Twelfth Day—February 19.
The proceedings opened with an application for the floor from Colonel Picquart, who desired to vindicate himself against aspersions cast upon him by witnesses and by the newspapers. Referring first to a statement of “Le Petit Journal” that he was a divorced husband, and was having his children brought up in Germany, he declared that he was not married, that he had never been, that he had no children, and that, if he had any, he would not have them brought up in Germany. Referring next to the statement of General de Pellieux that he, Colonel Picquart, had endeavored to stimulate the testimony of Mulot by promising him certain favors, he said that General de Pellieux knew him only through the three interviews that they had had on three afternoons, and that he would like some military commander who knew him better to be called to testify regarding his character. “I will cite you,” said he, “one man whose past is glorious, who has shed his blood on many battle-fields, a man who has been mingled with our victories and our sorrows, a man who certainly cannot be suspected of undue indulgence toward his subordinates,—I mean General de Galiffet. I am certain that, if General de Galiffet were called to this bar, he would say what he said before the council of investigation, where he did not fear to shake hands with me after saying what he thought of me. I ask that he may come here to say what he thinks of me. I do not know the proper means to employ; but I desire it.”
M. Labori sustained the demand of Colonel Picquart that General de Galiffet be called, but the court ruled that his testimony would be useless.
In answer to questions put by M. Labori, Colonel Picquart testified that, while he was at the head of the bureau of information, one Marchand was connected with that service, who was also an editor of “L’Eclair,” a “hold-over” from the time of Colonel Sandherr, and that, at the time of certain publications in “L’Eclair,” M. Marchand was questioned about them, whereupon he denied being concerned in the indiscretions, and endeavored, but unsuccessfully, to find out who had given the documents to “L’Eclair.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Pellieux intervene several times, of his own accord, in the course of Colonel Picquart’s testimony before the council of war?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Please put that question to General de Pellieux.”
Thus summoned, General de Pellieux advanced to the bar, apologizing for his appearance in civil costume, declaring that he had supposed his part in the affair was ended. Instead of answering the question, he spoke as follows:
“The words uttered yesterday by the attorney-general dictate my duty. I absolutely refuse to answer any question of the defence not directly connected with the Zola case. Now I have a word to add. In presence of Colonel Picquart, I said at a previous session that everything in this case was strange, but what I find still more strange—and I say it to his face—is the attitude of a Monsieur who still wears the French uniform, and who comes to this bar to accuse three generals of having committed a forgery or made use of a forgery.”
Colonel Picquart.—“In declaring yesterday that in my eyes the document of which General de Pellieux had spoken was a forgery, I insist that I had not the least intention of casting suspicion upon the good faith of my superiors. There are forgeries so perfect that they have the appearance of a genuine document. For instance, there were the Norton documents, I believe, which persons high in place thought to be genuine. My thought should be interpreted from this point of view, and I object to any other interpretation.”
M. Labori desired to say a few words regarding the incident, but the court was opposed. “All this,” said the judge, “has nothing to do” ...
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, Monsieur le Président” ...
The Judge.—“I am going to deprive you of the floor.”
M. Labori.—“Every time that you deprive me of the floor, you do me a little more honor.”
The Judge.—“Well, it is understood; you may take your seat.”
General de Pellieux.—“I would like to add a word. The part that I have played in this matter has not been voluntary; circumstances have forced it upon me.”
The Judge.—“Can the witness withdraw? Has the defence any objection?”
M. Labori.—“I have no objection to anything, since I cannot make any observations.”
The Judge.—“That is not the question.”
M. Labori.—“You ask me a question. Will you permit me to answer it or not?”
The Judge.—“I ask you a question.”
M. Labori.—“You ask me if I object to the withdrawal of General de Pellieux.”
The Judge.—“Answer yes or no.”
M. Labori.—“I cannot answer yes or no, because I have distinctions to make.”
The Judge.—“Monsieur the attorney-general?”
The Attorney-General.—“Incidents may arise. The general had better remain in the court-room.”
The Judge.—“Then, General, be good enough to remain in the court-room.”
General de Pellieux.—“I remain at the disposition of the court and the jury.”
M. Labori.—“As for me, I ask that it be recorded that the court has asked me a question, and then deprived me of the floor before I had replied.”
The Judge.—“But I have not deprived you of the floor. I deprived you of the floor when you were going to argue.”
M. Labori.—“I have not argued.”
The Judge.—“This is too much.”
M. Labori.—“You had deprived me of the floor.”
The Judge.—“I did so because you desired to argue; because it is my right; because it is my duty.”
M. Labori.—“It relates to a question.”
The Judge.—“The witness has answered that he will say nothing.”
M. Labori.—“It is to you that I speak. I wish to induce you to direct the trial in a manner that I am about to point out. Do you give me the floor for that purpose?”
The Judge.—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Very well. It is not the court that is judge, but the whole country.”
General Gonse was then called, and asked by M. Labori at what date the hydraulic check was introduced into the service.
General Gonse.—“I am not in charge of the artillery service, and cannot answer.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to comment upon the testimony of the witness, to say regarding it that which is indispensable to the truth, according to Article 319?”
The Judge.—“Ask questions only.”
M. Labori.—“Really, I ask myself if it would not be better to quit this court-room than to suffer myself to be thus gagged and placed in a strait-jacket.”
The Judge.—“Come, Monsieur Labori, say serious things.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, you abuse the right that your lofty position gives you. You have no right to insult me. Do you maintain that I do not say serious things here?”
The Judge.—“Ask questions.”
M. Labori.—“It is well. You do not maintain it; I continue. I ask Colonel Picquart to explain what he meant in his testimony when he indicated that one of the documents in the secret file applied rather to Major Esterhazy than to another.”
Colonel Picquart.—“Had there not been mention of this document in the Ravary report, I would not say a word about it. I say that it applied rather to Major Esterhazy than to another, because this document need only be seriously discussed in order to make it plain that it can apply only to an officer of troops, and not to a staff officer. I could give my reasons only behind closed doors.”
M. Labori.—“Was not Colonel Picquart appointed chief of the bureau of information on July 1, 1895?”
Colonel Picquart.—“Yes.”
M. Labori.—“When he entered upon his functions, did not General de Boisdeffre say to him: ‘Occupy yourself with the Dreyfus case. There is not much in the file’?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I have not to answer that question, for it relates to conversations with the chief of staff.”
M. Labori.—“At what date did the witness say to General Gonse: ‘I shall not carry this secret to the grave’?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot speak of private conversations. I have seen that statement in a newspaper, and asked myself who could have given it out.”
M. Labori.—“Did not General de Boisdeffre in September and October, 1896, after the letters of General Gonse, invite Colonel Picquart to put questions regarding Major Esterhazy?”
Colonel Picquart.—“The obligations of professional secrecy prevent me from answering.”
M. Labori.—“Was it not then that Colonel Picquart proposed to have Major Esterhazy arrested for certain matters of indelicacy?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I considered that it would be useful to arrest Major Esterhazy, and that, if the presumption that he was a spy was not strong enough, there was enough against him in other directions to warrant sending him to a fortress. My superiors did not agree with me.”
M. Labori.—“This proposition having been rejected by General de Boisdeffre, did he not ask Colonel Picquart to formulate another?”
Colonel Picquart.—“I cannot testify in the assize court concerning the details of my service.”
M. Labori.—“Did not Colonel Picquart then frame another proposition, which was first accepted, and then rejected because it would lead to Major Esterhazy’s arrest? Does not that prove that the authenticity of the dispatch was not disputed?”
Colonel Picquart.—“At that time nobody questioned the authenticity of the dispatch.”
The stand was then taken by M. Stock, the publisher, who at the time of the examination in the Esterhazy case had turned over to General de Pellieux certain letters written by Major Esterhazy to M. Autant, the architect.
“General de Pellieux undoubtedly took no account of them,” said the witness, “for neither M. Autant or myself was called before him. At that time Major Esterhazy said to M. Autant: ‘You must deny having received these letters; you must deny that I am your tenant; you must deny any acquaintance with me; and, if questioned about the letters, you must say that they are forgeries.’ M. Autant refused, saying that that was contrary to the truth. Moreover, it was childish, for there were two registered leases, and everybody in the house knew Major Esterhazy. Later the letters found their way into the hands of Major Ravary, and M. Autant and I were called before him. He was very courteous, but my testimony did not seem to please him. He asked me why the letters had been photographed. I did not know. He said that he considered it very strange that M. Autant should have given up Major Esterhazy’s letters without his consent. I found it very curious that this examining magistrate should tell a witness to ask the opinion of the accused before deciding what to do.”
M. Labori.—“Does the witness know anything concerning M. Zola’s good faith?”
M. Stock.—“To me, as to everybody, it is absolutely evident. Furthermore, I know, through the indiscretion of a member of the council of war, that not simply one secret document, but several, were communicated to that body. I can enumerate them.”
The Judge.—“No, it is useless. We have no right to say anything about the Dreyfus case.”
M. Stock.—“I can enumerate four of these documents, if you like.”
The Judge.—“We are not concerned with the Dreyfus case.”
The next witness was M. Lalance, who formerly sat in the German reichstag representing Alsace-Lorraine, as protesting deputy.
“I would like,” said the witness, “to tell the jury something about the origins of this affair. I was acquainted with the Sandherr and Dreyfus families,—that is, with the family of the accuser and the family of the accused. I have lived with them and seen them very closely. The elder Sandherr was a Protestant who became a Catholic and showed the intolerance of all neophytes. In 1870, the time of the war, bands of people said to be directed by him ran through the streets of Mulhouse, crying: ‘Down with the Prussians of the interior!’ These Prussians were the Protestants and Jews. These cries found no echo. Protestants, Jews, and Catholics all did their duty during the war and after it. When in 1874 the provinces were called upon to send deputies to Berlin, it was a Jew who nominated the bishop of Metz, and the Protestant deputies were nominated by the priests. The younger Sandherr, the colonel, whom I knew from childhood, was a good soldier and a brave and loyal citizen, but he had inherited his father’s intolerance. Furthermore, in 1893 he fell a victim to the brain disease of which he was to die three years later. In that year he was sent to Bussang to be cured. During his stay there, there was a patriotic ceremony,—the return of the flag to the regiment of light infantry. All the bathers went to see it. Near them was a Jew, undoubtedly an Alsatian, who wept with emotion. Colonel Sandherr turned to his neighbors, and said to them: ‘I distrust those tears.’ His neighbors asked him to explain, saying to him: ‘We know that there were Jewish officers in the army who were patriotic and intelligent and did their duty.’ Colonel Sandherr answered: ‘I distrust them all.’ Such was the man, gentlemen of the jury, who proffered the accusation. It is legitimate to suppose that he was governed by his feelings rather than by justice. As for the Dreyfus family” ...
The Judge.—“Say nothing of Dreyfus.”
M. Lalance.—“The family, Monsieur le Président.”
The Judge.—“No, it is useless.”
M. Lalance.—“I desist, in obedience to your orders. But I thought it might be useful for the jury to know what the elder brother did.”
M. Labori then read the following letter received from M. Gabriel Séailles, professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne, who had been summoned, but was kept at home by illness.
Why did I sign the protest?
A man of the study. I can bring here only the testimony of my free and sincere conscience. After the Dreyfus trial it never occurred to me for a moment to call in question the legality of the verdict. I do not wish to lessen the initiative of M. Zola, but it is not he who opened this debate. It was opened by the unknown person who transmitted to ‘Le Matin’ the fac-simile of the famous bordereau. On that day the question was submitted to public opinion; an appeal was taken to the conscience of each of us. There is no escape from the logic of events. Other things occurred, other documents have been presented to us. We have seen a bit of writing which, by the confession of its author, bears a frightful resemblance to the handwriting of the bordereau. We have witnessed a trial the conduct of which astonished us,—a trial where the witnesses were transformed into the accused. We have read an indictment which disconcerted us, because we sought in it in vain for what we expected to find there. We may be condemned to silence, but we cannot prevent ourselves from thinking. So my mind worked on the data that had been furnished, and my ideas concentrated themselves in the following dilemma: of two things one; either Dreyfus was convicted on the strength of the bordereau,—that is, without proof,—or he was convicted on secret documents not communicated to the defence,—that is, illegally. This almost involuntary conclusion fell heavily upon my heart. If the law, which is the security of all of us, and which we may have to invoke tomorrow, should be always respected, should it not be especially respected when in one individual there are thousands of individuals whom they pretend to condemn and dishonor?
How was I led to sign a protest?
I had just corrected a lesson in morals, the work of a student. I had said to these young people what all of you I am sure would wish me to say to them: that the human person is sacred; that justice is inviolable: that it cannot be sacrificed to passion or to interest, with whatever name they may be decorated. I had told them that justice is not a servant whom we ring for when we need its service; that it is the grand image which should hover over all conflicts of passions and interests, because it alone can be the peacemaker. I returned to my study. A student brought me a petition. I signed it. Our teaching would have no authority, if we were not ready to confirm it by our acts. I have no authority to speak in the name of the university. The painful conflict of duties that has disturbed so many consciences has divided us, but we too highly esteem one another, we hold sincere thought in too great respect, to treat each other as knaves or fools. If you have found on the lists of those protesting so many names of people connected with the university, it is not because of any spirit of revolt. It is because these brave people who, should occasion arise, would hasten to defend the integrity of the national territory consider it their professional duty to maintain another integrity no less precious,—the integrity of the national conscience. But, since the name of the university has been uttered, let us have an understanding. We respect and we love the army. In that we are unanimous. We consider ourselves as workers in the same work, servants of the same cause, soldiers in the same fight. The army of France, the army of mutilated France, is force in the service of right. Never have we separated the cause of right from the cause of the army. Please God that we may soon find ourselves reconciled in the superior thought of the country, and that at last we may be spared the continuance of the painful spectacle of so many French hands withdrawing from one another, when all ought to join in a common and fraternal action. As for M. Zola’s good faith, the very experiences that he is undergoing are sufficient to attest it. He has acted in accordance with his temperament, after the fashion of a man who, shut up in a room where the air is becoming stifling, rushes to the window, and, at the risk of covering himself with blood, breaks the glass to let in a little air and light.
Gabriel Séailles.
The witness-stand was then taken by M. Duclaux, director of the Pasteur Institute, who testified that he signed the protest because it seemed to him that it would be a good thing for a group of men to declare to the public that the Esterhazy trial had not dissipated the obscurity of the Dreyfus trial. His testimony was followed by that of M. Anatole France, member of the French Academy, who, after explaining why he had signed the protest, was asked his opinion of M. Zola’s good faith.
M. France.—“Having spent some hours with M. Zola last December, and having been, so to speak, the witness of his thought, I can testify here to his admirable good faith and his absolute sincerity. But the sincerity of M. Zola needs no guarantee; so I will simply say that he is acting, under these circumstances, with courage, according to his temperament, in behalf of justice and truth, inspired by the most generous sentiments.”
General Billot, who had been appealed to to authorize the production of the Uhlan letter, having written to the judge that he would leave the matter to the decision of the court, the court now rendered a decree that it should not be produced, since by a previous decree all matters “relating to the Dreyfus and Esterhazy trials, judged, in whole or in part, behind closed doors, had been excluded from the debate.”
This ended the testimony, and, the attorney-general not being ready to begin his argument, an adjournment was taken until Monday, February 21.