faith been led by their credulity? One trembles at the thought of all
these puerile details, especially that scene of dictation from the
_bordereau_. At first I did not believe it to be true. It seemed to me
to pass the bounds of imagination. I was not convinced, until it was
affirmed in the interview with M. Guérin and in the official report of
M. d’Ormescheville. What are we to think of these judicial methods? I
appeal to all the criminologists here. They say that Dreyfus’s hand
trembled. Perhaps it did not tremble, but, even if it did, what does
that prove? Fancy, gentlemen, the tone in which Colonel du Paty de
Clam, who has been before you and whom you undoubtedly remember, said:
‘You tremble, wretch. Then you are guilty.’ Fancy that! Who would not
have trembled? What does it prove? If it proves anything, it proves the
emptiness of the charges. Do not forget, gentlemen, that at that moment
all had been done. The cell at Cherche-Midi was ready. The order of
arrest had been signed, M. Cochefert, of the police, was in the office
of Colonel du Paty de Clam, and they did not hesitate to set in motion
this romantic and melodramatic machinery. Their evidence was so slight
that they had to resort to a melodramatic incident to supply the place
of truth.
“Does it astonish you, then, that the council of war, after
deliberation, was on the point of acquittal? Oh! gentlemen, I do not
need the echoes that have reached my ears to convince me of it. We say
that the countersign went forth; we say that a verdict was rendered
in obedience to orders; but we do not suspect the honesty of the
members of the council of war. If they obeyed orders, it was because
they believed that they were obeying just orders. I admit that, had
they known the order to be unjust and irregular, they would not have
obeyed it. But, from the very fact that the order had been given, they
at first concluded that it was just. Nevertheless, when the evidence
was before them, and they saw that there was no proof of guilt, they
were going to acquit, I do not doubt. They were going to acquit,
because they had nothing but the _bordereau_ before them; because the
_bordereau_ was the only document involved at the beginning of the
trial; because nothing was left but the _bordereau_ at the end of the
trial, just as today there is nothing but the _bordereau_.
“I must demonstrate this to you, gentlemen, step by step. So you
will pardon me for reading another document which seems to me
indispensable. I borrow from ‘L’Autorité’--for I prefer to borrow from
our enemies--the story of the public proceedings of the council of war
of 1894. The account is indisputable, and, were it to be questioned,
I have here also the account published by ‘La Libre Parole,’ which
confirms it at every point.
The presiding judge orders the call of witnesses to begin. Then the
representative of the government rises.
“By virtue,” he says, “of Article 113 of the code of military justice,
which says that, if publicity appears dangerous to good order or to
public morals, the council may order the trial to proceed behind
closed doors, I move that the doors be closed. You know the documents
that are included in the file. I do not need to insist; I know that it
will be enough to appeal to your patriotism.”