I have read the testimony of M. Jaurès. He must be mistaken, for M. Papillaud, whom I saw the day before he met Major Esterhazy, and whom I saw again the day after, said to me a very different thing. I am ready to testify to it.
Following is M. Papillaud’s dispatch:
Beaulieu (Alpes-Maritimes).
In convalescence here, I read deposition of Jaurès. Have already contradicted in “Libre Parole.” Beg you, Monsieur le Président, to excuse my absence, and read to the jury the following declaration: Never did I make the remarks reported by Jaurès. Never did I hear Esterhazy use such language. Once Esterhazy said in my presence: “They thought me ruined because of the resemblance in handwritings. If there is a resemblance, I shall prove that Dreyfus has imitated my writing.” I saw Esterhazy seven times. Never did I hear him say anything other than that. Therefore I protest against the Jaurès account, which is a veritable falsehood, the more blameworthy because I, being sick here, cannot appear before the court. Therefore I count on you, Monsieur le Président, to establish the truth, and beg you to accept the assurance of my distinguished sentiments.
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, we do not complain at all at the introduction of these documents into the trial. Only I permit myself to point out that no notice of them has been given, and we shall ask the same right for documents emanating from us.”
The Judge.—“These are not documents of the trial.”
M. Labori.—“If, in the course of the trial, we receive documents of a similar character, we shall ask the court to read them.”
The Judge.—“I have read these by virtue of my discretionary power.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, it is to your discretionary power that we shall appeal.”
M. Jaurès.—“Monsieur le Président, I regret more than anyone that the health of M. Papillaud does not permit him to be here, for I am sure that, before the clearness of my declaration and the precision of my recollections, he would not be able to maintain his denial for a moment. I declare once more, under oath, that M. Papillaud twice said to me that he had heard M. Esterhazy say to him, when ‘Le Matin’ published the fac-simile of the bordereau: ‘I felt that I was ruined.’ I give the circumstances in detail. Once he said it as we were leaving the senate, after M. Scheurer-Kestner had made his interpellation. We had met at the foot of the grand staircase, and we were talking of the result of the session. We agreed that, in spite of appearances, M. Scheurer-Kestner had obtained an important result in securing the admission of the bordereau as evidence in the investigation. That was the starting-point of a conversation concerning the bordereau, in the course of which M. Papillaud said to me: ‘If it were only a matter of the bordereau, the thing would be soon settled, for I am convinced that the bordereau is the work of Esterhazy. I know that by the agitation that he showed when, at a time when his name had never been uttered in connection with the affair, he said, on seeing the fac-simile in ‘Le Matin,’ that he felt that he was ruined.’ Another time, in the Salle des Pas-Perdus of the chamber, I approached M. Papillaud, who was standing in a group of journalists, and said to him: ‘How can you still march behind this man after the publication of the letters in “Le Figaro?”’ He answered: ‘We can the less march behind him because, when he came to the office of “La Libre Parole,” he showed a singular agitation in consequence of seeing the bordereau in “Le Matin.” He felt that he was lost. From that moment I, who was, and am still, convinced of the guilt of Dreyfus, said to my friends in the office of “La Libre Parole:” “At any rate we will not march behind Esterhazy.”’ These, gentlemen, are precise affirmations, and, since I was not present just now when M. Papillaud’s telegram was read, I may be permitted to point out to the jurors the singular conditions under which this contradiction was obtained. To facilitate M. Papillaud in his contradiction, an inexact version of my testimony was telegraphed to him. ‘La Libre Parole’ reproduces this morning the telegram that was sent to M. Papillaud, which says that I declared that M. Esterhazy said to M. Papillaud: ‘I feel myself ruined.’ That is not what I said. I repeated exactly a much more serious remark,—namely, that fifteen months before, on seeing the fac-simile of the bordereau, Esterhazy felt himself ruined. I am astonished that this disavowal could have been obtained from M. Papillaud, unless they distorted the meaning and text of my words, and my astonishment is the greater since all the newspapers, with the exception of ‘La Libre Parole,’ have printed my deposition exactly. And it is surprising that that paper, which is directly interested in the incident, is the only one that has not reproduced it exactly. But I understand the interest that they have in denying the remark. It is twofold. In the first place, it is extremely serious in itself, as a moral indication of M. Esterhazy’s state of mind fifteen months ago, and, secondly, it demonstrates, contrary to the allegation of General de Pellieux, that between the fac-simile of the bordereau and the bordereau itself there is not the difference that he has proclaimed, and the proof is that M. Esterhazy, before the council of war, where I was present, recognized a striking resemblance between his own handwriting and that of the bordereau, having previously recognized the same resemblance between his own handwriting and that of fac-simile. Therefore there is no difference between the fac-simile and the bordereau.”