Fifth Day—February 11.
At the beginning of the session the judge recalled General de Pellieux to the stand.
The Judge.—“Did not Colonel Picquart admit in your presence the authenticity of a letter of November 27, 1896, written in Spanish and signed ‘J’?”
General de Pellieux.—“I had only a copy of that letter. It began thus: ‘At last the great work is finished, and Cagliostro has become Robert Houdin. Every day the demigod asks if he cannot see you.’”
The Judge.—“Did not this word ‘demigod’ occur in one of the dispatches sent to Colonel Picquart at Sousse in November, 1897?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes, and the expression occurs again in a letter signed ‘Bianca,’ addressed to Colonel Picquart by Mlle. de Comminges.”
The Judge.—“Did Colonel Picquart accuse Major Esterhazy directly of the two forgeries signed ‘Blanche’ and ‘Speranza,’ or did he accuse two other persons before accusing the major?”
General de Pellieux.—“In his first testimony Colonel Picquart accused Major Esterhazy. It was in later testimony that he altered his first charge, and said that the forgeries were committed by Major Esterhazy’s friends or by others.”
The Judge.—“Did he abandon his declaration later?”
General de Pellieux.—“He did not abandon his accusation of others, but he ceased to accuse Major Esterhazy, and, when I confronted him with the certainty that I had acquired, by an investigation at the office of the prefect of police, that the first telegram was from Souffrain, he said: ‘Souffrain is an agent of Esterhazy.’”
The Attorney-General.—“From whom was the letter signed ‘J,’ seized on the premises of Colonel Picquart?”
General de Pellieux.—“From M. Germain Ducasse, secretary of Mlle. Blanche de Comminges; and I think it would be a good idea to hear M. Germain Ducasse as a witness, but under certain conditions,—that is, to bring him here without allowing him to previously communicate with any other witness. He lives at 13, Avenue de la Motte-Piquet. Everything about this case seems to me strange. The minister of war has preferred a precise charge against M. Zola. M. Zola has accused the council of war of 1898 of acquitting a guilty person in obedience to orders. So far nothing has been said of this question.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It is the court that is conducting this trial.”
General de Pellieux.—“I ask permission to say a word of the way in which the case was presented before the council of war. The council of war, I may also say, did not have to judge an accused person. In military justice such a thing is possible. I mean that it did not have to judge a person formally accused. In Major Esterhazy’s case the reporter and the government commissioner had recommended an order that there was no ground for prosecution. Consequently he appeared before the council of war equipped with this recommendation. The governor of Paris, General Saussier, my regretted chief, who has been my main stay throughout this affair, and who is as familiar with it as I am (perhaps we are the only two persons thoroughly familiar with it), did not wish to issue the order recommended. In this he differed from many authorities superior to his own. He desired the case to be carried through to the end. It was his wish that Major Esterhazy should be judged by his peers, by military justice, and he gave the order that he be put on trial. He gave it in order that both sides might be heard. I regretted that this trial was not public. I asked that it might be, but the government demanded closed doors. The best proof that the council of war was independent is that it refused closed doors, judging that it was for the public interest that light should be thrown upon the matter, at least partially, even though it were not possible to discuss the entire case in the open day. Can it be said that a council of war which, against the advice of the government, did not declare the doors closed was criminal? This council was made up of seven brave officers who have shed their blood on the field of battle while others were I know not where.”
M. Zola.—“There are different ways of serving France.”
The Judge.—“Oh! no phrases. You can only ask questions. What questions do you wish to put to the general?”
M. Zola.—“I ask General de Pellieux if he does not think that there are different ways of serving France. One may serve it by the sword and by the pen. General de Pellieux has undoubtedly won great victories; I have won mine. By my works the French language has been spread through the world. I have my victories. I leave to posterity the name of General de Pellieux and that of Emile Zola. It will choose.”
General de Pellieux.—“Monsieur le Président, I will not answer.”
M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois hand to General de Pellieux, in the name of M. Scheurer-Kestner, two letters from Major Esterhazy, and a dispatch written in characters similar to those used in printing, which bore these words: ‘Picquart is a rascal?’”
General de Pellieux.—“Those documents are on file with the other documents pertaining to the investigation.”
M. Labori.—“It is unfortunate that we cannot obtain these documents. Did not this dispatch show an astonishing resemblance to the dispatch that Major Esterhazy pretends to have received from the veiled lady?”
General de Pellieux.—“These two telegrams resemble each other as all documents written in the characters of print resemble each other.”
M. Labori.—“Did you take no pains to see the dispatch sent to Major Esterhazy by the veiled lady?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois ask you to have an expert examination of the two telegrams at the time?”
General de Pellieux.—“The matter was never mentioned.”
M. Labori.—“In the dispatch addressed to Colonel Picquart, was not that officer’s name written without a c?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes, he called my attention to it.”
M. Labori.—“Was not this peculiarity found also in the telegram signed ‘Speranza’ and addressed to Colonel Picquart at Sousse?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“And in an insulting letter addressed by Major Esterhazy to Colonel Picquart was not the name again written without a c?”
General de Pellieux.—“I do not know that letter.”
M. Labori.—“In the last interview that M. Leblois had with General de Pellieux on November 29 did not General de Pellieux say to M. Leblois that he could not order an expert examination of the bordereau, because the bordereau had been attributed to Dreyfus by the verdict of 1894, and that to so order would be a reconsideration of the thing judged?”
General de Pellieux.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois attempt to refute this argument, which was abandoned by the minister of war himself when, after M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation of December 17, he transferred the bordereau to the Ravary papers for expert examination?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes. I will even add a detail. I did not think that I had the right, as a judicial officer of police, to subject the bordereau to a new expert examination. It was my personal opinion that to do that would be to reopen the Dreyfus case. I was not alone in this opinion, for, when I received the order, which I executed, to lay the bordereau before the minister of war and submit it to expert examination, I was confronted with a strike of experts. That is a rather rare thing. The experts for whom I sent refused to make the examination, basing themselves on the ground that I had taken, and saying that to make a new examination of the bordereau was to question the thing judged. There are five experts in the same court. Three of them had been concerned in the Dreyfus case. I sent for the other two. They refused to come. I immediately reported the matter, because I desired to close my inquiry as soon as possible, because I felt that the public was getting impatient, and because I was to make only a preliminary investigation. So it was on the order of the minister of justice to the experts that the examination was made. Major Ravary ordered it.”
M. Labori.—“Was not General de Pellieux present at the second session of the council of war held on Tuesday, January 11, 1898?”
General de Pellieux.—“I was present at all the sessions of the council of war as a delegate of the governor.”
M. Labori.—“Did not the general wear civilian dress?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Did he not sit behind General de Luxer, president of the council?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Did he not intervene several times in the course of the testimony of M. Leblois?”
General de Pellieux.—“I asked the permission of the president, of the public minister, and of the defence, to put some questions to M. Leblois. This authorization was granted. I think that I had the right to do so as a magistrate.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Pellieux take the floor spontaneously to correct an error of fact that had just been committed by General de Luxer?”
General de Pellieux.—“I never took the floor without asking permission of the defence, of the public minister, and of the president.”
M. Labori.—“Did he not take the floor to correct an error of fact that had just been committed by General de Luxer?”
General de Pellieux.—“I do not know to what you refer.”
M. Labori.—“The general must know, and cannot fail to remember, whether at a certain moment, in the course of the testimony of M. Leblois, he intervened to correct an error of fact committed by the president.”
General de Pellieux.—“I confess that I cannot remember.”
M. Labori.—“Did not the witness take the floor spontaneously to ask of M. Tézenas if he had no opposition to make to the continuation of M. Leblois’s testimony, and in these words: ‘You suffer him to speak?’”
General de Pellieux.—“Never.”
M. Labori.—“Did not M. Leblois ask a question of such a character as to necessitate some supplementary information?”
General de Pellieux.—“I will not answer. This was behind closed doors. You know very well that anything that happens behind closed doors cannot be revealed.”
The Judge.—“The general says it was behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“I ask nothing in general of a secret or confidential character. Furthermore, closed doors are possible in an assize court as well as in a council of war, and twelve French citizens can keep a secret as well as twelve officers. Consequently you are quite at liberty to make the witness answer. What I am after is to show that General de Pellieux intervened in the trial before the council of war. I do not ask him concerning what he intervened; I ask him whether he intervened. I insist that the question be put.”
The Judge.—“Offer your motion.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It seems to me that the general has been answering my confrère concerning matters that happened behind closed doors. Never did the general, so far as I know, intervene before the council of war as long as the session was public. His intervention, about which he has been talking for the last fifteen minutes, took place behind closed doors. I ask the court, then, where the dividing line is to be drawn, and who shall say whether it is permissible to speak of things that happened behind closed doors to a certain limit, of which the witness shall be sole judge, and at which the witness may declare: ‘I will say no more.’”
The Judge.—“How do you expect the court to know, except by the witness, that the thing happened behind closed doors? [To the witness.] Does the question asked you relate to an incident that happened behind closed doors?”
General de Pellieux.—“I have been asked questions relating to personal intervention. That does not concern closed doors. Closed doors applies to things asked of the witnesses, but not to an individual’s attitude during closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“Permit me, Monsieur le Président, to repeat the question before asking you to put it again. Here are two questions belonging to the same order of ideas: first, did not M. Leblois offer an observation of such a nature as to bring out supplementary information?”
The Judge.—“You hear the first question?”
General de Pellieux.—“I will not answer, for it is a matter of closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“Second, was not General de Luxer then disposed to lay the question regularly before the council of war, and had he not already risen to propose to the judges that they retire to the council-chamber for deliberation?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Pellieux intervene spontaneously, saying that that was useless?”
General de Pellieux.—“No, I had nothing to say to the president.”
M. Labori.—“I have finished on that point.”
M. Clemenceau.—“We are far away from the question that I put. I come back to it. General de Pellieux has admitted that his intervention took place behind closed doors during the time for which the president of the council had declared closed doors.”
General de Pellieux.—“I do not deny it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“It is established by two successive answers made by General de Pellieux that he has answered questions of M. Labori relating to things that happened behind closed doors.”
The Judge.—“No, nothing concerning what happened behind closed doors.”
General de Pellieux.—“I said nothing at all relating to the case.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Did the intervention of General de Pellieux take place behind closed doors?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I conclude. Since the intervention of General de Pellieux took place behind closed doors, and since he has already testified concerning this intervention, and since M. Labori’s question refers to other facts concerning this same intervention, I am entitled to say that General de Pellieux, whenever it does not embarrass him, explains himself concerning the proceeding behind closed doors, but” ...
The Judge.—“The general has never answered on this point.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I no longer understand you.”
The Judge.—“It is I who do not understand you.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then I will begin again. I say that General de Pellieux made answer to M. Labori, who asked him questions concerning matters that took place behind closed doors. Then, when M. Labori asked him another question about matters that also took place behind closed doors, General de Pellieux said: ‘I will not answer the question, because I have no right to speak of anything that took place behind closed doors.’ Therefore I establish a fact,—the fact at which I desired to arrive,—that General de Pellieux has constituted himself a judge of what he can, and what he cannot, say about matters that take place behind closed doors. He began by answering M. Labori concerning matters that took place behind closed doors, saying: ‘I consider that I can do so.’ Then at a certain moment he makes himself sole judge, and says: ‘From now on I cannot answer you.’ That is what I wanted to show. The witness has remembered things that took place behind closed doors, and then, when, for one reason or another, he thought that he ought not to go further, he stopped.”
The Judge.—“Is that all?”
M Clemenceau.—“Yes.”
Testimony of General Gonse.
After General de Pellieux, the court recalled General Gonse, and asked him: “Who are the lawyers of the minister of war?”
General Gonse.—“MM. Nivart and Danet.”
The Judge.—“Can a lawyer representing the minister enter the offices?”
General Gonse.—“No.”
The Judge.—“With whom must he correspond?”
General Gonse.—“With the controller.”
The Judge.—“Had Colonel Picquart been authorized to receive a lawyer in his office?”
General Gonse.—“Certainly not.”
The Judge.—“Are there questions of spying concerning which lawyers are consulted?”
General Gonse.—“None. Concerning these questions we apply directly to the military prosecuting officer, when it concerns a soldier, and to the government prosecuting officer, when it concerns a civilian.”
The Judge.—“What do you think of Adjutant Gribelin?”
General Gonse.—“All that is good. He is a servant beyond compare, of absolute discretion, knowing all the secrets of our offices, and in whom I have the greatest confidence. I add that he is as modest as he is intelligent.”
The court then called Adjutant Gribelin, the keeper of the archives.
The Judge.—“What I am going to ask you is of the highest importance. Did Colonel Picquart really ask you to have a postal stamp placed on the Esterhazy dispatch?”
Adjutant Gribelin.—“Yes, he asked me if I could not have a postal stamp put on that document. I swear that it is true.”
Adjutant Gribelin then stepped down, and the court called Major Lauth.
The Judge.—“Did Colonel Picquart ask you to cause every trace of tear to disappear from the photograph of the dispatch that he was to make?”
Major Lauth.—“Yes. He wanted to make the staff believe that he had intercepted the document in the mails. I remember that I said to him: ‘But, if you cause these tears to disappear, you will take away all value from the document, which should be kept in the condition in which it was brought to you.’ To which he answered: ‘You will be there to certify that this document is really in the handwriting of such a person.’ I answered him so loudly that my protest was heard through the partition: ‘Never in my life. I do not know this handwriting. It is a counterfeited handwriting.’”
Testimony of Colonel Picquart.
The witness-chair was then taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. Being asked his residence by the court, he answered: “Mont-Valérien.”
M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Picquart tell us what he knows of the Esterhazy case, of the investigation that he made, and of the circumstances that accompanied or followed his departure from the war department?”
Colonel Picquart.—“In the beginning of May, 1896, the fragments of a letter-telegram fell into my hands. These fragments were pasted together by an officer in my service, Major Lauth, who was then a captain. When he had done this, he brought me this card-telegram, which was addressed to Major Esterhazy. I do not remember the exact language of its contents, but everything seemed to indicate that between Major Esterhazy and the writer of the card there were relations which seemed to me suspicious. Before submitting this card to my superiors, it not being a proof against Major Esterhazy, but simply a presumption considering the place whence it came, I had to make inquiries regarding it. I applied to an officer who knew Major Esterhazy, and who had been in the same regiment with him. I need not dwell on the nature of the information that was furnished to me, but it was not favorable to Major Esterhazy, and it led me to continue my investigations as to his manner of life and general conduct. The result was not favorable to him. Major Esterhazy was always short of money, and was continually meeting with many little difficulties; and there was this strange thing about him,—that, while far from occupying himself exclusively with his profession, he nevertheless manifested a great curiosity about documents relating to matters purely confidential and having a peculiarly military interest. My inquiry having reached that point, I considered myself authorized to say to my superiors that there was reason to seriously suspect an officer of the French army. My superiors told me to continue. There is one thing that we generally do in dealing with a person whose behavior seems suspicious. We take a specimen of his writing, and compare it with documents in our possession. As a result of this comparison, our suspicions may be confirmed or may be weakened.
“So I began to look into Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, contrary to what has been often said, especially in a letter written to me by Major Esterhazy, I carried on my investigation by perfectly regular methods. With the consent of my superiors I went to the colonel of the regiment to which Major Esterhazy belonged, and asked him for specimens of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting. He gave them to me in the form of letters relating to the military service. As soon as I had these letters in my hands, I was much astonished at the resemblance between the handwriting and that of the famous bordereau, of which so much has been said. But, not being an expert in handwriting, I had no right to trust to my individual impressions. That is why I had these documents photographed, concealing, as has been said, in a deposition which I have read in the newspapers, such words as ‘My Colonel,’ or else the signature, or any other indications that might identify the writer; and I showed the photographs thus obtained to two persons thoroughly qualified in the matter, one of whom was M. Bertillon and the other Major du Paty de Clam. M. Bertillon, as soon as I showed him the photograph, said: ‘It is the handwriting of the bordereau.’ I said to him: ‘Do not be in a hurry. Take this specimen, and examine it at your leisure.’ He replied: ‘No, it is useless. That is the handwriting of the bordereau. Where did you get it?’ ‘I cannot tell you.’ ‘Well, is it of an earlier date?’ ‘No,’ I answered, ‘it is of a later date.’ ‘Then,’ said M. Bertillon, in these exact words, ‘the Jews have had some one practising for a year to get the handwriting of the bordereau, and they have succeeded perfectly; that is plain.’ The second person to whom I showed a sample of the handwriting was Colonel du Paty, then major. I let him have it but a few minutes,—five minutes, I think,—and then he said to me: ‘It is the handwriting of M. Mathieu Dreyfus.’ To explain this I must tell you that Colonel du Paty pretended that, in order to write the bordereau, Alfred Dreyfus had made a mixture of his own handwriting with that of his brother. The pointer was a valuable one for me.
“There was still another thing that drew my attention to Major Esterhazy. An agent had told an officer in my service,—I do not know whether it was a superior officer or the head of a battalion,—let us say, a superior officer, about fifty years of age,—that he had furnished such and such documents to a foreign power. Now, these were the very documents spoken of to me by the comrade to whom I applied upon my discovery of the card-telegram.
“Now, I come to a period when I was entrusted by General Gonse with the task of inquiring whether the documents referred to in the bordereau could have been copied for the benefit of Major Esterhazy. I knew that Major Esterhazy had not a few of the documents which he procured copied at home. I had been told to apply to the secretaries whom he had employed, in order to try to find out from them whether he had really copied these documents. It was a very serious matter. I confess that at that moment I considered my task almost finished. I said to myself: here is a card-telegram which has put me on the track of the major. It is not a document upon which he could be convicted, but it is a pointer. Then we have the testimony of an agent. This, too, is not so tremendous, but yet it reveals an astonishing coincidence. This agent says: ‘Here is a man who furnishes such or such a thing;’ and, on the other hand, here is a man who says to me: ‘This officer asks for such a thing.’ And, finally, there was a resemblance of handwritings, which to me was important. And there is another thing to be added to the long list. I do not wish to speak more precisely, or to further unveil the secret. But Major Ravary, in his report, speaking of me, says: ‘The belief of this officer seemed completely established when he had reported that a document on file with the other secret papers applied to Esterhazy rather than to Dreyfus.’ Well, that is true. On examining the secret documents, as has been said by Major Henry, I saw that one of them applied, not to Dreyfus, as has been said, but clearly to Esterhazy. Following the orders of General Gonse, I tried to find out whether Major Esterhazy’s secretaries had copied documents referred to in the bordereau or included among those designated by the agent of whom I have just spoken. I did not continue long in this direction. I saw that it was impossible to divulge the thing without departing from the discretion within which I confined myself, whatever may be said, and I stopped. I questioned but one person, a certain Mulot, who appeared as a witness before the council of war, and who told me that he had been ordered to copy into books certain insignificant things, among which, in my opinion, the firing manual was not included.
“Then there happened a thing which caused me a little embarrassment in my operations,—the article in ‘L’Eclair.’ At that time I was absolutely convinced that Esterhazy was the author of the bordereau. Well, when the article appeared in ‘L’Eclair,’ I said to myself: here is a man who is going to admit what he has written; and I confess that that obscured matters not a little. I knew perfectly well that the article in ‘L’Eclair’ did not come from me. On the other hand, at the office of the minister of war, without saying anything very precise, the general manner seemed to give the idea that it came, not from me, but from my surroundings. I protested vigorously, and asked in writing that an investigation be made to find out who communicated this document to ‘L’Eclair.’ The investigation was not made.
“Later a second incident happened, which was to me even more disagreeable. The publication in ‘Le Matin’ of the fac-simile of the bordereau. A thing that especially struck me in the publication of this fac-simile, which has also been attributed to me, was the omission of the few lines written by Dreyfus under the dictation of Colonel du Paty de Clam. These lines, to be sure, appeared in print, but the writing was not reproduced, and I believe that, if it had been, it would have made an unfavorable impression regarding those who were desirous of attributing the bordereau to Dreyfus.
“In short, these various incidents had produced a certain embarrassment, and I saw clearly that I would do well not to continue. Meantime came the announcement of the Castelin interpellation. I received an order to start on a mission the night before this interpellation,—that is, November 16, 1896. I should say that after the publication of the bordereau by ‘Le Matin,’ or about that time, Esterhazy came to Paris, where his attitude was extraordinary. I believe that some one saw him the day after the publication running through the streets like a madman, in a pouring rain. The witness is here, and will be heard. They would not hear him at the inquiries. Before the Castelin interpellation M. Weil, a friend of Esterhazy, received an anonymous letter, telling him that he and his friend were going to be denounced as accomplices of Dreyfus. It appears that Esterhazy received an anonymous letter to that effect, but I cannot certify to the fact so far as M. Weil is concerned. I will not amplify concerning the various and ever-changing phases of my mission. Leaving Paris November 16, I reached Tunis January 13 by way of the Alps and many other places. Until then, my relations with my superiors had been perfectly cordial. I received letters from General Gonse, in which he always shook my hand very affectionately. I must speak of one thing that happened while I was absent, and which I did not know of until General de Pellieux’s investigation. I believe that I shall be clearer if I speak of it now. After I had left Paris, I received information from General de Pellieux that my mail was being opened in my former office. As I could not tell anyone where I was going, I had left word at home that all my letters should be addressed to the war department. Consequently all my mail passed through the department, and General de Pellieux told me that all my letters were opened. I confess to my shame that I did not perceive that they had been opened.
“Now I pass to the time that I spent in Tunis. And I come at once to the month of June. Since the beginning of the year I had received a certain number of letters that said: ‘But, when I go to the war offices, they always tell me that you are on a mission, and that you will soon return.’ I concluded that they were not telling the truth to these worthy people, and I pinned to one of these letters a note,—rather sharp, I confess,—which I addressed to Major Henry in returning him the letter. This note read nearly as follows: ‘I wish that it might be said once for all to the persons who inquire for me that I have been relieved of this service. I have no reason to be ashamed of that, but I am ashamed of the lies with which my departure has been surrounded. Enough of mystery.’ That was written May 18. Early in June I received from the major, who previously had been my subordinate, a letter which I have here, in which he says that, after investigation, it is possible to explain the word ‘mystery’ by the following facts: (1) opening of a correspondence for reasons foreign to the service, and which nobody has ever understood,—this is an allusion to the seizure of Major Esterhazy’s correspondence; (2) attempt to suborn two officers of the service, to induce them to say that a document classified in the service was in the handwriting of a certain person,—I must say at once that these two officers have been transformed into one, and I do not know what has become of the second; (3) opening of a secret file of papers, followed by indiscretions prompted by motives foreign to the service.
“In the way in which these things were explained I saw at once insinuations, accusations, something extremely serious. I suspected that conspiracies were on foot. I even said to one of my superiors that this letter would not have been written, if there had not been something behind it. I answered directly that I had received the letter of May 31, and that I formally protested against its insinuations, and against the way in which the facts were stated. And then, not being at ease, for I did not know where all this was going to take me,—it was to take me to Gabès and to the frontier of Tripoli,—I thought it my duty to take precautions for my safety. I started for Paris, took counsel first of some military personages, and then went to M. Leblois, who was my friend, and for the first time, showing him this letter, I told him that I had been mixed up in the Dreyfus and Esterhazy cases. I told him so much about the first two paragraphs of this letter as was necessary for my defence, but I said nothing to him of the third paragraph, which seemed to me to relate to secret matters. At the same time, both as a deposit and that they might serve later for my defence, I gave to M. Leblois a certain number of letters from General Gonse,—I believe that there were fourteen in all, two of which have been published lately in the newspapers against my will,—together with my replies and some letters relating to my mission. I had previously destroyed such of these letters as related to matters of the secret service, especially a letter in cipher concerning sundry small matters. I left it entirely with M. Leblois as to the time when he should intervene, and as to the use that he should make of the documents that I placed in his hand. He has acted as seemed best to him, and I approve of his course.
“Then I went back to Sousse, and heard nothing more of these matters, until it was made known in the press that M. Scheurer-Kestner was concerning himself with the Dreyfus question. At that time I was en route for the south. I had already started, when I was summoned to Tunis, where they asked me questions which at first seemed to me rather singular. They asked me in the first place if I had not allowed a secret document to be stolen by a woman. It was very easy for me to answer that I had never carried any documents away from my offices, and that there was no sort of possibility of a woman’s taking from me a document of this sort. Then a very curious thing happened. I received almost the same day, first, a letter from Major Esterhazy, second, a telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ and, third, a telegram signed ‘Blanche.’ Major Esterhazy’s letter said in substance: ‘I have received lately a letter in which you are formally accused of having bribed sub-officers to procure for you my handwriting. I have verified the statement and found it to be true.’ I do not know how he verified it. Nothing was said about it at the investigations. He said also: ‘You have withdrawn documents from your service to constitute evidence against me. The fact of the collection of such evidence is established. I have a piece of it in my possession at the present moment.’ At the same time I received a telegram signed ‘Speranza,’ saying: ‘Stop, demigod, all is discovered; matter very serious.’ What seemed to me very serious was not the investigation, but the fact that Major Esterhazy wrote my name without a c, and that the letter was addressed to Tunis. I made a connection between these two things in my mind. Now, the telegram signed ‘Blanche’ was not at all of the same sort. In the first place, the spelling of my name was correct, then my garrison, Sousse, was clearly indicated, and, finally, the writer was certainly familiar with my inquiries concerning Esterhazy, for the telegram read: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges.’ It immediately occurred to me that the dispatch referred to was the Esterhazy dispatch. The whole was signed ‘Blanche.’ With these three documents in my hands, I did not hesitate a moment. I telegraphed to Tunis for authorization to go and see the general. I carried him a copy of the three documents, with a letter from the minister of war, saying to him: ‘I have just received these three documents. They come from Major Esterhazy, or from some one connected with him. I ask an investigation.’ A fact that struck me later—for the light has come to me only gradually—was the reference of ‘La Libre Parole’ to this matter in very clear terms on November 15, 16, and 17, though these two telegrams and this letter did not reach me until November 10 or 11. Now to telegraph to the general, to go to Tunis, and to write to the minister of war took me until Monday, so that the letters could not have reached Paris before Friday. They were able, then, to publish in Paris on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday what did not take place at Tunis until Friday. On reaching Paris, I had been obliged to give my word of honor that I would see nobody before seeing General de Pellieux. I had no right to see M. Leblois until after General de Pellieux’s investigation. On coming before General de Pellieux, I was informed by him that he was going to hear me concerning the Esterhazy case. And he did hear me concerning it for an entire afternoon. I said to him what I have just said here. The session was a stormy one. There were two others, but at those there was scarcely any mention of Major Esterhazy. At the last two sessions I was obliged to defend myself almost all the time, although simply a witness. The first session was devoted to the examination of documents that had been seized upon my premises at the time of the search. This search astonished me somewhat at the time. Later I understood it. It had been made in consequence of another anonymous letter addressed to General de Pellieux, in which he was told that, by searching a servant’s room at No. 3, Rue Yvon-Villarceau, he would find some interesting things relating to the matter in hand. I suppose that it was difficult for them to conceive that an officer could have charge, for seven years in succession, of very confidential things, and have secrets at his disposal, and yet not have on his premises a single note relating to his service. There was nothing there. I never took to my home a single note relating either to the service of information as I conducted it in the war department at the time when I took my departure, or to the service that I have performed since. They found nothing to seize, except some letters from relatives and friends. And they kept only a letter from Mlle. de Comminges, which was signed ‘Blanche,’ like the famous telegram. I believe that this letter is still in General de Pellieux’s collection of documents. I do not know where General de Pellieux got his information concerning what they call the moral elements of my case, but I must say that this information surprised me. General de Pellieux told me to my great astonishment that I concerned myself with hypnotism, with occultism, with turning-tables, and that I was nervously diseased. I do not know what all that means; I never saw a table turn in my life.
“I come now to Major Ravary’s investigation. To Major Ravary I repeated what I had said to General de Pellieux. With him, too, I had three sessions. But he seemed like a man who was trying to find out what I had done, and was very little concerned about what Major Esterhazy had done. I told him that there were moral proofs in abundance, and I gave him some pointers. At the time when I left Tunis, where, in spite of the reports that had already been spread, there were people thoroughly in sympathy with me, several persons came to see me, notably Colonel Dubuche, who was about to retire from the service, and who sent me this message: ‘I know Major Esterhazy; in 1892, at Sfax, there was an affair of malversation which was to take him before a council of inquiry, if not before a council of war.’ Major Sainte-Chapelle, who brought me this communication, added that another important witness was M. Giquel, a retired commander of squadrons, then resident at Sfax. Well, these gentlemen told me that, thanks to the great forbearance of the military authorities and his supplications, Major Esterhazy, or, rather, Captain Esterhazy, as he was then, had escaped the council of inquiry and the council of war. Again, General Laroche’s son, who is at Tunis, holding a government office, told me that Major Esterhazy had been under the surveillance of his father, when the latter was in command of the sub-division of Constantine. Finally, Major Esterhazy was well known in the province of Constantine, and not favorably. I told Major Ravary that these things were said to me of Major Esterhazy. The first time, he answered me. That was very well. When, later, I repeated it, he made the same answer; but this piece of moral evidence did not appear in this report. They always said to me: ‘Oh! Esterhazy! why, we know him better than you do,’ and still nothing was said in the report. As I had seen in a previous investigation that much stress was laid upon moral proofs, I concluded that such proofs must have a certain importance.
“Major Ravary seemed to me very little inclined to summon witnesses whom I designated to him as persons who could give valuable information. I had designated M. Weil. M. Ravary took note of my suggestion the first time, and then a second; and finally I said to him: ‘I absolutely desire that this witness be summoned.’ He was summoned. I had also pointed out to Major Ravary the things on which it was necessary to lay stress. I told him that he should see the persons who had copied documents for Major Esterhazy, that he should ascertain from what officers Esterhazy had procured information, that he should find out what Esterhazy’s financial situation was in 1893 and 1894,—in short, that he should do all that there was to do and all that has not been done. On the other hand, Major Ravary strongly insisted on the various matters with which I was reproached,—the matter of causing the disappearance of tears from the photographs of the card-telegram, and of having endeavored to make one of my officers say that such a document was in such a handwriting, etc. They placed enormous weight upon these things, and also upon the episode of the lady who had lived in my house. I looked upon this as a sort of hors d’œuvre from the standpoint of the Esterhazy investigation.
“I was reproached with having kept the fragments of the Esterhazy dispatch in my closet for a long time. When Colonel Sandherr was at the head of the service, he had gradually let this branch of the work fall into the hands of Major Henry and Captain Lauth. It was the rule then that Major Henry, who received the documents, should sort them out and hand them to Captain Lauth, and it was only when this task was finished that they were given to the chief of the service. When I assumed charge of the service, desiring to know things for myself, I ordered that all documents be given to me first, and later I handed them to Captain Lauth. That seems a small matter, but unquestionably it changed the habits of these gentlemen, and caused them some annoyance. When the accusations against me began, they recalled this matter, and found it singular that I did not do as my predecessor did, but, instead, put documents into my closet, that I might afterwards hand them myself to the officer designated to look into them. Another reproach against me was that of having carefully effaced all evidence of tear from the photographs that had been made of this card-telegram. There were two reasons for that, the first of which is the less important. A document of this sort, when it is cut into little bits, becomes much clearer when the tears no longer show. It can be read more easily. The second reason is this. If the document had circulated in the office of the minister of war with the tears as they originally were, it would have been said: ‘It is a torn paper.’ Well, there had been very serious indiscretions concerning the Dreyfus bordereau, and their origin was known a little too well. I was determined, having a very great responsibility in the matter, that those who had no need to know the origin of this document, and under whose eyes the photograph might pass, should have no indication of the manner in which this document reached me. The principal thing in the courts is the original, the card itself; the photograph goes with a collection of papers, first to the minister of war, then to the chief of staff, etc., but the document itself, especially a document as fragile as a telegram torn into I know not how many pieces, remains at a given spot. It is shown to two or three persons at most, and, if there is a trial, it is produced. Those are the reasons that led me to so carefully efface the tears from the card-telegram. They ask me why; they make it a cause of reproach; but for what reason I do not see, since the famous bordereau was subjected to the same operation. It has been said to me: ‘But after?’ After, it was too late. I had a little foresight, and that excited mistrust,—I don’t know why. Then they reproached me with having tried to make an officer say that this was the handwriting of a certain person. That occurrence was simply this: I was examining this document with Captain Lauth. The captain said to me: ‘But this document has no sign of authenticity. It ought to have a date, a post-office stamp.’ Thereupon I said to him: ‘But you can testify whence it comes; you know the handwriting very well.’ He answered: ‘Oh! no, never; I do not know this handwriting.’ Note that it happened exactly like that. There was not one word more or less. And I believe that Captain Lauth’s testimony could not be different from mine from that point of view. He attached no suspicious character to my question, as is proved by the fact that we have remained on the best of terms. He has received me at his table, which is not a usual thing between an inferior and a superior. Now, if I had tried to suborn him, and to impose upon him an opinion that was not his own, the action would not have permitted us to remain in friendly relations. Later, when things were coming to a head, they gathered up all these little matters, and made use of them.
“There is another thing which shows very clearly how these little matters can be used. One need only read the report of M. D’Ormescheville to see how the massing of insignificant things may lead to grave accusations. Never in my life did I have any intention of getting a postal stamp placed upon this document.
“In the Ravary report there is another important thing. It is said that Major Henry, entering my office, found me en tête-à-tête with M. Leblois, having between us a collection of secret documents, from which we had taken a photograph document upon which was written: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ Already General de Pellieux had spoken to me of that, but he had said that it was Gribelin who had seen me. He said nothing to me of Major Henry. I said to him: ‘Never did I have that collection of documents in my hands while Leblois was in my office.’ Moreover, I thought that it was at the time of M. Leblois’s vacation, but I did not know at what time he returned. I went to M. Leblois to get these two dates, and I reported them to General de Pellieux. If I am not mistaken, Gribelin placed this interview in the month of October. At the council of war, when this charge was brought against me, I asked to be confronted with Colonel Henry, and he maintained that he had seen us together, with these secret documents between us. I asked him to fix the date. He said: ‘That must have been on my return from leave, in the beginning of October.’ Major Henry certainly did not know that M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and returned November 7. Nor did he know that I had asked M. Gribelin for this collection of documents the latter part of August, and handed it to General Gonse personally early in November. Unfortunately I do not know the exact date, but it was one of the first days of November. Gribelin, too, showed a rather short memory, for he has pretended under other circumstances that this collection of documents was found in my closet after my departure. Now, General Gonse has very frankly stated that I gave him this collection of documents several days before my departure. My departure took place on November 16. I left my service November 14, M. Leblois came back to Paris November 7, which was a Saturday, and the 8th was a Sunday; then this discovery must have been made between the 9th and the 14th, and yet during that time I had not the documents in my possession, having given them to General Gonse.
“Another thing has occurred to me. General de Pellieux showed me the photograph bearing the words: ‘That scoundrel D——.’ This photograph is anything but clear; one is obliged to look very closely into it to see anything at all. Now, I ask if a person entering a room can identify such a document at once, and see on it the words: ‘That scoundrel D——?’ Finally, if I had any interest in showing this document to M. Leblois, it seems to me extraordinary that, considering the limited dimensions of this file of papers, and considering the fact that I had it at my disposal for two months, I did not pass it to M. Leblois. But it seems that, having these documents before me, I left the door open while I was with M. Leblois, and chose that moment for the very serious act of communicating a document to a person not qualified to have knowledge of it. At any rate, I testify absolutely that never did I show a file of secret papers to M. Leblois, absolutely never, and that I never spoke to him of any such file.
“Now there are other matters to which I must refer. I read the testimony given yesterday by General de Pellieux, and in it I found things that astonished me. In my second interview with the general he said to me: ‘You have caused Esterhazy’s premises to be searched.’ I did wrong in accepting his statement. I did not cause Major Esterhazy’s premises to be searched, and I wish now to explain very clearly what actually took place. After the publication of the article that appeared in ‘L’Eclair,’ which had given Esterhazy warning that the bordereau was known, one of my superiors suggested a search. I confess that I did not think it an opportune moment for a search, it seeming to me that the search should have been made previously. Esterhazy having been warned, he had undoubtedly removed all evidence from his premises. Yet, desirous of doing what was asked of me, I spoke of the matter to the officer who was watching Esterhazy. I said to him: ‘This is what they ask me to do, but I believe that a search would prove fruitless.’ He answered: ‘He has gone to Rouen, but I do not know whether he has moved his effects.’ I think the officer told me that there was a sign indicating that the apartment was to let. He went to see the apartment, and brought back as proof a visiting-card, on which a few words were written. He told me that much paper had been burned in the chimney, and that was all. I returned the card to him, and told him to put it back in the place from which he took it. When General de Pellieux questioned me concerning this matter, he told me that the house had been ransacked, and false keys had been made, and that this was proved by the discovery of a key in excess of the usual number. I did not know then where he had obtained this information, but at the hearing before the council of war I found out. The information was given by Esterhazy; so that the statements made yesterday by General de Pellieux are almost exactly the statements of Esterhazy. He says that the search was continued at intervals during eight months. Before the council of war Esterhazy said that it lasted I know not how much longer. If it lasted, it was not my fault, because I was not in Paris. The event of which I have just spoken occurred toward the end of October. If anything happened afterward, I am not responsible for it. As to the correspondence, General Pellieux said that for eight months I intercepted Esterhazy’s letters in the mails. The card-telegram was written in May. I did not begin my investigations until early in July. Esterhazy left Paris the latter part of August to attend the military manœuvres, and did not return until late in October or early in November. I do not find eight months between July and the middle of August.”
At this point, Colonel Picquart having finished his deposition, the court interrupted the proceedings to render a decree granting M. Clemenceau’s motion that a magistrate be sent to examine Mme. de Boulancy, and appointing for that duty M. Bertulus, who was General de Pellieux’s consulting magistrate during his investigation. The examination of Colonel Picquart was then resumed.
M. Labori.—“Was not Colonel Picquart present as a delegate from the minister of war at the trial of a case of spying, or, to be precise, at the Dreyfus trial? For this is a question of fact that does not touch the thing judged.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I prefer not to answer.”
M. Labori.—“Is there in the war department a file of documents that makes Major Esterhazy’s guilt inadmissible?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know, but I do not think so.”
M. Labori.—“When Colonel Picquart was thinking of inquiring whether M. Esterhazy was not the author of the bordereau, did any of his superiors at any time say to him: ‘Stop; there are certain proofs that Major Esterhazy cannot be the author of the bordereau?’”
Colonel Picquart.—“No, that was never said to me.”
M. Labori.—“To what does M. Picquart attribute the numerous and complex machinations of which he has been the victim?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I shall be able to answer that more definitely, when M. Bertulus’s examination has been finished. At present I believe that the purpose of these machinations was to prevent Esterhazy’s guilt from being shown.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness think that Major Esterhazy took part in these machinations, directly or indirectly?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“You simply think so?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness think that these machinations were the work of Major Esterhazy alone, or does he think that Major Esterhazy had accomplices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I believe that he had accomplices.”
M. Labori.—“Accomplices in the war offices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There was certainly an accomplice who was familiar with what was going on in the war offices. First, there is the card-telegram signed ‘Blanche.’ Then there is the letter signed ‘Speranza,’ which could have been written only by a person familiar with the letter that had been opened and copied, the original of which had then been forwarded to me in November, 1896. I asked Major Ravary, on several occasions, to make an investigation, and to hear Souffrain, who, according to information given to me by General de Pellieux, was the author of the ‘Speranza’ telegrams. Major Ravary always refused, on the ground that there was no reason for such an investigation.”
M. Labori.—“Was the mission on which Colonel Picquart was sent an important one?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I will not permit myself to judge my superiors on that matter, but it does not seem to me that it was indispensable to send someone on it.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart always clearly understand the purpose of his mission?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I tried very hard to understand it.”
M. Labori.—“Will Colonel Picquart explain what he meant by saying that his mission was to end at Gabès?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I said this,—that at the beginning of the Dreyfus matter I received an order to go to the frontier of Tripoli. General Leclerc told me that he would not allow me to go farther than Gabès.”
M. Labori.—“Is the place to which Colonel Picquart was sent a dangerous place?”
Colonel Picquart.—“It is not one of the safest.”
M. Labori.—“Is not the police agent with whom Colonel Picquart was in relations concerning the Esterhazy dispatch the one through whom the bordereau, reached the minister of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Consequently, when occasion arose for discussion of the origin of the bordereau, did not this origin seem more than suspicious from the very fact that it came through this police agent?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“How happens it, then, that the serious character of this origin is now disputed?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The serious character of the origin is not disputed; the origin itself is denied.”
M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart declare, on his soul and conscience, that the document really originated as he has said?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“If, then, Colonel Picquart were not telling the truth, he would be guilty of falsehood, and even of perjury?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Exactly.”
M. Labori.—“It follows, Monsieur le Président, that, if Colonel Picquart is not prosecuted on this charge, it is because the question is not disputed. Has Colonel Picquart so far been the object of any prosecution on this charge?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Not that I know of.”
M. Labori.—“Colonel Picquart has told us that he gathered information unfavorable to Esterhazy. Will he go a little more into details?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The facts gathered were various in character. First, there were facts relating to his pecuniary situation. Major Esterhazy was concerned in money transactions that were rather shady. I cannot go into details; the examination must show all that. Then there was a matter of unpaid house-rent at Courbevoie, which was not very clear either.”
The Judge.—“That has no relation” ...
M. Labori.—“I insist on the smallest details.”
Colonel Picquart.—“He was one of the directors of an English financial company,—a thing utterly forbidden to French officers. I called Major Ravary’s attention to this, and he said to me: ‘Oh! in England that matter is not attended by the same inconveniences, because in France one may be thrown into bankruptcy, whereas in England one cannot be.’ I did not very clearly understand.”
M. Labori.—“I do not know whether the witness will be able to reply to the question that I shall now put. Is Colonel Picquart aware that Major Esterhazy was the subject of favorable notes that were read to the council of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I saw certain of these notes in the newspapers. I read them even prior to the council of war, and I was greatly astonished, because all documents relating to the personnel are essentially confidential. There is another thing that astonished me. There has been reference here to citations. Well, I know that General Guerrier, Major Esterhazy’s superior at Rouen, struck from that officer’s record of services a citation that appeared there unwarrantably. General Guerrier is ready to testify to it.”
M. Labori.—“Among Colonel Picquart’s charges against Major Esterhazy was there one that a document belonging to the secret files applied to Esterhazy more than to anybody else, or, rather, than to a certain other person?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“What is this secret file?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Oh! those matters are entirely secret. I should very much like to answer, but I consider that I cannot do so without being released from the obligation of professional secrecy by the minister of war. If he will release me, I will speak; otherwise, not.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart ever see the original of the bordereau?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so. I certainly have seen the photographic reproductions which were in circulation.”
M. Labori.—“In circulation where? In the war offices?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“Then there were official reproductions?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly.”
M. Labori.—“Were these photographs placed in the hands of experts?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I think so, but cannot say so positively. I was not then connected with the service.”
M. Labori.—“Does Colonel Picquart consider that the bordereau published by ‘Le Matin’ November 10, 1896, differs essentially from the authentic original?”
Colonel Picquart.—“It differs so little from it that it was asked who could have committed the indiscretion.”
M. Labori.—“Into how many fragments was the Esterhazy dispatch torn?”
Colonel Picquart—“I cannot say, but there were many. There were little bits no larger than one’s finger-nail.”
M. Labori.—“Was Colonel Picquart able to rearrange the pieces?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“And from what did Colonel Picquart desire to remove the traces of pasting?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Why, from the photograph.”
M. Labori.—“Would it have been possible to remove such traces from the original?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There was never any question of removing them from the original. The original has never been altered. Once pasted, it was not thereafter touched.”
M. Labori.—“In the charges made against Colonel Picquart are there any relating to events that occurred later than 1896?”
Colonel Picquart.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Were not all the doings of Colonel Picquart known to all his superiors?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“Why, then, had they not taken in 1896 the attitude that they have taken since?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not know.”
M. Labori.—“In a case as serious as that of Major Esterhazy, at a time when the chief of the bureau of information was investigating a serious charge of treason, was not the arrest of Major Esterhazy almost necessary, in order to get at the truth?”
Colonel Picquart.—“That was my opinion, but it did not prevail. My superiors thought otherwise.”
M. Labori.—“But, without arresting an officer, is it not possible to watch him so that he can have no chance of doing things still more reprehensible and concealing his tracks?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Certainly. There was enough against Esterhazy to send him to a fortress.”
M. Labori.—“In occupying yourself with the Esterhazy case, were you obeying your conscience?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Absolutely.”
M. Labori.—“Did you feel that you were endangering your military career and your interests?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“And yet you continued?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes, but my superiors did not absolutely oppose me. I felt that I was not in entire harmony with them, but they did not tell me to stop. Otherwise I would have done my duty as an officer, and would have stopped; or, rather, I do not know exactly what I would have done at that time. But—yes, I would have stopped.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart never receive a formal order to stop?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Never.”
M. Labori.—“In Colonel Picquart’s eyes which was the more damaging evidence against Major Esterhazy, the bordereau or the dispatch?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The bordereau.”
M. Labori.—“Did Colonel Picquart make it known to General Gonse?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“How, then, could General Gonse say that it was necessary to distinguish the Dreyfus case from the Esterhazy case?”
Colonel Picquart.—“That he said that is true. He said that confusion of the two cases should be avoided so far as possible; that the Esterhazy case should be continued, but that the Dreyfus case should not be mixed up with it.”
M. Labori.—“But, if Major Esterhazy had been recognized as the author of the bordereau, would not the charge against Dreyfus have fallen necessarily?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes; that is why I never understood the attempt to separate them.”
The Judge.—“Do you remember having sent for M. Leblois to call on you at your office?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
The Judge.—“Do you remember the date?”
Colonel Picquart.—“He came in the spring of 1896 concerning two matters,—the Boulot case and a carrier-pigeon case, about which I should like to say a word.”
The Judge.—“I was going to ask you. What is this carrier-pigeon file of documents? Is it not a secret file?”
Colonel Picquart.—“There are two. One file is in a pasteboard box, which contains nothing but newspaper articles about pigeons. These matters are not secret, and it was about these that I consulted M. Leblois. There is another file which is absolutely secret, containing information with which M. Leblois had no concern, and about which M. Leblois could not have enlightened me. There has been confusion lately concerning this matter. Recently I asked for the carrier-pigeon file, and by chance the secret file was brought.”
The Judge.—“You had by the side of this carrier-pigeon file another file on which was the letter ‘H’ written with blue pencil?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Your description designates the envelope containing the secret file. That was never on my table when M. Leblois was there, and there is a very simple reason why. The file was in my possession only from the latter part of August to the beginning of November, and M. Leblois left Paris August 5, and did not return until November 7.”
The court here recalled M. Gribelin to confront him with Colonel Picquart. M. Gribelin repeated his testimony as follows:
“One evening in October, 1896, I went into Colonel Picquart’s office to get leave of absence. He was sitting at his table with the carrier-pigeon file at his right, and at his left the file that I had handed to him between August 28 and September 5. The letter was contained in an envelope bearing the mark of Major Henry, and it was by this that I recognized it.”
The Judge.—“You saw no documents?”
M. Gribelin.—“No, the envelope was closed.”
Colonel Picquart.—“M. Gribelin is mistaken. I do not believe that he intends to make a false statement, but either his memory fails him or he has confused the files. I know that M. Gribelin is a perfectly honest man.”
The Judge.—“I asked General Gonse concerning him just now, and he spoke of him in the highest terms.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I do not believe him capable of an infamy, but I believe him capable of an error.”
M. Gribelin.—“You can believe what I say; I saw it.”
Colonel Picquart.—“But I say that you did not see it.”
The Judge.—“M. Picquart, did you ask M. Gribelin at a certain time if he could not get the post-office to stamp a letter, which letter you did not otherwise indicate?”
Colonel Picquart.—“To stamp a letter?”
The Judge.—“To stamp a letter; not with the date of its arrival, but with an earlier date.”
M. Gribelin.—“My colonel, let me refresh your memory. You re-entered your office at two o’clock. You sent for me and, as you were taking off your overcoat, you said: ‘Gribelin, could you get the post-office to stamp a letter?’ You did not add a word. You never spoke of the matter afterward. But, on my honor as a soldier, that is the truth, and you know that I never lie.”
Colonel Picquart.—“That I know, but I answer as follows. It has very often happened that Gribelin and I have talked of the way in which letters could be sent to spies. Well, it is possible that one of these recollections is in his mind. But I say that I have no recollection of it at all.”
The Judge.—“But did you not ask this information of Major Lauth almost in the same terms?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I? Oh, never, never, never!”
The court recalled M. Lauth, who repeated his accusation as follows:
“On the very day when Colonel Picquart spoke to me on the subject of removing the traces of tear, he said to me: ‘Do you think that they would stamp this document at the post-office?’ I answered him that they would not be very obliging in such a matter, and that I did not think they would do it.”
The Judge.—“You see, it is almost the same thing.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Does Major Lauth remember that, in his written deposition regarding the proposition which he declares that I made to him that he should say that the handwriting of the dispatch was that of such or such a person, he said: ‘This document has no authentic character; it must have the stamp of the post-office.’”
M. Lauth.—“‘In order that it may have an authentic character, it must have a stamp’; and I added: ‘It is a handwriting that I do not know.’ Colonel Picquart never asked me to certify to my recognition of the dispatch. He said: ‘You will be there to verify that it is the handwriting of such or such a person.’ That is what he said to me, and I answered: ‘I never saw this handwriting, and cannot certify that it is the handwriting of such or such a person.’”
General de Pellieux was recalled.
The Judge.—“Can General de Pellieux tell us anything of the search of which he spoke yesterday?”
General de Pellieux.—“Colonel Picquart admitted to me that an agent sent by him had entered the premises. Well, I ask why he went into the apartment. I suppose that he will say that he went there to rent it.”
Colonel Picquart.—“It seems to me that I have explained that matter. The agent brought me only a card containing a few words. I had him carry it back. I never got anything else.”
The Judge.—“General, did you enter the apartment?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
The Judge.—“Then you do not know what state it was in?”
General de Pellieux.—“No.”
The Judge.—“But yesterday you gave us details.”
General de Pellieux.—“Major Esterhazy says that a piece of furniture was forced, and that traces of this still remain.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then what General de Pellieux told us he got from Major Esterhazy.”
Colonel Picquart admitted that one of his agents had entered Esterhazy’s premises, which were to let.
The Judge.—“This agent had no legal warrant.”
Colonel Picquart.—“No, but he entered the apartment by lawful means.”
M. Clemenceau.—“He did not enter as a robber.”
M. Labori.—“No equivocations. I ask General de Pellieux whether he thinks it possible to ask the chief of the bureau of information belonging to the French war department to keep a watch on spies in the interest of the national defence without giving him the right, if he is an honorable officer above suspicion, to make an investigation?”
General de Pellieux.—“I think he has the right.”
M. Labori.—“The reply is satisfactory.”
General de Pellieux.—“But I add that I do not admit his right to do so without a legal warrant.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask General de Pellieux, who knows the law, and who can explain whether a search is legal, if the search of Colonel Picquart’s premises was illegal.”
General de Pellieux.—“Show me that it is illegal.”
The Judge.—“Were you not a judicial officer of police?”
General de Pellieux.—“Yes, and had the right to make a search. The military code will show it.”
M. Clemenceau.—“The military code declares that the search, to be valid, must be made in the presence of the interested party. If you had found a document of any value, Colonel Picquart could have claimed that it had been brought to his apartment in his absence.”
M. Labori.—“Besides, M. Picquart was not accused. There was only one accused,—Major Esterhazy. He was accused by the chief of the bureau of information to whom this service had been entrusted because he was the most worthy of it, and it was his premises that they searched.”
General de Pellieux.—“I am evidently ignorant regarding procedure. At every step I took the advice of a magistrate, M. Bertulus.”
M. Labori.—“Was it M. Bertulus who suggested to General de Pellieux to search the house for smuggled matches?”
General de Pellieux.—“I gave a police commissioner a search-warrant. If the police commissioner offered this pretext in order to carry out his orders, he is responsible.”
M. Labori.—“Did General de Pellieux, when entrusted with the duty of investigation, order Major Esterhazy to observe absolute discretion, and stay at home instead of exercising his liberty,—a liberty which he used in going daily to the offices of ‘Le Jour,’ ‘La Libre Parole,’ and other newspapers?”
General de Pellieux.—“I did, and in writing.”
M. Labori.—“How well, in the opinion of General de Pellieux, were his orders obeyed by Major Esterhazy?”
General de Pellieux.—“I do not say that Major Esterhazy fully obeyed my orders, but from the moment that he received them the communications to the press became, I observed, less numerous.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Can these gentlemen say that they have seen a single letter on which I have caused a post-office stamp to be placed?”
The Judge.—“It is not claimed that you have done that. The claim simply is that you asked if it were possible to have such a thing done.”
The court then recalled Major Ravary.
M. Labori.—“Why did M. Ravary, in his report, in which he accumulated all arguments tending to depreciate Colonel Picquart’s merit, omit the incident relating to the question attributed to Colonel Picquart concerning the placing of stamps on a letter or a dispatch?”
M. Ravary.—“There were an abundance of matters that I could have cited in proof of irregularities on Colonel Picquart’s part. I did not need to put all of them in my report.”
M. Labori.—“Tell us what these irregularities were.”
M. Ravary.—“If I had desired to invoke Article 378, I need not have said anything. I could have pleaded professional secrecy.”
M. Clemenceau.—“But, since you did not invoke it, you are at liberty to speak.”
M. Labori.—“I say that Major Ravary must either observe professional secrecy, or not observe it. In saying that there are many other charges, he does not observe professional secrecy. I am not in favor of closed doors or professional secrecy, but, since Major Ravary has already violated professional secrecy, he may well tell us of the other charges against Colonel Picquart.”
M. Ravary.—“Military justice does not proceed as yours does.”
M. Clemenceau.—“There are not two justices. There is only one—the true justice.”
M. Ravary.—“Our code is not the same.”
The Judge.—“Answer the question, if you see fit,”
M. Ravary.—“I refuse to answer.”
M. Labori.—“Under these circumstances there is nothing left of all that M. Ravary has said.”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot allow this charge to rest upon me. I ask M. Ravary to declare frankly what other irregularities are laid at my door.”
M. Ravary.—“There are the two already referred to,—that of which M. Gribelin has spoken, and which I did not put in my report, and that which M. Lauth has described.”
Colonel Picquart.—“And, covering all that with an insinuation, you were allowing it to be supposed that there were many other things.”
M. Labori.—“M. Ravary covered that with professional secrecy, and, when he no longer dared to appeal to professional secrecy, he had nothing left to say.”
Colonel Picquart.—“And for three months that has been going on.”
The court then adjourned for the day.