M. Clemenceau.—“Ah! very well.”
General de Pellieux.—“What opinion do you expect me to express?”
The Judge.—“Were you familiar, in the Esterhazy case, with the communication of secret documents by Colonel Picquart to M. Leblois?”
M. Clemenceau.—“That is not what we are talking about. It is agreed that, when General de Pellieux learns that a document accusing Major Esterhazy is communicated to a third party, he is indignant. It is established, on the other hand, that, when a document accusing another officer is carried about Paris, he has no opinion. General de Pellieux has said that he caused a search to be made of M. Picquart’s premises. May I point out to him that M. Picquart was a witness, and ask him also why he did not cause a search to be made of the premises of M. Esterhazy, who was the party accused?”
General de Pellieux.—“It was absolutely useless to search the premises of Major Esterhazy, as that had been done during eight months by Colonel Picquart.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Eighteen months had elapsed between what General de Pellieux calls the searches of Major Esterhazy’s premises by M. Picquart and the Esterhazy investigation. I repeat: How did it happen to occur to General de Pellieux to search the premises of a witness, and not the premises of the accused?”
General de Pellieux.—“I did not cause a search to be made of Major Esterhazy’s premises, because I was a judicia officer of police and did not deem it necessary.”
General de Pellieux then stepped down, and the defence offered the testimony of MM. Dupuy, Guérin, and Poincaré concerning the secret document, which testimony the court declined to hear for the usual reasons, and the hearing of which M. Labori insisted on by the usual motions. Then the stand was taken by M. Thévenet, former minister of justice.
Testimony of M. Thévenet.
Being asked what he thought of the good faith of M. Zola in writing the article, “I Accuse,” he said: