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.”