b'Class \n\n\n\n\nBook^^^tl-AiA \n\n\n\nw \n\n\n\nd \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDREYFUS: \n\nTHE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\n\nCAPTAIN ALFRED DREYFUS. \n\n\n\nDREYFUS: \n\nTHE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nA Full Story of the Most Remarkable Military- \nTrial and Scandal of the Age \n\n\n\nBY \n\nWILLIAM HARDING \n\nCable Editor, The Associated Press \n\n\n\nProfusely illustrated with Portraits of the Principal \nActors, and Photographic Reproductions of the Places \nand Scenes of Dreyfus\'s Trial and Exile \n\n\n\nASSOCIATED PUBLISHING COMPANY \n\n\n\n^^ \n\n\n\nCopyright 1899, \nBY \n\nJ. A. JONES \n\n\n\nDedication \n\nTo the Men of America \n\nWhether Jew or Gentile \n\nWho abhor Persecution \nWho believe in the Reign of Justice \nWho rejoice when the sword of Truth is drawn \nAnd will not see it sheathed \n\nCbis Ristory \n\nOf the Sorrows and Persecutions of \n\nCaptain Hlf red Dreyfus \n\nIs dedicated by the Author \n\nTo whom the Atlantic Cables \n\nBy Day and Night for Months and Years \n\nHave told the Marvelous Story. \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTIO:^ \n\n\n\nThe case of Alfred Dreyfus is the most remarkable episode of modern \ntimes. It is an incident of its own kind, without an antecedent and with- \nout a parallel. Superficially it seems to be an imbroglio of what Carlyle \nwould call " despicable personalities " ; but under the surface are playing \nsome of the most powerful forces of human history. The fact is, that the \nreal causes of this strange outbreak and upheaval in France are as univer- \nsal as the present political constitution of the world, and as old as the \nflight of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. \n\nThe echo of the Dreyfus case has been heard as far as the confines of \ncivilization. The headlines have been cried in Tokio and Buenos Ayres. \nThe name of this Franco-Hebrew captain has been spoken and his fate \ndiscussed by the trappers of the Yenisei, by the Peruvian silver miners, \nby the alcaldes of Guatemala, by the priests of Thibet, and by the gam- \nblers of Monte Carlo. Every cabinet, every ministry, from that of Cal- \ncutta to that of The Hague, has felt the vibrations and weighed the conse- \nquences of the case of Dreyfus. Every monarch of Asia has taken time \nto learn at least the pronunciation of the name of the prisoner of Devil\'s \nIsland. Every schoolboy from Siberia to Texas has heard something of \nthe trial of Dreyfus, and of Zola and Esterhazy. \n\nAs a result of the thousands of columns printed about this cause celebre, \nthe ordinary mortal has floundered about in a sea of doubt and specula- \ntion. Unable to afford the time to follow carefully all the exciting devel- \nopments in the drama, the average man or woman has had to be content \nwith getting a glimpse, now and then, of the actors on the stage, or of the \ndoings behind the scenes. Meanwhile, both men and nations have looked \nforward to the time when a calming of the swiftly whirling waves might \nenable the interested mind to sift the true from the false in the turbulent \nwhirlpool of news. \n\n\n\n10 INTEODUCTION \n\nIn the following pages it has been our task to attempt this work of \ncondensation, elimination, and construction. In this work, we give all \ndue credit to The Associated Press and its most able General Manager, \nMelville E. Stone, to whose effective direction the newspapers of this coun- \ntry have been so greatly indebted in presenting to the American public \nsuch complete accounts of the famous trial at Eennes. \n\nThe author of this work, from the official position which he has held, \nhas had the invaluable opportunity to gather from the ever-flowing volume \nof cable intelligence all the essentials of the remarkable event which he has \nattempted to narrate in the following pages. It is but justice to say that \nno position other than that which he has held could have afforded like \nopportunities. The general American offices of The Associated Press have \nbeen for years the fleece of Jason, heavy with the golden sands of intelli- \ngence. If the volume of news sometimes flows by leaving vast deposits \nof sediment, the golden grains are ever in the current ; and these may be \ncaught and molten into the rich bullion of human history. \n\nThe Dreyfus case has ended. The writer of this volume has done his \npart to transmit a knowledge of the proceedings to the American people \nday by day, as the cause has unfolded itself; and now he has reviewed \nand recorded in these pages the whole course of the event \xe2\x80\x94 the conspiracy, \nthe crime, the suffering, the ignominy, which have been brought to light \nin the trial hall at Eennes. \n\nThis book contains the results of the author\'s gathering and inquiry; \n\nit also contains his interpretations and deductions. He now sends the \n\nstory of the prisoner of Devil\'s Island to the public, with the hope that \n\nI the liberty-loving and truth-seeking people of his country may find in the \n\nI perusal as much instruction and interest as the author has found in the \n\npreparation of this volume. \n\nWilliam Hakding. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\n\n\nPAGE \n\nIntroduction, .............. 9 \n\nCHAPTER I. \n[y^^lHE Cause of It All, ............ 17 \n\nCHAPTER II. \nGlancing Backward, . . . . . .19 \n\nCHAPTER III. \nWhat Was Found in a Waste-Basket, .21 \n\nCHAPTER IV. \nThe Initial Passage, 25 \n\nCHAPTER V. \nThe Plotting Begins, ............ 28 \n\nCHAPTER VI. \n\'The First Court-Martial, 33 \n\nCHAPTER VII. \nFound Guilty and Condemned, . . .36 \n\nCHAPTER VIII. \nThe Degradation, 40 \n\nCHAPTER IX. \nAnother Account of the Degradation, 45 \n\nCHAPTER X. \nThe "Syndicate op Silence," 47 \n\nCHAPTER XI. \nExiled to Devil\'s Island, .60 \n\nCHAPTER XII. \nLife on Devil\'s Island, 53 \n\nCHAPTER XIII. \nThe Doctor\'s Story, 56 \n\nCHAPTER XIV. \nLetters of Dreyfus to his Wife, . . . 59 \n\n\n\n12 CONTENTS \n\nCHAPTER XVr\' \n\nPAQE \n\nFurther Expressions op the Prisoner, 63 \n\nCHAPTER XVI. \nJ The Prisoner Hears Good News, . . 69 \n\nCHAPTER XVII. \nWorking for the Truth, ........... 73 \n\nCHAPTER XVIII. \nColonel Henry to the Rescue, .......... 77 \n\nCHAPTER XIX. \ni Zola to the Front, ............ 81 \n\nCHAPTER XX. \nM. Cavaignac and the Dreyfus Case, . . . . . . . . .85 \n\nCHAPTER XXI. \nBefore the Court of Cassation, ......... .91 \n\nCHAPTER XXII. \n\nv\' Hopes Grow Stronger, 94 \n\nCHAPTER XXIII. \n\nV \nDreyfus Brought Back to France, - . . . 99 \n\nCHAPTER XXIV. \nHow M. Lbbon Treated Dreyfus, 103 \n\nCHAPTER XXV. \nDreyfus\' 8 Final Appeal for Justice, ......... 107 \n\nCHAPTER XXVI. \n\' Opening of the Second Dreyfus Court-Martial, ...... Ill \n\nCHAPTER XXVII. \nThe Prisoner Assists the Judges, ......... 121 \n\nCHAPTER XXVIII. \nGeneral Mercier Confronted by Dreyfus, ....... 123 \n\nCHAPTER XXIX. \nAttempt to Murder M. Labori, .......... 132 \n\nCHAPTER XXX. \nEx-President and Former War Minister Clash, ..*..- 138 \n\nCHAPTER XXXI. \nThe Prisoner\'s Sufferings on Devil\'s Island, . . ... . \xe2\x80\xa2 146 \n\n\n\nCONTENTS 13 \n\nCHAPTEE XXXII. \n\nPAGE \n\nColonel Picquart and M. Bertulus Support Dreyfus, 157 \n\nCHAPTER XXXIII. \n"The Plots against Dreyfus, 165 \n\nCHAPTER XXXIV. \n"That is a Manifest Lie!" said Dreyfus, ........ 176 \n\nCHAPTER XXXV. \nDreyfus Answers his A-ccusbrs, .......... 183 \n\nCHAPTER XXXVI. \n^"\xe2\x96\xa0Labori Resumes the Defence of Dreyfus, 190 \n\nCHAPTER XXXVII. \nGeneral Gonsb Cornered by M. Labori, 198 \n\nCHAPTER XXXVm. \nGenerals Go Down under Counsel\'s Eire, 205 \n\nCHAPTER XXXIX. \n"Expert" Bkrtillon Attacks Dreyfus, 216 \n\nCHAPTER XL. \nMercieb Accuses the Dead, . 222 \n\nCHAPTER XLI. \nThe Evidence of M. Bertillon is Ridiculed, ....... 227 \n\nCHAPTER XLII. \n, The " Little White Mouse " Testifies, 232 \n\nCHAPTER XLIII. \nEsterhazy Accused by Eour Witnesses, . . . . . . . . 240 \n\nCHAPTER XLIV. \nThe Prisoner Breaks Down Under the Strain, ...... 245 \n\nCHAPTER XLV. \nMore Testimony for Dreyfus, 252 \n\nl/ CHAPTER XLVI. \n\nMore Testimony in Favor of Dreyfus, ........ 261 \n\nCHAPTER XLVn. \nConflicting Testimony, 270 \n\n\n\n14 CONTENTS \n\nCHAPTEK XLVIII. \n\nPAGE \n\nAppeal to Emperor William and King Humbert, ...... 278 \n\nCHAPTER XLIX. \nM. Labori Threatens to Withdraw from the Case, ..... 289 \n\nCHAPTER L. \n\nJotTAUST Refuses to Take Evidence of the Attach]es, ..... 298 \n\nCHAPTER LI. \nPleading for the Prisoner, ........... 309 \n\n\' CHAPTER LII. \nAgain Pound Guilty, ............. 317 \n\nCHAPTER LIII. \nIndignation Throughout the World, ......... 334 \n\nCHAPTER LIV. \nVindication, ............... 349 \n\nCHAPTER LV. \nV First Free Utterances of Dretpus, ......... 351 \n\nCHAPTER LVI. \nExplains Animosity Against Him, ......... 357 \n\nCHAPTER LVII. \n"The Incident is Closed," ........... 365 \n\nCHAPTER LVIII. \nIs the "Incident" Closed? ........... 368 \n\nCHAPTER LIX. \nThe Hope of France, ............ 372 \n\nCHAPTER LX. \nWhat Europe Thought of the Pardon, . . . . . . . .375 \n\nCHAPTER LXI. \nEchoes of the Trial, ............ 379 \n\nCHAPTER LXII. \nProposal to Boycott the Paris Exposition, ....... 387 \n\nCHAPTER LXIII. \nDreyfus Trial Reporting, ........... 391 \n\nDictionary of Principal Names, Documents, etc., . . . . \xe2\x80\xa2 399 \n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS \n\n\n\nCaptain Alfred Dreyfus. \n\nGreat Actors in the Drama : Zola, Clemenceau, Mercier, Carri6re. \n\nColonel Picquart in the Cherche-Midi Prison. \n\nFirst Scene of the Tragedy : Major Da Paty de Clam dictating Trial Passages of the \nBordereau to Captain Dreyfus before his arrest. \n\nThe Secret Court-Martial. \n\nOpening of the Trial : Dreyfus declares his Innocence. \n\nMadame Dreyfus and Her Children. \n\nMaitre Labori. \n\nConfession of Colonel Henry to War Minister Cavaignac. \n\nlie du Diable : Dreyfus in his Cell. \n\nCourt of Cassation : Assembling to hear Beaupr^\'s Report in favor of Revision. \n\nDreyfus\'s Outburst of Passion : "I am Innocent ! " \n\nDevil\'s Island : Showing Dreyfus\'s Hut and the Watch-Tower. \n\nReturn of Dreyfus : Arrival on board the S^ax. \n\nLeaving the Train at Rablais near Rennes. \n\nSome of the Principal Personages in the Dreyfus Case. \n\nThe Degradation of Dreyfus : Breaking the Sword. \n\nDreyfus\'s Morning Walk on the Sfax. \n\nThe Return of Dreyfus : Landing from the Sfax at Quiberon. \n\nOn Board the Sfax : the Cabin occupied by Dreyfus. \n\nOn Board the Sfax : The Guard at the Door of Dreyfus\'s Cabin. \n\nLeading Actors in the Drama: Cavaignac, Casimir-P^rier, Faure, de Freycinet, \nGallifet. \n\nLeading Actors in the Drama : Henry, Deroulfede, Roget, Boisdeffre, Esterhazy. \n\nLeading Actors in the Drama: Schwarzkoppen, Panizzardi, Scheurer - Kestner, \nSandherr, Billot, Du Paty de Clam. \n\nPresident Emile Loubet. \n\nMaitre Labori with Madame Labori and his Secretary. \n\nMadame Labori Supporting her Wounded Husband. \n\n\n\n16 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS \n\nReturn of Dreyfus : En route to Rennes. \n\nScene between General Roget and Colonel Picquart, August 18, 1899. \n\nReturn of Dreyfus : First Landing on French Soil. \n\nWitnesses against Dreyfus: General Zurlinden, Casimir-Perier, Generals Billot \n\nand Mercier. \nPanoramic View of Devil\'s Island. \nSecond Court-Martial : Remarkable scene during the Session of August 24th. \n\nThe Confrontation of Captain Freystaetter and Colonel Maurel-Pries, Judges in the \n\nTrial of 1894. \nArrival of Madame Dreyfus at Rennes. \nFrenzy of Paris : Reading the News in the Streets. \n\nAgitation in Paris : Rush on the Boulevard for Evening Papers Announcing the Verdict. \nThe Mob Rampant in Paris. \n\nCaptain Dreyfus Leaving the Court-Martial for the Military Prison. \nThe Trial at Rennes : Military Witnesses Leavi ng the Court after Giving their Testimony. \nReturn of Dreyfus : Driving from the Quai to Quiberon. \nThe Altar of St. Joseph (Wrecked by the Mob, August 20, 1899). \nCaptain Dreyfus : "That I am alive to-day I owe to my Wife." \nThe Trial at Rennes : Colonel Jouaust Reading the Arraignment at the Bar. \nFuneral Cortege of Colonel Henry. \nM. Bertillon Demonstrates his "System." \nMajor Forzinetti. \nM. Bertulus. \n\nThe Trial at Rennes : Maitre Demange Addressing the Court in Behalf of Dreyfus. \nMilitary Prison at Rennes : the Entrance Gate. \nMilitary Prison at Rennes : Entrance to the Court-Room. \nMilitary Prison at Rennes : Scene in the Court- Yard. \n\n\n\nDREYFUS: \n\nTHE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter L \n\nTHE CAUSE OF IT ALL \n\nIf you had asked any Frenchman, after the disastrous war with Ger- \nmany of 1870-71 (when, instead of the eagles of France swooping down \nupon Berlin, the eagles of Germany fluttered over Paris), the reason for this \nstate of affairs, he would have replied most promptly : \n\n" Nous sommes trahis." ("We are betrayed.") \n\nHere we have the situation in a nutshell. France is continually being \nbetrayed, or fancying she is being betrayed, which is about the same thing, \nto all intents and purposes ; for the idea, as much as the fact, keeps the \npeople in a continual state of turmoil, almost boiling with its superheated \nlava. \n\nThe very suggestion that a French general could be incompetent is \nprotested against with angry derision by Frenchmen ; therefore treachery \nalone must be allowed to explain the military defeats and other reverses \nsuffered by French arms and French diplomacy. - \n\nIn addition to this, the feeling against the Jews which first developed \nin Algeria shortly after the Franco-German war, owing to the enfranchise- \nment of all the Jews in that French colony, to the detriment of all other \nforeigners, including the Arabs, has been steadily growing ever since, and \nhas reached such a point that the most overheated Frenchmen have actu- \nally been thinking of the possibilities of a St. Bartholomew massacre, in \nwhich all sympathizers with the Jews, as well as all Jews, would be killed. \n\nThe pulse of France may be said to be the army, for nearly all French- \n\n2 \n\n\n\n18 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nmen have to draw lots on coming of age to decide whether they are not to \nserve under the colors. The army permeates into every hole and comer \nof France. Red-tape and officialdom reign supreme. Nearly every fam- \nily in France is in some way connected, or likely to be connected, with \nthe army. Consequently when the feeling against the Jews spread to \nthe army, the paths of the Jewish soldiers and officers were far from being \nstrewn with roses. \n\nIt is unnecessary to dwell further upon the reasons which led to this \nantipathy in France against the Jews. It is not a question of religion, \nthough religion has had something to do with the state of affairs existing. \nThe average Frenchman, however, cares little or nothing for any man\'s \nreligion, though there are many good Catholics in France, and some of \nthem have taken part in the popular crusade against the Jews. But it \nseems to be that a sort of feeling of envy, or jealousy of the growing \nwealth of the Jews in general, coupled with complaints against their so- \ncalled aggressiveness and prominence in commercial life, grows stronger \nand stronger. Eventually a number of Anti-Semitic newspapers appeared, \nprincipal among them being the Libre Parole (Free Speech), edited by M. \nDrumont, a Catholic, which added considerable fuel to the flames. \n\n/The alliance, or understanding arrived at between France and Russia \nalso served to add to the bitterness against the Jews. In Russia the Jews \nare despised and oppressed, and therefore Frenchmen, after the under- \nstanding with Russia, fancied it was but natural, in view of the "alliance," \nto heap red-hot coals on the heads of the Jews in France. \n\nAnd so the feeling in France against the Jews grew stronger day bj \nday and began to express itself in violence. \n\n\n\nGLANCING BACKWARD 19 \n\n\n\nChapter II. \nGLANCING BACKWARD \n\nHere it is necessary to take a glance at the political situation just \nprevious to the outbreak of the famous Dreyfus case. In November, \n1893, soon after the reassembling of Parliament, a crisis in the Ministry \narose on account of objections to the Ministerial programme of the pre- \nmier, M. Dupuy, who was desirous of conciliating the Moderates, and on \naccount of the abuse of three Eadical members of the Cabinet, MM. Viette, \nPeytral, and Carriere. M. Dupuy was unable to conciliate, and it was agreed \nthat the three Ministers should leave the Cabinet. But the discord in the \nMinistry leaked out, and owing to the failure of the Government support- \ners to carry a vote of confidence in the Ministry, M. Dupuy and his col- \nleagues resigned November 26th, and M. Casimir-P^rier formed a Cabinet, \nbeing succeeded as President of the Chamber of Deputies by M. Dupuy. \n\nAn extraordinary scene occurred in the Chamber of Deputies on De- \ncember 10, 1893. An Anarchist named Vaillant flung a^iomb, filled with \nnails, among the members of the Chamber of Deputies, more or less seri- \nously injuring forty-seven persons. Vaillant was promptly captured, tried, \ncondemned, and executed. The affair served still further to inflame the \npublic mind. - \n\nThe next day, M. Casimir-P^rier managed to pass through the Chamber \n\nof Deputies four bills, modifying the Press Law, the Criminal-Conspiracy \n\nLaw, and the Explosive Law, and formed a fund for the preservation of \n\norder and the prevention of such outrages as the one which had so startled \n\nthe world. \n\nSoon afterward, M. Cl^menceau, a popular leader, began the publica- \ntion of a series of " revelations " tending to show the unpreparedness of the \nToulon Arsenal in case of war and the general unsatisfactory condition of \nthe Navy of France, which did not tend to calm the public mind. The \nGovernment appointed a Commission to inquire into the alleged misman- \n\n\n\n20 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nagement in the Navy Department, and a resolution of confidence in the \nMinistry was passed by a large majority. This was in January, 1894. \n\nEarly in March, 1894, there was an exciting debate in the Chamber \nof Deputies over a slight incident which occurred at St. Denis, where the \nmayor, a Socialist, prohibited a display in the streets of any religious \nsymbol or emblem. The Minister of Public Works, M. SpuUer, declared \nthis was imprudent and tyrannical, and he announced that a new spirit \nwould animate the Government in its treatment of matters at issue be- \ntween the laity and the clergy, namely the spirit of tolerance. The Eadi- \ncals were furious at such a suggestion, and a resolution, violently hostile \nto the clergy, was proposed by M. Brisson. The Government, however, \ntriumphed, and for some time this " new spirit " was in evidence, and was \nby some people interpreted as further concessions to the Jews, thus arous- \ning more ill-feeling against them. \n\nAfter gaining further victories over the Socialists and Radicals, M. \nCasimir-P^rier fell from office on account of an adverse vote in the Cham- \nber of Deputies over an interpellation regarding leave of absence being \ngiven to the railroad employees, who are government servants, to attend a \ncongress of the Eailroad Workmen\'s Federation. \n\nM. Dupuy formed a new Cabinet on May 28, 1894, his place as Presi- \ndent of the Chamber of Deputies being taken by M. Casimir-P^rier. \n\nFor a time the political sea was smooth. But France and the world \nat large, on June 24th, was plunged into excitement and indignation by \nthe cowardly assassination of President Sadi-Carnot, at Lyons, whither \nhe had gone to open an exhibition. He was stabbed to death by Caserio \nSanto, an Italian anarchist, who claimed he was inspired to commit the \ndeed by a desire to avenge his fellow anarchists who had been previously \nexecuted in France. \n\nM. Casimir-P^rier was elected June 27th, to succeed M. Carnot. He \nobtained 451 votes out of the total of 851 votes cast, M. Dupuy receiving \n97 votes. \n\nThe Dupuy Ministry resigned on the election of the new President, \nbut the Cabinet was asked to remain in office. A biU was introduced into \nthe Chamber by the Government, giving the law more extended powers \nagainst anarchists and restricting the press from publishing full reports of \nthe trials of anarchists, much to the disgust of many of the irreconcilables. \n\n\n\nDREYFUS: \n\nTHE PRISONER Of DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nA Full Story of the Most Remarkahle Militaiy \nTrial and Scandal ot the Age \n\n\n\nBY \n\nWILLIAM HARDING \n\nCable Editor, The Associated Press \n\n\n\nProfusely illustrated with Portraits of the Principal \nActors, and Photographic Reproductions of the Places \nand Scenes oi Drevtus\'s Trial and J\'.xile \n\n\n\nASSOCIATED PUBLISHING COMPANY \n\n\n\n/ Copvrlvht law. {Title 17 U.S. Coc?^) \n\n\n\nWHAT WAS FOUND IN A WASTE-BASKET 21 \n\n\n\nChapter IIL \n\n"\\J7HAT WAS FOUND IN A WASTE-BASKET \n\nTins was about the state of affairs in I\'rnnce when, in September, \n1894, there was brought to tlic Intelligence Department of tlie French \nWar Office a mysterious document, torn into pieces, which was said to \nhave lieen stolen from a waste-basket at tlie German lunbassy, where, at \nthat time, Colonel von Schwartzkoppen was the military attache. This \ndocument was carefully pasted or pieced together by members of the In- \ntelligence Department, and was shown to the Minister of War, General \nMercier; the Chief of the Headquarters Staff, General de Boisdeffrc; and \nthe Assistant Chief of the Headquarters Staff, General Gonse. \n\nColonel Sandherr was then Chief of tlic Intelligence Department of the \nWar Office, and among his assistants was Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. \nTlie former soon died, the latter committed suicide after confessing a for- \ngery. On the Headquarters Staff were three officers, Lieutenant-Colonel \nricquart, Lieutenant-Colonel Du Paty de Clam, and Captain Dreyfus, a \ndew. \n\nThis finding of the pieces of pnpcr in the waste-paper basket led to the \ngreat scandal of the century, which began at that tiiue, and which is not \nyet ended. This document has since been known as the hordcrcajc, or \npihc dc conviction, and it was this which sent an unfortunate man to five \nyears of torture, and which may yet have the most serious consequences \nfor France. \n\nWhen pieced together, the hn7-clcrcrnc read : \n\n" Without news indicating that you wish to see me, I am sending you, \nnevertheless, sir, some interesting information : \n\n"1. A note on the hydraulic brake of the 120 gun and on the way in \nwhich this piece behaved. \n\n"2. A note on the covering of troops (frovpcs rJc convcrivrc) . Some \nmodifications will be entailed by the new plan. \n\n\n\n22 13EEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" ?t. A note on a modiiication in artillery formations. \n\n" 4. A nuto relative to Madagascar. \n\n" 5. 1\'Iil; project t\\)r a Firing Manual for licld-artillery, March 14, \n1894. \n\n"This last document is extremely difllcvdt to procure, and I can only \nhave it at my disposal for a very few days. The Minister of War has sent \na limited number of copies to tiie several corps, and these corps are re- \nsponsible fur it ; each oliicer is to send his copy back after the mananivres. \nIf, therefore, you will take from it what interests you, and hold it after- \nward at my disposal, I will take it, unless you should desire that I should \nhave it copied in cxtnnso and then send }ou the copy. I am about to go \nto the Manoeuvres." \n\nFor some time after the discovery of tlie bordereau, the matter was \nkept secret and certain investigations were made. Gradually rumors of \nthe discovery of treason by the War Ollice oilicials became current, and \nthe words \'\' Nuiis tioimiifs trahls I " began to be heard outside of otticial \ncircles. \n\nFinally, M. Drumont, editor of the Lihre Parole, is said to have ob- \ntained th(i jirst authentic details of the affair through a letter, addressed \nto M. I\'apillaud, of his staff, that a traitor had been found among the \noilicers of the (Jencral StaJf at the Ministry of War, and, it was added, \nthe traitor was a Jew. The writer of this anonymous letter intimated \nthat if a search was made among " the Droyfuses, the Meyers, and the \nLevys," the traitor couhl lie identitied. Later, during the latter part \nof October, 1894, M. Fapillaud received another letter, apparently from \nthe same source, saying the mime of the traitor was Captain Alfred Drey- \nfus, of the Fourteenth Eegiment of Artillery, and adding that the traitor \nhad been conliued in the Cherche-Midi prison since October 15th. The \nletter contained the words : \n\n" People say he is travelling, but they lie, because they would like to \nsmother the business. All Israel is astir. Tout a vans, Henry." \n\nThe stall" of the Libre J\'tcrule were then alive to the importance of the \nstory, and gradually many of the facts in the case leaked out. The pris- \noner, it appeared, was accused of having sold important documents relat- \ning to the national defence to the agents of a foreign power, Germany. \nHe was arrested on October 15th, by Lieutenant-Colonel Du I*aty de Clam, \n\n\n\nWHAT WAS FOUXD IN A WASTK-BASKET 2r \n\nThe following IS a rcHluccd facsimile of a vorlum n[ Uie famous /..r. \ndcrcau : \n\n^^.^nx_ ^..^-jf-T^ dl/^->^ /^^^Tp-^-^-\xe2\x80\x94 \nHEDUCED FACSIMIti: OF A FORTION OF THE "BORnERLAU" \n\n\n\nC^-p\\^^ \n\n\n\n2i DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nacting under the orders of General Mercier, the Minister of War, had been \nimprisoned in tlie Cherche-Midi Prison, and the most extraordinary pre- \ncautions had Leun taken to keep tlio affair secret, even from Dreyfus\'s \nown family. Madame Dreyfus, his wife, it developed later, was fright- \nened into silence by I)u Paty de Clam. \n\nFrance, naturally, became greatly excited, and those w^ho had been the \nmost bitter in their denunciations of the Jews found ample material for \n" I-told-you-so " statements. All kinds of sensational reports were circu- \nlated. Some rumors had it that tlie whole country had been betrayed, \nfrom first to last, army and nav}\', and tliat France was almost at the mercy \nof her enemies. People even went so far as to declare that war with Ger- \nmany was imminent. The recall of the German Ambassador was openly \ndemanded, and all kinds of pressure was brouglit to bear on the Govern- \nment to clear up the mystery without delay and let the public know the \nwhole truth. Put, the authorities maintained an air of mystery; the dark- \nest hints were dropped, the name of Russia began to be bandied about, \nand the War Ministry was said to have in its possession secrets which, \nif divulged, would practically cause the upheaval of Europe. \n\n\n\nTHE IKITIAL PASSAGE 25 \n\n\n\nChapter IV. \nTHE INITIAL PASSAGE \n\nWhen tho outburst of public feeling could u^ longer be ^vithstoofl, the \nGovernment made up its mind to let the world know something nbout \nwhat was going on, and, at a Cabinet Council, November 1, 1894, the \nMinister of War, General Mcrcier, formally announced his intention of or- \ndering proceedings against Captain Alfred Preyfus, of the Fourteenth lleg- \niment of Artillery, attached to the General Staff, for disclosing secret War \nOffice documents to foreigners. \n\nA despatch from Paris to the London r/v^/rs, announcing this fact, \n\nadded : \n\n"Although tlie arrest of Captain Dreyfus has made a great sensation, \nevery one feels that the honor of the Lrench army will ]iot be impugned \nif one solitary ofhcer should be convicted of treachery." \n\nThe developments of tho case showed this correspondent to be some- \nwhat hi error; for it is impossible to imagine a darker showhig of dishon- \norable transactions among Frencli officers than has since been disclosed. \n\nDreyfus, a name which must now go down to all future ages as that of \nthe central figure of the greatest trial of this age, was born in LSoO, at \nMiilhausen, Alsace, one of the provinces given up to Germany by Franco \nas a result of tlie outcome of the war of 1.S70-71. FL\'s parents were AL \nsatian Jcavs of good standing an<l considcralde wealtli, and his brothers \nconducted a large cotton-spinning factory at Miilhausen. This, inciden- \ntally, seems to have been one of the causes wliicli led to suspicions \nagainst Dreyfus. Although he docs not appear to have been of a particu- \nlarly inrpiisitivc turn of mind, it has l)cen shown that while in the army \nhe made a number of inquiries, since classed as suspicious, but which ap- \npear to have really been founded on nothing more than a desire to obtain \ninformation which would lead to ])crfecting the s])inning machinery of the \nfamily cotton factory. He is slw^wn to have a.sked, for instance, Rohm, \n\n\n\n2C DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe iuveutor of the Robin shell, a number of questions on this subject, but \nhis enemies tried to turn tliis to an entirely diU\'ereut intention. \n\nAfter the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany, tlie inhabitants \nof those provinces, l)y agreement betv/een the two countries, were given the \noption, or privilege, of declaring for French or German nationality. In \nother words, if they chose to becumo German subjects they were at lib- \nerty to do so, wliile if they elected to become citizens of France there was \nno objection to that. l)re}\'f us chose to remain a French citi/.en, and, when \nhe reached the proper age, lie entered the Polytechnic School, where he \nwas educated. Tliis school, by tlie way, is the nursery of French officers, \njust as "West Point is the school for American ollicers. In 1880 Dreyfus \nentered tlie artillery as a sub-lieutenant. Ho cannot liave been backward \nin his study or have shown any olijectionable characteristics at that time, \nf(ir in ISS\'J ]ie became a lieutenant, and in 1889 was promoted captain. \nLater, he was appointed to a p(jsiti<tn in the offices of tlie General Staff at \nthe French War Office, being the iirst Jew to be so honored. \n\nDuring his early years in the I\'rench ami}\', Dreyfus, like most other \nFrencli officers, seems to have led a pretty gay life, and, possibly, he ob- \ntained more credit for this than lie really deserved, if some reports are to \nbe Ijclieved, by Ijoasting of conquests and claiming to liave lost large sums \nin gambling, whereas it appears that wdiile he had relations with a married \nwoman, a Mrs. Podson, while a lieutenant, he never gambled, and his con- \nduct was most exemplary after his marriage, which occurred in 1889. \n\nThe pay of French officers and men is ridiculously small, and any offi- \ncer having juivate means, as Dreyfus had, is naturally envied by those \nwlio are not similarly blessed. This, undoubtedly, had something to do \nwdth the feeling wliich was aroused against Dreyfus. General de Bois- \ndeffre, the Chief of the Ileadcpiarters Staff, for instance, received a salary \nof only $5,000 a year, while Lieutenant-Colonel Henry\'s pay was but \n$1,000 a year. In sjnte of these meagre stipends, French officers have to \nmake a great deal of show, or, if they do not have to do it, they fancy it \nis incumbent u])on them. Under these circumstances a man handicapped \nb}\' the fact that he depended entirely on liis pay could hardly fail to feel \na liLlle jealousy of those like Dre}\'fus the Jew, who did not depend on \ntheir ]iay alone. \n\nCajjtain I)reyfus still further improved his position financially when \n\n\n\nTHE INITIAL PASS AGE \'11 \n\nhe married, for his wife is the daughter of M. Hadaniard, a wealthy dia- \nmond mercliant. They had two cliildreu and occupied expensive apart- \nment in the Avenue du Trocadero. \n\n\\\\\\ entirely impartial opinion of Dreyfus is that he was a man of easy \ntemper, of no particular ability, unlikely to shine in tlio military world, \nand easily depressed and disco urn god. A godil liushand and father, he \nadored his family and took life easy. In return ho Avas Ixdovcd by his \nwife and family, and loved by his brothers. These facts wou.ld seem to \nshow that tlie man certainly possessed admirable cpialitics, for no woman \' \ncould ex]iil)it the steady, loyal devotion to a husband that INIadamu Drey- \nfus has exhibited unless the object of her affection possessed some sterling \n\'[ualitics. Indeed, the brighbist feature of the Avholo tragedy is the grand \nspirit of loyalty sliown by Madame Dreyfus toward her husband, her im- \nplicit l)elief in his innocence, the heroic manner in which she pointed out \nti liiin the path of duty, telling him, for the sake of his children, to go to \nhis distant, pestilential island ])rison, there to await the hour wlien his \ninnocence Avoidd be established. Had it not been for this wifely devotion, \nthere is no doubt Dreyfus would not have lived to stand his second trial. \n\nThe brothers of Dreyfus, in fact all his relatives and friends, have \nshown steadfastness in tliis loyalty, which would seem still further jn-oof \nthat the man was not made of the material from which spies are moulded. \nBesides, the paltry sums, forty and sixty dollars, paid by the agents of \nforeign powers for valualile French military secrets, as subsequently \nshown, were certainly no attraction to Dreyfus, the well-to-do officer, \nhappy in his home and family, and w^anting for nothing. However, the \naliovc is but a pen-picture of the famous prisoner as he appeared ; subse- \nquent events and his trials mnst complete this light sketch of the prisoner \nof Devil\'s Island. \n\n\n\nDKEYFUS: TPIE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter V. \n\nTHE PLOTTING BEGINS \n\nAfteti the announcement of the intention of the French Government \nto prosecute Dreyfus on tlie charge of treason, the whole machinery of the \nWar Olhce was set in motion to establish a case against the prisoner. The \nday after the official declaration to this effect (November 2d), the French \nauthorities intercepted a telegram sent by Major Pauizicardi, the Ital- \nian military attach(^ at Paris, whose name had been mentioned in con- \nnection with Dreyfus, to the Italian Government. The exact wording of \nthis despatch w^as not made known. It was understood in the first in- \nstance to have been a request upon the part of l*anizzardi that his Gov- \nernment deny, if it had no relations witli Dreyfus, any connection with \nthe prisoner, and asking that the Italian Ambassador at the French capi- \ntal might be instructed to publish a statement to this effect in order to \nsilence certain statements which were appearing in the press. This de- \nspatch seems to have been twisted in translations so as to convey an en- \ntirely diU\'ereut meaning to that of the writer, and was later used, surrepti- \ntiously, at the court-nuirtial of the prisoner, and without the knowledge of \nhis counsel or of himself, in obtaining his conviction. \n\nAfter the prisoner\'s guilt was suspected he was subjected to a series of \ntests. For instance, he was asked to write under dictation a letter which \ncontained terms similar to those of tlio hordercau. The dictation was \ngiven by Culouel Du Paty de Clam, with the Chief of Detectives, M. \nCochefert, hiding behind the drapings of the room. \n\nAs a result of this dictation test, Dreyfus\'s arrest was decided upon by \nColonel Du Paty de Clam. It was a cold day and, as the prisoner ex- \nplained later, his liand may have shaken somewhat, which was taken as a \nsemblance of guilt by Colonel Du Paty de Clam, who cried; \n\n" Vous trcmUez ! " (" You tremble ! " ) \n"No," replied Dreyfus, "my fingers are cold." \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTTING BEGINS \n\n\n\n29 \n\n\n\nThe following is a portion of the test letter dictated to Dreyfus by \nColonel Du Paty de Clam : \n\n\n\nBEPITBLIQUE FRANCAISE. \n\n\n\n\n^^^yf^c^^i^^ ^r/4^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TEST LETTER DICTATED TO CAPTAIN DREYFUS BY COLONEL DU PATV \n\nDE CLAM \n\n\n\n30 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n^ But with a flourish of trumpets, it may be said, Paty de Clam made \nthe signal agreed upon; the Chief of the Detectives entered, and M. \nCochefert exclaimed, as he touched Dreyfus on the shoulder: \n\n" I arrest you in the name of the Minister of War. " \n\nCaptain Dreyfus submitted quietly to his arrest. He seemed, as he \nafterward exclaimed, to be completely dazed, and had no clear recollection \nof what occurred. When he asked to be informed regarding the charge \nagainst him he was put off with mysterious phrases, and it was not until \nsome time later that he became aware he was charged with treason. \n\nThe prisoner was taken to the Cherche Midi, or military prison, of \nwhich institution Major Forzinetti was then the governor. He \' was \nescorted to the prison by Lieutenant-Colonel Henry and the detectives, \nand he was handed into the custody of Major Forzinetti with an order \nfrom the Minister of War by which the prisoner, described as being ac- \ncused of high treason, was not to have his name entered on the prison \nbooks, but was to be kept in secret confinement, and was not to be allowed \nto hold any commimication with anybody in the prison, much less outside \nof it, with the exception of Major Forzinetti and the chief keeper of the \nprison. These officials were strictly prohibited from telling anybody of \nthe arrest of the prisoner. \n\nA book could be written upon what transpired in the Cherche Midi \nwhile Dreyfus was confined there. \n\nMajor Forzinetti, at a later date, gave some idea of what occurred dur- \ning that period. He said, in brief : \n\n"On October 14, 1894, I received a confidential despatch from the \nWar Ofl&ce. It informed me that on the following morning a field-officer \nwould call at the prison in order to acquaint me with a secret commimi- \ncation. On the 15th, Lieutenant-Colonel d\'Abeville, in full uniform, \nhanded me a despatch, informing me that Captain Dreyfus, of the Four- \nteenth Regiment of Artillery, serving on the General Staff of the army, \nwould be imprisoned on the charge of high treason, and that I was per- \nsonally responsible for his safe custody. Colonel d\'Abeville asked me to \ngive my word of honor that I would strictly carry out the minister\'s in- \njunctions. The prisoner was to have no sort of communication with the \nouter world, and was to have neither knife, paper, pen, ink, nor pencil. \nHe was to be treated in the matter of food as an ordinary criminal, but \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTTING BEGINS 31 \n\nthis order was cancelled upon my remark that it was illegal. The colo- \nnel, without going into particulars, ordered me to take whatever precau- \ntions I might deem necessary to prevent the fact of the prisoner\'s arrest \nbeing known in the prison or outside. He asked to see the cells set apart \nfor officers, and selected one for Captain Dreyfus. He told me to be on \nmy guard against the intrigues of the haute Juiverie (high Jewdom) as \nsoon as the news of arrest should reach their ears. I saw nobody and \nnobody attempted to get at me. I never visited the prisoner except in \ncompany of the head keeper, who alone had the key of the cell. Nobody \nsaw the prisoner during his detention except in my presence. When, \nafter his arrival, I went to see the prisoner, he was in a state of excite- \nment impossible to describe \xe2\x80\x94 like a madman. His eyes were bloodshot, \nand he had upset everything in his room. I was able at length to quiet \nhim. I felt that he was innocent." \n\nA further insight into the methods of the military inquisitors may be \ngathered from the following additional statement of Major Forzinetti : \n\n" Du Paty de Clam, who had arrested Dreyfus at the War Office, called \nat the prison from October 18th to October 24th, with the special author- \nity of the Minister of War [Mercier] to examine the prisoner. He asked \nme whether he could not enter Dreyfus\'s cell noiselessly with a bull\'s-eye \nsufficiently powerful to throw a flood of light on the face of the prisoner, \nwhom he wanted to take by surprise in order to upset him. I said it was \nnot possible. He examined the prisoner twice, and each time dictated to \nhim sentences taken from the famous document (the bordereau) in order to \ncompare the two writings. \n\n" During the whole of this period Captain Dreyfus was in a state of ter- \nrible excitement. In the hall one could hear him moaning, crying, talking \naloud, protesting his innocence. He knocked against the furniture, against \nthe walls, and did not seem aware of the injuries he was inflicting upon \nhimself. He had not a moment\'s rest, and when overcome with fatigue \nand agony he lay, dressed, on his bed. His sleep was haunted by horrible \nnightmares. He had such convulsions during his sleep that he sometimes \nfell on the floor. During this agony of nine days he took nothing but \nbeef tea and a little wine with sugar. \n\n" On the 24th, in the morning, his mental state, bordering on insanity, \nseemed so serious, that, anxious to screen my responsibility, I reported it \n\n\n\n32 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nto the Minister of War [Mercier] and to the Governor of Paris. In the \nafternoon I was summoned by General de Boisdeffre, and accompanied \nhim to the War Office. The general asked me my opinion. I replied \nwithout hesitation that Dreyfus was not guilty. General de Boisdeffre \nentered the minister\'s room alone, and, coming out again, looking an- \nnoyed, he said to me : \' The general is leaving Paris to attend his niece\'s \nwedding, and gives me full powers during his absence. Try and keep \nDreyfus alive until his return, and the minister will do what he pleases.\' \nGeneral de Boisdeffre told me to send the prison doctor to Dreyfus. He \nprescribed some soothing drugs. \n\n"Du Paty de Clam called nearly every day after the 27th, to exiamine \nDreyfus and to get new specimens of his handwriting. His real object \nwas to wring an admission of guilt, against which Dreyfus never ceased \nto protest. \n\n"After the verdict Dreyfus was taken back to his cell, where I saw \nhim about midnight. On seeing me he burst into sobs, and said : \' My \nonly crime is to be born a Jew.\' His despair was such that I was afraid \nfor his mind, and had him watched day and night. \n\n" I have been for many years at the head of military prisons, and have \nsome knowledge of prisoners, and I can assert emphatically that a dreadful \nmistake has been committed. My superiors have known my opinion from \nthe first. Several generals and statesmen are just as certain as I am of \nDreyfus\'s innocence, but cowardice prevents them from speaking." \n\n\n\nTHE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL \n\n\n\nChapter VL \n\nTHE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL \n\n^y-^* Captain Alfred Deeyfus was tried by secret court-martial, at the \nCherche-Midi Prison, the trial beginning on December 19, 1894. At the \ntime nothing was allowed to transpire regarding the proceedings, but all \nthe main facts in the case have since become known. \n\nThe first code of military justice, which was in force at that time in \nFrance, was promulgated in 1857, and leaves much to be desired so far as \nobtaining justice for an accused person is concerned. \n\nThe principle which governs the composition of coimcils of war is \n-as follows : \n\nNo military man can be judged by his subordinates. He has the \nright to the jurisdiction of his superiors or his peers. That is to say, \nfollowing the rank of the accused, the composition of a court-martial va- \nries. Captain Dreyfus, for instance, was tried by a court-martial presided \nover by a colonel, Maurel-Pries, and had among its members a lieutenant- \ncolonel, three chiefs of battalion (majors), or chiefs of squadrons (majors), \nand two captains. The commissary of the Government, or prosecutor, \nhas to be of a rank at least equal to that of the accused. The defence is \nprovided for in the presence of a lawyer or through an officer, according \nto the choice of the accused. The members of the court-martial sit in full \nuniform, while the accused appears in undress uniform and without arms. \n\nAs to the procedure before a French court-martial, it is about the same \nas before French civil tribunals. The president of the court, before inter- \nrogating the accused, warns him that the law gives him every latitude to \nexplain matters and present his defence. But the president remains sole \nmaster of the interrogatory, the other members of the court-martial being \nonly authorized to put, through the president, any questions which may \nseem to them to be of a nature likely to throw light on the case and which \n\nthe president\'s questioning may have omitted. \n3 \n\n\n\n34 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe witnesses depose according to the ordinary customs of France. \nThat is to say, they mount to the witness stand and practically make a \nspeech for the prisoner or against him, and make almost any allegations they \nchoose. In fact, the prisoner is practically looked upon as guilty, and it \nis considered his duty to prove himself not guilty. \n\nAfter each deposition, the president of the court is called upon to put \nthe following question to the witness : \n\n" You affirm that you have been speaking of the accused, here present. \nDo you formally declare you recognize him ? " \n\nAfter taking the testimony, the commissary of the Government makes \nhis plea for the punishment of the accused, and counsel for the defence \nreplies, after which the members of the court-martial retire and deliberate \nin private. The votes of the court are received according to the ranks of \nthe members, beginning at the lowest grade, the president being the last \nto make his opinion known. \n\nAfter the judgment of the court has been drawn up, the members of \nthe Council of War re-enter the court, stand upright, and when the president \nbegins the initial formula of the announcement of the judgment, " In the \nname of the French people," the members of the court salute and the mili- \ntary guard on duty present arms. \n\nThe judgment of the court is then read, the presence of the accused not \nbeing permitted, though the sentence is made known to him later by a \nspecial ceremony, the clerk of the court reading the sentence to him be- \nfore the guard, under arms. \n\nThe members of the first Dreyfus court-martial were : Colonel Maurel- \nPries, President; Lieutenant-Colonel Echemann, Majors Florentine, Pa- \ntron, and Gallet, and Captains Eoche and Freystaetter. \n\nMajor Brisset acted as Government commissary, and prosecuted the \nprisoner in behalf of the Government. \n\nThe greatest interest was taken in the trial, and great efforts were \nmade on the part of the public to get a glimpse of the prisoner. The ap- \nproaches to the prison were crowded, and the greatest military and police \nprecautions were taken to prevent a disturbance. As previously noted, \nthe word " treason " has an almost magical effect upon the French public, \nand, therefore, when it became known that " Nous sommes trahis * for \nonce had apparently some foundation in fact, the excitement was very great. \n\n\n\nTHE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL 36 \n\nDreyfus was taken to the prison before the crowd had time to assem- \nble, and all sorts of erroneous rumors were set afloat in order to complicate \nmatters and divert the attention of the populace from the trial. \n\nDreyfus entered the court escorted by Eepublican Guards. He was \napparently cool and calm, bowed to the court, and quietly advanced to the \nseat set apart for him. It has been claimed, however, that his eyes were \nfilled with tears, and that it was with difficulty he preserved his self-con- \ntrol. \n\nIn this connection a curious theory was advanced and found a number \nof believers. It was to the effect that Dreyfus was more of a German hero \nand martyr than a French traitor. It was asserted that he "opted," or \npronounced himself in favor of French citizenship, at the time his native \nprovince, Alsace, was turned over to Germany ; entered the French Mili- \ntary School, Army, and Ministry of "War, all with one fixed purpose, \nnamely, to serve the Germany he loved against the France which he hated. \nIt was added that he was not more than eighteen years of age when he \nformed this project, and that he had carefully weighed all his chances \xe2\x80\x94 \nexcept the fearful imprisonment on Devil\'s Island. Since that time, how- \never, no evidence has been forthcoming to substantiate this theory, while \nthere has been abundant testimony to prove that Dreyfus was actuated by \nfeelings of hearty loyalty to France. Indeed, it has been the writer\'s ex- \nperience with Alsatians and Lorrainers to find them ultra-loyal to France. \nWith but few exceptions (perhaps only a single exception \xe2\x80\x94 an Alsatian \nsoldier who was eventually sentenced to penal servitude for life as a result \nof his bitter hatred for France), the Alsatians and Lorrainers of France \nappear to detest the Germans more bitterly than the French of the interior, \nwhich is a matter not easily accounted for. \n\n\n\n8f) DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter VII. \n\nFOUND GUILTY AND CONDEMNED \n\nColonel Maurel-Pries, president of the court, began the proceedings \nwith interrogating the prisoner in the usual stereotyped manner, the latter \nsaying his name was Alfred Dreyfus, that he was thirty-five years of age, a \ncaptain of artillery, and bom at Miilhausen, Alsace. \n\nAt the opening of the proceedings the court was filled with officers of \nall grades and arms, and some fifty reporters were present. But when this \nstage had been reached, the president called upon Major Brisset, the Pros- \necutor, or Government Commissary, to make a formal charge against the \nprisoner; whereupon the major arose, and, to the astonishment of probably \nall but the members of the court, requested that the proceedings be con- \nducted in camera, or in secret, otherwise behind closed doors. He ad- \nvanced in support of his plea the statement that the publicity which would \nbe given to the testimony, if allowed to be printed in the press, would be \n"against the public interests," meaning that matters would be revealed \nwhich it was advisable that the enemies of France should not know. A \nplea of this description has great weight with any French court, and there \nwas no doubt of the outcome from the moment the prosecutor addressed \nthe president. \n\nDreyfus, at these proceedings, was represented by Maitre Demange, a \nlawyer of considerable ability, who had been retained by the relatives of \nDreyfus, Although not a brilliant lawyer, in the sense the term is gen- \nerally accepted, Maitre Demange proved himself to be a steady, hard- \nworking seeker after the truth and a conservative adviser of great value. \nIt was not his first experience in such cases, which was probably the \nreason which led to his being selected to defend Dreyfus. He had \ndefended other men charged with treason, and had the confidence of the \nauthorities. \n\nAt the conclusion of the plea of Major Brisset, Maitre Demange \n\n\n\nFOUND GUILTY AND CONDEMNED 37 \n\nstrongly opposed having the trial of the prisoner conducted in secret. He \nentered into a lengthy argument on the subject, and presented a number \nof good reasons why the trial should be in public. Subsequent events \nshowed that his contention was well based, and France would have been \nspared a great deal of trouble and loss of prestige, from a judicial, politi- \ncal and military standpoint, if the arguments of the lawyer had been \nallowed to prevail. But there seems to be no doubt now that no amount \nof argument would have changed the predetermined opinion of that court- \nmartial on the subject of the secret sitting. Beyond doubt, orders were \nissued from high quarters to have the trial conducted in secret. \n\nThe president of the court insisted that the lawyer must not make any \nreference in his plea to the actual charge against the prisoner, which al- \nmost disarmed the latter\' s counsel at the outset. \n\nA long controversy followed between the lawyer, the president, and \nthe prosecutor. \n\n"There are other interests at stake," cried the prosecutor, "than those \nof the defence and of the prosecution." \n\nThat some inkling of the Government\'s case had reached the counsel \nfor the defence was evidenced by the fact that Maitre Demange, at one \nstage of his argument, referred to the "solitary document" brought for- \nward against the prisoner, whereupon he was instantly silenced by the \npresident, and as the lawyer insisted, in spite of this rebuff, upon refer- \nring to the "solitary document," though loyally refraining from entering \ninto details, the court rose, and when the members of the court-martial \nreturned to the trial hall the president, after severely reprimanding Maitre \nDemange for having " persistently insisted " upon " raising the discussion \nof the essentials of the case," annoimced that the trial of Dreyfus would \ntake place behind closed doors. \n\nIn spite of the veil of secrecy thrown over the proceedings, enough \nhas since transpired to show that the following was the procedure : \n\nThe indictment of the prisoner, which had been prepared by Major \nd\'Ormescheville, was read, and then the court took the testimony of three \nexperts in handwriting, MM. Pelletier, Charavay, and Teysonniere, who \nhad been called upon to examine the handwriting of the bordereau and \nDreyf us\'s handwriting, particularly the test dictation prepared by Du Paty \nde Clam. \n\n\n\n38 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe first of the experts, Pelletier, testified that the handwriting of \nDreyfus was identical with that of the bordereau. \n\nThe second expert, M. Charavay, testified that the two documents \nwere written by the same person, adding, however, that he would never \nhave any one condemned to imprisonment for life on such testimony as he \nwas then able to give. \n\nThe third expert, M. Teysonniere, also thought the borderea\\i might \nhave been written by Dreyfus. \n\nDu Paty de Clam testified elaborately to the many experiments, some \nof them of the most ridiculous nature, which he had made in connection \nwith Dreyfus, particularly referring to the prisoner\'s "nervous movements \nof the foot when interrogated, " and to the "trembling of his hand," when \nasked to write from dictation. \n\nColonel Henry, chief of the Intelligence Department, told the court he \nwas persuaded the prisoner was guilty. He added that he had other rea- \nsons than those which appeared in the indictment to show Dreyfus was \nthe traitor. But when he was urged to speak out and explain what he \nmeant, Henry drew back and exclaimed : \n\n" I am a soldier, and my k^pi must ignore what is in my head. " \n\nThe verdict was rendered the same evening. The prisoner was pro- \nnounced "Guilty," and was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in a for- \ntified place, and to military degradation. \n\nNight had fallen when this act in the drama was ended. The news \nsoon spread with the public outside of the Cherche-Midi prison, and there \nwere hideous cries of " Down with the Jews ! " " Down with the traitors ! " \n" Vive la France ! " " Vive 1\' Arm^e ! " which must have reached the un- \nhappy prisoner. \n\nThe sentence was read to Dreyfus by gaslight, in the dully illuminated \nhall of the prison, with the military guard presenting arms and every ac- \ncompaniment of military horror which it was possible to imagine. The \nprisoner listened, speechless, to the words which sent him to a living tomb. \nHe appeared utterly unnerved, helpless, friendless \xe2\x80\x94 plunged into the deep- \nest despair. His face was almost as white as it was possible to be, and \ndrops of cold perspiration gathered on his brow. His lips were parched \nand of a dull, blue color. His eyes were bloodshot and glared with the \nexpression seen in those of himted animals. Apparently the prisoner was \n\n\n\nEOUNB GUILTY AND CONDEMNED 39 \n\nstupefied, for he did not seem to realize that the scene transpiring in that \ndark prison was not a horrible nightmare. A few words of comfort from \nhis lawyer, a whispered message from his wife, and the crushed, wincing \nman was led back to the room which he was not to leave again until taken \nto the scene of his degradation. \n\n" I am innocent ! " he cried hoarsely, the words choking him. " I am \ninnocent ! " " My God ! You have condemned an innocent man ! " \n\nBut, the military inquisitors had already turned their backs on the \nhapless captain, and with fierce mutterings against the traitor they hurried \naway to their different haunts, while France was supposed to have breathed \nsighs of relief, as evidenced by the hoarse cries in the streets : " Down \nwith the Jews ! " " Down with the traitor ! " " Vive la France ! " " Vive \nr Arm^e !" " Vive la E^publique ! " \n\nSuch were the cries which broke the stillness of the night. \n\nThroughout the evening Paris was in a state of the greatest agitation. \nThe evening papers, briefly announcing the verdict, sold like the prover- \nbial "hot cakes " on the boulevards. The caf^s were crowded with people \neagerly discussing the case. The military and other clubs were packed \nwith excited people, and it may be said hardly a voice, hardly a murmur \nwas raised in behalf of Dreyfus, the convicted traitor. \n\nBut in a darkened room in a pretty apartment on the Avenue du Tro- \ncad^ro knelt a weeping woman. By her side were two men of stern bear- \ning and a stout, honest-looking personage, a lawyer. The woman wept \nand prayed, but the men soothed her as much as possible, and assured her \nof their unalterable sympathy. \n\nTwo children, in their nursery, had been put to bed, lulled into slumber \nby the legend that their father, a captain of artillery, had been sent away \non foreign service, and would not return for a long time, perhaps for years. \nBy this pleasant tale the mother\'s grief and agitation was accounted for, and \nthe next day the children were taken away to a distant spot, far from the \ncruel echoes of the noisy world, where they have since grown up, praying \nnightly for the return of the absent father, so long away " on foreign service. " \n\nDreyfus, in his prison room, passed the night with his head upon his \ntable, now and then writing short, feverish-worded notes ; but his thoughts \nwere fixed upon those rooms in the Avenue du Trocad^ro where his wife \nand children waited and prayed. \n\n\n\n40 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter VIII, \nTHE DEGRADATION \n\nThe degradation of Captain Dreyfus took place on tlie Square of the \nMilitary School, at Paris, at nine o\'clock on the morning of January 5, \n1895, in the presence of 5,000 troops, a number of newspaper representa- \ntives and others. It was described by cable as follows, at the time : \n\nSome time before daylight detachments from all the regiments in the \ndistrict of Paris were on the march to the parade ground. These detach- \nments comprised raw recruits, veterans, and men of all grades of the ser- \nvice, and as they arrived at the Ecole Militaire they took the positions \nassigned to them. \n\nThe weather was clear and bright, but cold. \n\nWorkingmen, who were hurrying down the Eue Cherche-Midi about \nseven o\'clock on the morning of the degradation of Dreyfus, stopped for a \nmoment to stare at the prison van, surrounded by mounted soldiers, which \nwas standing outside the Military Prison waiting to convey Captain Drey- \nfus to the Ecole Militaire. Many of the men shook their fists in the \ndirection of the condemned man\'s quarters and uttered deep curses upon \nthe head of the traitor. \n\nAbout 7:40 a.m., a veteran soldier, employed as janitor in the \nprison, threw back the iron gates, and Captain Dreyfus, flanked by \ntwo soldiers carrying guns with fixed bayonets, walked out and hur- \nriedly mounted the steps of the van between lines of Eepublican Guards. \nThe van, which was driven by a trooper, took its course across the Eue \nDupin and down the Eues de Babylone and d\'Estr^es, crossing the Avenue \nde Breteuil, to the Ecole Militaire, where it arrived at five minutes of eight. \n\nDreyfus mounted the van with perfect unconcern. He stood erect, \nand his cheeks were not whitened by the customary pallor of prisoners. \nHis appearance was more like that of a man going on parade than that of \na prisoner condemned to life imprisonment and official degradation. At \n\n\n\nTHE DEGRADATION 41 \n\n8:30 A.M., General Darras, commanding the troops, arrived. He was \nassisted by Colonel Fayette and a major of the Paris garrison. The \ntroops formed a square, facing the main entrance to the parade ground, \nwhere a band composed of drums and bugles was stationed. \n\nThe Thirty -ninth Regiment, having Captain Dreyfus in charge, was \none of the first bodies of troops to arrive at the parade ground. \n\nAt precisely nine o\'clock the prisoner was led out from the left wing \nof the square. He was accompanied by a squad of artillery soldiers. He \nwas pale, but with a firm step marched, with his sword in his right hand, \nto the centre of the square, where he was awaited by General Darras. \nDreyfus halted before the general and stood at "attention." \n\nThe adjutant of the Eepublican Guard then read the verdict of the \ncourt-martial which had condemned Captain Dreyfus. While the verdict \nwas being read Dreyfus flushed somewhat, but otherwise he showed no \nsign of losing his composure. \n\nAfter the reading of the verdict General Darras ad,dressed the prisoner, \nsaying : \n\n"Dreyfus, you are unworthy to carry arms. In the name of the peo- \nple of France we degrade you. " \n\nThe adjutant then walked up to Dreyfus, and took from him his sword, \nwhich, with a quick, sharp movement, he broke across his knee, casting \nthe pieces upon the groimd. He then cut the buttons and insignia of \nrank from the uniform of the condemned captain, and threw them also \nupon the ground. \n\nAt this point in the proceedings, Dreyfus was for a moment moved by \na sense of his humiliation, but he quickly suppressed his emotion and \nshouted in a loud voice : " Vive la France ! " \n\nContinuing, he said : " You have degraded an innocent man ! I swear \nthat I am innocent ! " \n\nHe seemed about to speak further, but his voice was drowned by the \nrolling of the drums, which was not loud enough, however, to drown a \nringing shout from the crowd, in the rear of the soldiers, of "A mort le \ntraitre ! " (" Death to the traitor ! " ) \n\nThe ceremony up to this time had lasted just four minutes. The \ndrums then beat, and the degraded man began his march along the foui \nsides of the square, in what is known as " la, parade de V execution. " \n\n\n\n42 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe scene was very impressive, and many of the younger soldiers \nturned their heads away. \n\nDreyfus marched in a firm and soldierly way, with a quick, short step, \nand when he reached the delegation of officers from the Eeserves, he raised \nhis hand and said : \n\n"Tell the whole of France that I am innocent! " \n\nTurning to the left from the position of the Eeserve officers, he came \nbefore the members of the press, to whom he said in a firm voice : \n\n" I declare that I am innocent ! " \n\nThe end of the march was reached at twenty minutes past nine, after \nwhich the condemned man was taken to the barrack gate and turned over \nto the civil authorities. , \n\nA large crowd of people had gathered at the entrance of the parade \nground, and from among them came not one word of sympathy, but the \ncry of " A mort le traitre ! " (" Death to the traitor ! " ) was taken up by \nthem and repeated until the miserable man was out of the hearing of his \ntormentors. \n\nDreyfus was received from his escort at the barrack gate by four gen- \ndarmes, who placed him in an ordinary prison van, and at half -past nine \nthe troops marched out of the parade ground, back to their respective \nquarters. \n\nAs a measure of preparation for stripping the prisoner of his insignia \nof rank, etc., the prison tailor on the day before removed all the buttons \nand stripes from Dreyfus\'s tunic, the red stripes from his trousers, and the \nregimental number and braid from his collar and cap. These were all re- \nplaced with a single stitch, so that they could be torn away readily. \n\nThe condemned man\'s sword was also filed almost in twaia, in order \nthat it might be easily broken. The adjutant\'s quick movement and ap- \nparent effort in breaking the sword was consequently mere pretence, as \nonly a mere touch was necessary. \n\nAs the prison van sped through the streets the people stood on the \nsidewalks and with uplifted hands menaced and cursed the unfortimate \nofficer. \n\nIt is stated that when Dreyfus spoke to the officers of the Reserve, \nprotesting his innocence, the latter retorted: " Down with the Judas ! " \n" Silence, traitor ! " etc. \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\nTHE DEGRADATION 43 \n\nDreyfus became greatly excited at this, and turned again appealingly \nto the ofi&cers, but the soldiers escorting him quickly seized him and \nforced him to continue his humiliating march. \n\nAnother report said that when the officers of the Eeserve cried out, \n"Down with the Judas!" "Silence, traitor!" etc., Dreyfus was stunned \nfor a moment, but, quickly recovering himself, he looked upon them \nthrough his eye-glasses, which he wore throughout the ceremony, and \nwith a smile of contempt said in a clear, firm voice : \n\n" You are cowards ! " \n\nBefore the ceremony of degradation began the vast space in the Place \nde Fonteuoy, facing the courtyard of the Ecole Militaire, was crowded \nwith men and women. Many persons climbed the base of the hexagonal \ngranite monument erected to the memory of the Parisians who were killed \nin 1870, and others hired places upon step-ladders at the rate of five francs \neach and maintained their positions throughout in the biting wind. \n\nToward the end of the ceremony the sky became overcast with snow \nclouds, which the sun occasionally pierced, but the air was extremely cold. \n\nAlthough the ceremony of degrading the condemned officer presented \na theatrical aspect to civilians, it had so profound an impression upon the \nmilitary spectators that during the short time it lasted a newspaper repre- \nsentative who was present counted within a few feet of him six officers, \nwhose trembling limbs were scarcely able to hold them up, while hundreds \nof others, officers and privates, stood with blanched cheeks and straining \neyes, utterly unable to control their feelings. \n\nThe crowds outside, who kept up a continual shout of " Death to the \ntraitor ! " became almost delirious, and had the ceremony taken place in an \nopen space like the Esplanade des Invalides it is absolutely certain that \ntwenty at least of the most violent of these fanatics would have broken \nthrough the square and tried to lynch Dreyfus. \n\nGenerally ninety-nine out of every hundred men who are thus degraded \nweep like children during the ceremony, but Dreyfus was firm through- \nout. During the entire ceremony he appeared to be less affected than \nalmost any person present. Except that he was stung for an instant by \nthe taunts of his fellow-officers, he was perfectly cool. \n\nDreyfus, upon reaching the prison depot, said to the governor of the \ninstitution : \n\n\n\n44 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" My innocence will be recognized some day. I have confidence that \nProvidence in its own time will reveal the real culprit." \n\nAfter Dreyfus\'s height and other dimensions were taken, he was trans- \nferred to the Prison de la Sant^, where he remained until deported for \nconfinement in a fortress, in accordance with his sentence. \n\n\n\nANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE DEGRADATION 45 \n\n\n\nChapter IX. \nANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE DEGRADATION \n\nThe following account of the degradation of Dreyfus, written by \n"Jacques St. Cere," the famous correspondent of the New York Herald, is \ninteresting as it gives the impressions formed at the time by the writer : \n\n"The degradation of Captain Alfred Dreyfus from his military rank \nand honors took place this morning (January 5, 1895), on the parade \nground of the \'kcole Militaire. \n\n" By order of General Saussier, Military Governor of Paris, no card of \nadmission was issued to the correspondent of any foreign paper. Never- \ntheless the representative of the Herald was present throughout the whole \nceremony. \n\n" The scene was one that can never be forgotten. When the adjutant \ntore away the insignia of his rank from his cap, Dreyfus shouted : \' Vive \nla France ! \' and this cry he repeated when his sword was broken. This \n(Kiused a profound emotion. Then he was led, bareheaded, his uniform \nstripped of all its gold lace and buttons, along the front of the troops. \n\n" When he arrived in front of the group of two hundred journalists and \ncivil officials who were permitted to witness the ceremony, Dreyfus cried \nout: \n\n" \' Tell the whole of France that I am an innocent man ! \' \n\n" The way in which this cry was given, and the appearance of the pris- \noner, who held himself very erect in his mutilated uniform, his red face, \nhis bloodshot but dry eyes, produced a profound impression even on those \nwho were the most thoroughly convinced of his guilt. Dreyfus had in \nevery respect the appearance of a man protesting against a great injustice. \n\n" There certainly is a great deal of mystery about this case. On the \none hand the officials of the ministry of war affirm that Captain Dreyfus \nis guilty, while on the other hand Maitre Demange, whose position as a \nleading member of the French bar is above question, solemnly asserts that \n\n\n\n46 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONEE, OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nhis client is innocent, something which, now that the case is at an end, \nthere is no reason for his doing unless he is convinced that such is the fact. \n\n" At the end of the ceremony of degradation the prisoner, with hand- \ncuffs on his wrists, was placed in a prison van, and removed to the police \nd^pot. His name was struck from the army rolls, and he was henceforth \ntreated like any ordinary criminal. \n\n" The degradation of Dreyfus caused a profound excitement among the \nParisian public. Not less than twenty thousand persons, who were kept \nat a distance from the scene, surrounded the square and hooted at the \nprisoner throughout the ceremony, shouting : \n\n" \' Death to the traitor ! \' \' Death to the Jews ! \' \n\n" Such days are bad for the people and bad for the Government, which \nis now being driven into making a cleaning away of persons prominent in \njournalistic and political circles, who are suspected simply because of the \nrace to which they are supposed to belong. \n\n" \' Casimir wants to clean up,\' is a favorite expression just now among \nthose who belong to the \'entourage \' of the President of the French Repub- \nlic. \n\n"Public opinion is passionately worked up over the Dreyfus case. \nHere is some information in regard to it which comes to me from a very \ngood source. There is no doubt as to the prisoner\'s guilt. His arrest \nwas decided on the unanimous vote of the eleven ministers, who at the \nsame time pledged themselves not to reveal anything contained in the \nreport demanding the prosecution of Dreyfus, which was signed by Gen- \neral Mercier, Minister of War ; General de Boisdeffre, Chief of the General \nStaff, and General Gonse, the Assistant Chief of the General Staff. \n\n"The secrets betrayed by Dreyfus are of such importance that the \nGovernment will ask the chamber to pass a law providing for the impris- \nonment of Dreyfus, not at Noumea, from which an escape is possible, but \non an island of French Guiana, where he v/ill be strictly watched. \n\n" It is believed that Dreyfus was the centre of the German espionage \nsystem in France, and it is asserted that no less than twenty-seven attempts \nwere made by German diplomacy, both at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs \nand at the Ministry of the Interior, to get the affair hushed up. \n\n" These facts, which I have upon the best authority, force me, in spite \nof the way in which Dreyfus faced the ordeal, to believe in his guilt." \n\n\n\nTHE "SYNDICATE OF SILENCE" 47 \n\n\n\nChapter X. \n\nTHE "SYNDICATE OF SILENCE\'* \n\n^ In order that the situation in France at the time of the i&rst Dreyfus \ncourt-martial may be more clearly understood, it is necessary to refer to \nthe corruption existing in the French press, and particularly to the famous \n" Syndicate of Silence. " \n\nNo sooner was the news of the arrest of Dreyfus made public than \nMadame Dreyfus, a wealthy woman in her own right, was besieged by \nrepresentatives of certain of the Paris newspapers with offers to "give \npublicity to anything she might wish to publish regarding the arrest of \nher husband," etc., etc., not on the honest basis of the American press, \nwhich would print free anything a woman so unfortunate might be wil lin g \nto say, but \xe2\x80\x94 for a consideration. Distracted with grief, Madame Dreyfus \nis said to have disbursed a large amount of money, in sums varying from \none hundred to one thousand francs, to the first dozen or so of these jour- \nnalistic vultures. But her eyes were opened to the true state of affairs \nby her friends. \n\nAt about this time, M. Henri Rochefort, editor of the Intransigiant, \nreferred to France, his native land, as the "Pays de Chantage," otherwise \nthe "Land of Blackmail." M. Eochefort claimed that blackmail was not \nonly a prominent characteristic of the modern press of France, but that it \nwas the strongest weapon of the Government of that day (1894-95) He \nadded: \n\n"Since the time when the lists of Arton and Eeinach (the Panama \nlobbyists) were made public, the reactionary government of the country \nhas obtained all its concessions from the Chamber of Deputies merely by \nthe terror of divulgation." \n\nThat there may have been truth in this assertion would seem likely \nfrom the exposure in December, 1894, of the "Syndicate of Silence." It \nappears that Allez Brothers, a well-known hardware firm of Paris, con- \ntracted early in December of that year to supply the minister of war with \n\n\n\n48 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\na number of water-cans for the use of the army. Later, the firm sublet \nthe contract to another house, and when the cans were delivered the inspec- \ntor of the War Department refused to accept them, as being too light and \nmade of inferior metal. The cans were offered again by AUez Brothers, \nwhereupon the inspector discovered that false bottoms had been put in the \ncans in order to bring them up to the required weight, and he again \nrefused them. Allez Brothers were informed by the Minister of War, \nGeneral Mercier, that they would be prosecuted, and the story got into \nthe public press. But, in some manner not clearly explained, seven Paris \nnewspaper men formed a " Syndicate of Silence. " The object of the organ- \nization was to prevent the newspapers of Paris from publishing references \nto the alleged fraud due to the action of Allez Brothers. The head of \nthat firm is said to have been visited by the head of the " Syndicate of \nSilence," who is reported to have said to him: \n\n"If you will hand over to me 100,000 francs ($20,000) I will \nguarantee the silence of the Paris press upon this little matter of the \nwater-can contract. I will undertake to organize a press campaign in \nfavor of the house of Allez Brothers. Further, a certain number of \ndeputies shall be influenced in such a way as to force the Minister of War \nto accept the false-bottomed cans already tendered, and if General Mercier \nshould show himself at all obstinate he will be politely requested to resign \nhis portfolio." \n\nStill, according to the story, Allez Brothers jumped at the offer and \npaid this large sum demanded without much protest, and the head of the \nsyndicate, it is asserted, handed $2,500 to each of his associates and kept \n$5,000 for himself. \n\nBut, the next day, Allez Brothers discovered that many of the Paris \nnewspapers continued to demand the prosecution of the firm. In fact, it \nbecame apparent that only seven out of the forty or fifty newspapers had \nbeen "silenced," whereupon the firm complained to the Minister of War \nand insisted upon the prosecution of the blackmailers. \n\nGeneral Mercier, it seems, decided to proceed against the seven mem- \nbers of the "Syndicate of Silence," and even began to take steps in that \ndirection, when, it was pointed out at the time, a Higher Power in the \nState intervened, explaining to the general that it would be "unwise, at \nthis moment, to raise another Panama scandal." \n\n\n\nTHE "SYNDICATE OF SILENCE" 49 \n\n"Call upon the seven to refund the one hundred thousand francs," the \nHigher Power is alleged to have said, " and let the matter drop, so far as \nthe Government is concerned." \n\nThis, it is added, was done, and six of the members of the " Syndicate \nof Silence " took their $2,500 share to their chief, but they were dum- \nfoimded when the latter told them he had spent his $5,000 in paying his \ndebts, and that in order to settle the matter they would have to contribute \nthat amount from their own pockets in order to make up the 100,000 \nfrancs ; and this was done also ! \n\nSome of the papers insisted that an inquiry should be made into the \nmatter, and it seems at least one of the seven conspirators was himself \nasked to sit in judgment upon the affair, while the man appointed presi- \ndent of the committee of inquiry was described as occupying a prominent \nposition upon a Paris newspaper which was inscribed upon the Panama \nCanal lobbying list as having received 1,500,000 francs. As the com- \nmittee had no power to investigate or authority to search for evidence \nagainst the guilty parties, those in possession of the facts refused to appear \nbefore the tribunal. \n\nFinally, it is charged that the committee was purposely constructed so \nas to frustrate the object it was intended to accomplish ; and the inquiry \nof course collapsed. \n\n\n\n50 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XI, \n\nEXILED TO DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nShortly after his degradation, Dreyfus was taken to the fortress of \nHe de E^, off the coast of France, preparatory to being shipped to the \nFrench penal settlement of Cayenne, French Guiana, off which place lay \nthe ties du Salut (Salvation Islands), of which lie du Diable (Devil\'s \nIsland), which was to be his permanent prison, formed a part. \n\nThus, for four years, disappeared from view the degraded officer, the \nman denounced as a traitor from one end of France to the other, but be- \nloved and believed in by those who knew him best. \n\nBefore he was put on board the ship which took him to Devil\'s Island, \nDreyfus was allowed to have a probably last interview with his faithful \nwife. In this interview he broke down and talked of suicide. But the \nnoble woman arose to the occasion and pointed him out the path of duty. \nShe told him that, for the sake of his children and for her sake, as well as \nfor the sake of his loyal friends, he must put up with everything and trust \nto them to prove his innocence in due course of time. \n\nJust before leaving France Dreyfus wrote a letter to his wife which \ncontained the following words : \n\n" In promising you to live, to keep firm until my name is rehabilitated, \nI have made you the greatest sacrifice that a man of feeling \xe2\x80\x94 a man of \nhonor \xe2\x80\x94 from whom they have torn his honor, can make. Provided only \nthat God help me, that my physical strength does not leave me. The \nwill is there, and my conscience, which reproaches me with nothing, bears \nme up. So, then, my darling, do all in the world you can to find the true \nculprit; never relax your efforts for a moment. It is my only hope." \n\nMadame Dreyfus was faithful to her husband\'s solemn charge. From \nthat time on she devoted herself to the rehabilitation of her husband. The \nbrothers of Dreyfus and her relatives spared no trouble and no money in \nseeking for enlightenment. The brothers freely offered their whole fortune \n\n\n\nEXILED TO DEVIL\'S ISLAND 51 \n\nin the efforts made, and a systematic campaign was opened in behalf of \nthe prisoner. Madame Dreyfus made superhuman efforts to touch the \nhearts of the great army chiefs, but they were obdurate, saying they were \nfirmly convinced of the guilt of the prisoner. In fact, the War Ofl&ce \nauthorities seemed to think they had done a very clever piece of work, and \nDu Paty de Clam was promoted for his share in the affair. \n\nDreyfus, on his way to his island prison, was treated with the greatest \nharshness and contempt. Nobody has any sympathy or respect for a \ntraitor; and Frenchmen less than any other people. He arrived at his \ndestination, however, in fairly good health, though much depressed in \nspirits and still vainly protesting his innocence. \n\nIn this manner two years passed, and this gives us an opportunity to \nglance at the Salvation Islands. \n\nThe Salvation Islands comprise three small islands off the coast of \nFrench Guiana, a few degrees north of the equator, and, except by a \nnarrow sea frontage, is covered with tropical forests. The climate is simply \nmurderous, certain death being the result of standing bareheaded in the \nsun even for a short time. From November to June is the wet season, \nduring which the average rainfall is 180 inches; yet the temperature is \nnever less than 85\xc2\xb0, and rises to 115\xc2\xb0 during the four dry months. Con- \nvict ships bound for these " Islands of the Cursed " generally sail either \nfrom the lie de E^, in the Bay of Biscay, or the lie d\'Aix, in the Medi- \nterranean. A month is occupied by the voyage, the horrors of which are \na fit prelude to those yet to come. \n\nDressed in their convict garb, the prisoners are confined in batches of \nfifty in great iron cages on the spar deck. Benches are placed around \nthe sides of the cage, and hammocks are slung at night. But day and \nnight they are watched by guards standing beside loaded mitrailleuses, \n(rapid-firing guns), ready to fire at the first sign of mutiny. Sometimes, \nindeed, such outbreaks do occur; but they are invariably quelled with \nremorseless severity. The horrors of the passage are too repulsive for \ndescription, the scenes resembling rather those observable a century or \ntwo ago than what one would expect in the present times. \n\nOn the arrival of the prisoners at the lies du Salut they are taken to \nthe "camp," a clearing occupied by strongly built iron -barred huts, fur- \nnished with double rows of hammocks. But at night the fetid atmosphere \n\n\n\n52 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwithin, combined with the noisome vapors of the outer air and the ever- \npresent swarms of stinging insects, render any but the sleep of exhaustion \nimpossible. From the moment of his arrival the convict has no name. \nHe is known only by the number of his hammock. The new arrivals are \nput to the most severe tasks \xe2\x80\x94 draining marshes and clearing ground \xe2\x80\x94 "to \nbreak their spirits." They are conducted to their work by armed guards, \nwho are ordered to fire at the least attempt at flight. Hardly any try to \nescape, for they know that, if they evade the bullets of the guards and \ntheir pursuit, it will be necessary to traverse the virgin forest and the sea. \nAt every step will lie in wait of them death by hunger, by fatigue, by \ndisease, or by the poisoned arrows of the natives, who receive a reward \nfor every convict they bring back, dead or alive. Meanwhile, with their \nbodies broken by their awful toil in a climate where a walk of a hundred \nyards is a formidable task, they labor in the blazing sun with spades and \npicks. About their heads hang clouds of stinging insects. Great red \nants cover their bare legs, and sometimes poisonous serpents twist about \ntheir ankles and inflict mortal wounds. They stand in trenches up to \ntheir knees in water and mire, and the exhalations rising from the earth \nconsume them with fever, or set their teeth chattering as with cold, while \nthe sweat rolls from their foreheads. \n\nOccasionally, in their despair, some of the convicts revolt, in the \nhope, which is seldom disappointed, of finding in the bullets of their cus- \ntodians a relief from this living torture. Others again go mad, or end \ntheir lives by deliberately exposing themselves to the sun, while very \nfew ever succeed in escaping. Indeed, only once have any fugitives \nreached civilized countries again, and even then their period of freedom \nwas comparatively brief. \n\n\n\nLIFE ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 53 \n\n\n\nChapter XII. \nLIFE ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nOnly a week previous to Dreyfus\' s arrival his particular island (Dev- \nil\'s Island) was used as a hosjpital for lepers, all of whom, however, had \nbeen removed, and their huts burnt down. \n\nThe island on which the man convicted of betraying his country was \nseemingly destined to pass the rest of his days is a very small one, shaded \nby a few cocoanut trees, and, small though it be, he was not allowed to set \nfoot on more than a part of it, the only point from which he could by any \npossibility escape being prohibited to him. His modern hut, measuring \nfour yards square, comprised but one room, in which a couple of guards \nwere ever with the prisoner, who at night was shut in his den, which was \nconstantly lighted up, a hole in the door enabling the watchman to keep \nan eye on his every movement. \n\nWith regard to food Dreyfus was treated at first, it appears, in the \nsame way as French soldiers in the colonies, and on that score he had \nnothing to complain of. \n\nNaturally the view was a distant one ; for on the He du Diable (Dev- \nil\'s Island) no one debarks. But from either of the other islands \xe2\x80\x94 from \n\nK \n\nthe He St. Joseph, where the bulk of the convicts are confined, and where \nthe executioner has his habitat, or from the He Eoyale, where the marines \nwho constitute the garrison are quartered \xe2\x80\x94 the prisoner on the interme- \ndiate rock could be made out distinctly enough through an opera-glass, and \nthe more readily that he alone was privileged to wear white clothes. The \none white-clad figure, bearded now, and bent and listless, among the blue \nuniforms \xe2\x80\x94 that is surely he. \n\nDreyfus\'s movements in 1896 were under less restraint than was at \nfirst the case. The length and breadth of the rock was his exercise dur- \ning certain hours. He was master of his dreary time. He could employ \nit as he pleased, and he seemed to have mapped it out with the idea of \n\n\n\n64 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ngetting through as much of it as possible. He read steadily and smoked \nas steadily, walked much, ate little, drank no stimulants, and slept seven \nhours out of the twenty-four. His health under this regime held out, \nperhaps, as well as could be expected against a climatic dispensation of \ntropical rain and torrid sun, by no means conducive to longevity. \n\nHis literature was as ample as his friends could make it. He had \nbooks of all sorts, and periodicals by the bale, but never a newspaper. \nYet somehow he heard of the Cauvin case, and laid considerable stress on \nthat rehabilitation of an unjustly condemned man in one of the many \nmemorials he addressed to the powers at home. \n\nThe burden of all the prisoners was the same. Dreyfus admitted ap- \npearances were against him, but he maintained that he was the victim of \na ghastly judicial error. For fear of diplomatic complications, the court \nthat tried him sat with closed doors; it was those closed doors, he \naverred, that shut out the truth. But the time, he never ceased to \ndeclare, was bound to come when his innocence would appear clear as the \nsun at noonday. And there was always the same calm assurance of this, \nand no heat, or anger, or acrimony. \n\nThe prisoner\'s attitude was as disquieting as were his more passionate \nprotests that January morning in the square of the Ecole Militaire. \n\nCertainly it disquieted M. Chautemps, Minister for the Colonies in \nthe Eibot Cabinet. He was moved to wire to the governor of French \nGuiana to know if it were not possible for the prisoner to have his wife \nwith him. But the governor had his own responsibility to consider, and \nopposed so formal a negative that M. Chautemps\'s efforts ended there. \n\nIn a house opposite the prisoner\'s lived his bodyguard. It consisted \nof six picked ex-noncommissioned officers under a sergeant. The men \nwere on duty two at a time for four-hour stretches, from dawn to dark. \nAt dark one man entered a sort of cage in the prisoner\'s house, whence he \ncommanded a view of the prisoner\'s bedroom. That man remained on \nduty all night and never sat down. \n\nOne man took this watch every night for a whole year. He so nearly \nwent mad over it that the system had to be altered, and afterward only \none night watch for each guard per week was exacted. \n\nBut, by night or by day, no matter what happened, no word could be \naddressed to the\' captive. \n\n\n\nLIFE ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 55 \n\nThe total cost of keeping Dreyfus where he was may be put down at \nsomething like $10,000 a year. This included the cost of the periodical \ncablegram from Cayenne (which is in telephonic communication with the \nisland) at $2.50 per word, to the Colonial Office, Paris, to inform the min- \nister that "no change has taken place in the prisoner\'s situation." \n\n\n\n56 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\nChapter XIII. \nTHE DOCTOR\'S STORY \n\nDk. Veugmon, the physician who had Dreyfus in charge while the \nprisoner was on Devil\'s Island, in an interview at Cayenne, in March of \nthe year 1899, said: \n\n" Dreyfus is a neuropathic subject, and the regime to which he has \nbeen submitted has made him more so ; isolation, idleness, boredom, and \ndiscouragement irritate his nervous system. His malady displayed itself \nabout a year after his imprisonment had commenced, and took the form \nof cerebral depression. He was beset by unconquerable sadness; he \nclenched his teeth ; he complained of dyspepsia, exhaustion, and prolonged \ninsomnia, caused by moral preoccupations, more particularly by the \' fixed \nidea\' of disculpating himself from the charge of treason. Next came \nheadaches and pains in the neck, and finall}\'\', last year, I was called in to \ntreat him for fainting fits of considerable duration, which I put a stop to by . \nsubcutaneous injections of morphia. In my presence Dreyfus was always \nseK-possessed. \n\n" Under his strength of will one could detect, however, stormy symp- \ntoms, and his jailers said that often, when first awaking of a morning, he \nwould break out into furious passion, bursting into tears, gesticulating \nlike a madman, and shouting unintelligible words. These violent rages \nusually resulted in utter exhaustion and general torpor, and sometimes in \nsyncope, when, of course, I was sent for. Unfortunately, I could only put \nhim through an illusory sort of treatment, prescribing good nourishment, \ntonics, work in his little garden, and plenty of walking exercise, to fatigue \nhis body and distract his mind. But the only palliative remedies for acute \nneurasthenia \xe2\x80\x94 which I consider incurable \xe2\x80\x94 are bracing air, amusement, \nactive life \xe2\x80\x94 a treatment, in short, not to be dreamed of in his case. \n\n" The irritability of Dreyfus\'s character has increased since he has been \ntold of the application to revise his trial. This proceeding haunts him ; \n\n\n\nTHE DOCTOK\'S STORY 57 \n\nhe is a prey to feverish restlessness ; a thousand conjectures torment his \nfancy, ignorant as he is of the evidence advanced by his defenders to ob- \ntain a new trial." \n\n"Do you believe," the doctor was asked, "that if the application for \nrevision be rejected, Dreyfus is strong enough to get over his disappoint- \nment?" \n\nDr. Veugnon smiled, hesitated, and then replied : \n\n" I think we had better not consider such an eventuality. Dreyfus \nhas repeatedly expressed his intention to put an end to his life. His \nwords have been reported to the authorities, and even M. Deniel, fearing \nan attempt at suicide, has ordered Dreyfus\'s jailers not to lose sight of \nhim for a second. After carefully searching his habitation they carried \noff even perfectly harmless objects, such as kitchen utensils." \n\n" Was Dreyfus in earnest ? " \n\n" I can mention a characteristic circumstance which took place early \nin 1898, and justified the belief that he meant what he had said. He \nsent for me one day, complaining of violent headache, and besought me \nto give him a quantity of antipyrin, the only drug, he said, that gave \nhim relief. Struck by a sudden suspicion, I acquiesced in his request, \nbut, observing that a portable medicine case did not contain what he \nwanted, I left him, and soon returned with a dozen perfectly harmless \ncachets. These I recommended him to use very cautiously, not more \nthan two per diem. Next day I visited him again. His headache had \ndisappeared, and when I asked him to give back the balance of the \ncachets I had handed to him, he pretended to look for them, and pres- \nently told me that he could not remember where he had put them. I \ndropped the subject, and never thereafter even alluded to the incident, \nwhich I consider conclusive. My instructions were to converse with him \nexclusively about his health, and he never mentioned the offence he was \nexpiating except to protest his innocence. \n\n"At the present time I do not think that Dreyfus will try to kill him- \nself, for the possibility of \'revision \' has shed a ray of hope upon his \ntortured soul. But should he be disappointed, and hurled back into a \nslough of despond, I should not be surprised were he to carry out his \nsinister projects and commit an act of desperation." \n\nThe head keeper of the Cayenne penal settlement, at about the same \n\n\n\n58 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ntime, was questioned confidentially as to whether Dreyfus knew of the \nefforts being made in France. He said : \n\n" I can positively assert that Dreyfus is ignorant of what has taken \nplace in France since his incarceration, except what has been written to \nhim by members of his family, for every imaginable measure has been \ntaken to preclude indiscretion. Before his arrival here it had been \narranged to isolate him completely and cut him off from all external com- \nmunication. It may be said with truth that a tomb closed upon him as \nsoon as he came hither. In the bureaux a special service was organized \nunder the control of a chief inspector to supervise his food and all his \nappurtenances, of which he himself drew up a list that was handed to a \nCayenne storekeeper. They were all minutely examined before being for- \nwarded to the island. All the clothes sent to Dreyfus are unsewn and \nturned inside out to make sure that no written matter is hidden under the \nseams or in the lining. His provisions are rigorously searched ; meat cans \nand other tins are opened and resoldered ; his cigars \xe2\x80\x94 he smokes a good \ndeal \xe2\x80\x94 are unrolled and made up again, as they might contain slips of \npaper. Even the labels on the wine bottles are removed to make certain \nthat nothing is written on them. His letters are read ; whatever allusion \nthey contain to his case is pitilessly suppressed, and before delivery to \nhim they are subjected to great heat, in order to detect any sympathetic \nor other special ink. \n\n" If you take into consideration that Dreyfus is in the custody of \nincorruptible warders, always in fear of dismissal and punishment at the \nleast infraction of standing rules, you will recognize, as I do, the impos- \nsibility that outside rumors should ever reach the former captain. It is \nnot so in the penitentiary, where the convicts enjoy relative freedom ; but \nthe situation of Dreyfus and of these common malefactors has absolutely \nnothing in common." \n\n\n\nLETTERS OF DREYFUS TO HIS WIFE 59 \n\n\n\nChapter XIV. \nLETTERS OF DREYFUS TO HIS WIFE \n\nDreyfus, while in the prison of Cherche Midi, the prison of La Sant^, \non the lie de E^, and on Devil\'s Island, wrote a number of touching let- \nters to his wife which were afterward published by Harper & Brothers. \nTherefore we shall only touch upon them briefly, referring more particu- \nlarly to the letters written from Devil\'s Island, as they furnish links in \nthe chain which we now attempt to construct. The following is one of \nthe letters referred to : \n\nTuesday, March 12, 1895. \nMy Dear Lucie : \n\nThursday, February 21st, some hours after your departure, I was taken \nto Eochefort and put on shipboard. \n\nI shall not speak to you of my voyage ; I was transported in the man- \nner in which the vile scoundrel whom I represent deserved to be trans- \nported. It was only just. They could not accord any pity to a traitor, \nthe lowest of blackguards ; and as long as I represent this wretch I can \nonly approve their conduct. \n\nMy life here must drag itself out under the same conditions. \n\nBut your heart can tell you aU that I have suffered \xe2\x80\x94 all that I suffer. \nI live only through the hope in my soul of soon seeing the triumphant \nlight of my rehabilitation. That is the only thing that gives me strength \nto live. Without honor a man is not worthy of life. \n\nOn the day of my departure you assured me that the truth would \nsurely come soon to light. I have lived during that awful voyage, I am \nliving now, only on that word of yours \xe2\x80\x94 remember it well. I have been \ndisembarked but a few minutes, and I have obtained permission to send \nyou a cablegram. \n\nI write in haste these few words, which will leave on the 15th by the \nEnglish mail. It solaces me to have a talk with you, whom I love so \nprofoundly. There are two mails a month for France \xe2\x80\x94 the 15th the Eng- \nlish, and the 3d the French mail. \n\n\n\n60 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nAnd in the same way there are two mails a month for the lies \xe2\x80\x94 the \nEnglish mail and the French mail. Find out the days of their departure \nand write to me by both of them. \n\nAll that I can tell you more is that if you want me to live, have my \nhonor given back to me. Convictions, whatever they may be, do noth- \ning for me; do not change my lot. What is necessary is a decision \nwhich will reinstate me. \n\nI made for your sake the greatest sacrifice a man can make, in resign- \ning myself to live after my tragic fate was decided. I did this because \nyou had inculcated in me the conviction that the truth must always \ncome to light. In your turn, my darling, do all that is humanly possible \nto discover the truth. A wife and a mother yourself, try to move the \nhearts of wives and mothers, so that they may give to you the key of this \ndreadful mystery. I must have my honor if you want me to live, I \nmust have it for our dear children. Do not reason with your heart ; that \ndoes no good. I have been convicted. Nothing can be changed in our \ntragic situation until the decision shall have been reversed. Eeflect, \nthen, and pursue the solution of this enigma. That will be worth more \nthan coming here to share my horrible life. It will be the best, the only \nmeans of saving my life. Say to yourself that it is a question of life or \ndeath for me, for our children. \n\nI am incapable of writing to you all. My brain will bear no more ; \nmy despair is too great. My nervous system is in a deplorable condition, \nand it is full time that this horrible tragedy should end. \n\nNow my spirit alone is above water. \n\nOh, for God\'s sake, hurry, work with all your might ! \n\nTell them all to write to me. \n\nEmbrace them all for me ; our poor darlings, too. \n\nAnd for you a thousand tender kisses from your devoted husband, \n\nAlfeed. \n\n\n\nMarch 28, 1895. \nI was hoping to receive news of you at about this time ; as yet I have \nheard nothing. I have already written you two letters. \n\nI know nothing as yet beyond the four walls of my chamber. As for \nmy health, it could not be very brilliant. Aside from my physical mis- \neries, of which I speak only to cite them, the cause of this condition of \nmy health lies chiefly in the disorder of my nervous system, produced by \nan uninterrupted succession of moral shocks. \n\nYou know that no matter how severe they might be at times, physical \n\n\n\nLETTERS OF DREYFUS TO HIS WIFE 61 \n\nsufferings never wrung a groan from me, and that I could look death \ncoolly in the face if only my mental sufferings did not darken my thoughts. \n\nMy mind cannot extricate itself for an instant from the horrible drama \nof which I am the victim, a tragedy which has struck a blow not only at \nmy life \xe2\x80\x94 that is the least of evils, and truly it would have been better had \nthe wretch who committed the crime killed me instead of woimding me \nas he has \xe2\x80\x94 but [he struck] at my honor, the honor of my children, the \nhonor of you all. \n\nThis piercing thought of my honor torn from me leaves me no rest \neither by day or by night. My nights, alas ! you can imagine what they \nare ! Formerly it was only sleeplessness ; now the greater part of the night \nis passed in such a state of hallucination and of fever that I ask myself \neach morning how my brain still resists. This is one of the most cruel \nof all my sufferings. Add to this the long hours of the day passed in \nsolitary communion with my thoughts, in the most absolute isolation. \n\nIs it possible to rise above such preoccupation of the mind? Is it \npossible to force the mind to turn aside to other subjects of thought? I \ndo not believe it ; at least I cannot. When one is in this, the most agi- \ntating, the most tragic plight that can possibly be conceived for a man \nwhose honor has never failed him, nothing can turn the mind from the \nidea which dominates it. \n\nThen when I think of you, of our dear children, my grief is imuttera- \nble; for the weight of the crime which some wretch has committed \nweighs heavily upon you also. You must, therefore, for our children\'s \nsake, pursue without truce, without rest, the work you have undertaken, \nand you must make my innocence burst forth in such a way that no doubt \ncan be left in the mind of any human being. Whoever may be the per- \nsons who are convinced of my innocence, tell yourself that they will \nchange nothing in our position ; we often pay ourselves in words and nour- \nish ourselves on illusions ; nothing but my rehabilitation can save us. \n\nYou see, then, what I cannot cease reiterating to you, that it is a mat- \nter of life or of death, not only for me, but for our children. For myself \nI never will accept life without my honor. To say that an innocent man \nought to live, that he always can live, is a commonplace whose triteness \ndrives me to despair. \n\nI used to say it and I used to believe it. Now that I have suffered \nall this myself, I declare that if a man has any spirit he cannot live under \nsuch circumstances. Life is admissible only when he can lift his head \nand look the world in the face ; otherwise, there is nothing left for him \nbut to die. To live for the sake of living is simply low and cowardly. \n\n\n\n62 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nI am sure that in this you think as I do ; any other opinion would be \nunworthy of us. \n\nThe situation, already so tragic, becomes each day more tense. You \nhave not to weep, not to groan, but to face it with all your energy and \nwith all your soul. To make clear this situation, we must not wait for a \nhappy chance, but we much display all-absorbing activity. Knock at all \ndoors. We must employ all means to make the light burst forth. All \nforms of investigation must be tried ; the object we have in view is my \nlife, the life of every one of us. \n\nHere is a very clear bulletin of my state, moral and physical. I will \nsum it up : \n\nA pitiable nervous and cerebral excitability, but extreme moral energy, \noutstretched toward the one object which, no matter what the price, no \nmatter by what means, we must attain \xe2\x80\x94 vindication. I will leave you to \njudge from this what struggles I am each day forced to make to keep my- \nself from choosing death rather than this slow agony in every fibre of my \nbeing, rather than this torture of every instinct, in which physical suffering \nis added to agony of soul. You see that I am holding to my promise that \nI made you to struggle to live until the day of my rehabilitation. It remains \nfor you to do the rest, if you would have me reach that day. \n\nThen away with weakness. Tell yourself that I am suffering martyr- \ndom, that each day my brain is growing weaker; tell yourself that it is a \nquestion of my honor \xe2\x80\x94 that is to say, of my life, of the honor of your chil- \ndren. Let these thoughts inspire you, and then act accordingly. \n\nEmbrace every one, the children, for me. \n\nA thousand kisses from your husband, who loves you, \n\nAlfred. \n\nHow are the children ? Give me news of them. I cannot think of \nyou and of them without throbs of pain through my whole being. I \nwould breathe into your soul all the fire that is in my own, to march for- \nward to the assault that is to liberate the truth. I would convince you \nof the absolute necessity of unmasking the one who is guilty by every \nmeans, whatever it may be, and above all without delay. \n\nSend me a few books. \n\n\n\nFURTHER EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRISONER 63 \n\n\n\nChapter XV. \nFURTHER EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRISONER \n\nHaving given our readers some idea of the manner in which Dreyfus \nwrote to his wife, we shall now submit a few extracts from other letters \nof the prisoner to Madame Dreyfus, so as to convey as far as possible, a \npen picture of the workings of his mind while on Devil\'s Island. \n\nIn a letter date May 8, 1895, Dreyfus wrote : \n\nA profound silence reigns around me, interrupted only by the roaring \nof the sea; and my thoughts, crossing the distance which separates us, \ncarry me to your midst, among all those who are dear to me, whose \nthoughts must of a truth be often turned toward me. Often I ask at such \nan hour, " What is my dear Lucie doing ? " and I send you by my thoughts \nthe echo of my immense affection. Then I close my eyes, and it seems \nto me that I see your face and the faces of my dear children. \n\nFor three months now I have been without news of you, of the chil- \ndren, of our families. \n\nI believe that I have already told you that I advised you to ask per- \nmission to leave your letters at the Ministry eight or ten days before the \ndeparture of the mails ; perhaps in that way I shall receive them sooner. \nBut, my good darling, forget all my sufferings, overcome your own, and \nthink of our children. Say to yourself that you have a sacred mission to \nfulfil, that of having my honor given back to me, the honor of the name \nborne by our dear little ones. Moreover, I recall to my mind what you \ntold me before my departure. I know, as you repeated to me in your \nletter of February 17th, what the words of your mouth are worth. I have \nan absolute confidence in you. \n\nThen do not weep any more, my good darling; I will struggle until \nthe last minute for you, for our dear children. \n\nThe body may give way under such a burden of grief, but the soul \nshould remain firm and valiant, to protest against a lot that we have not \ndeserved. When my honor is given back to me, then only, my good darl- \ning, we shall have the right to withdraw from the field. We will live \n\n\n\n64 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nfor each other, far from the noise of the world ; we will take refuge in our \nmutual affection, in our love, grown still stronger in these tragical events. \nWe will sustain each other, that we may bind up the wounds of our \nhearts; we will live in our children, to whom we will consecrate the \nremainder of our days. We will try to make them good, simple beings, \nstrong in body and mind. We will elevate their souls so that they may \nalways find in them a refuge from the realities of life. \n\nMay this day come soon, for we have all paid our tribute of sufferings \nupon this earth ! Courage, then, my darling ; be strong and valiant ; carry \non your work without weakness, with dignity, but with the conviction of \nyour rights. I am going to lie down, to close my eyes and think of you. \nGood night and a thousand kisses. \n\nOn May 18, 1895, Dreyfus wrote as follows to his son: \n\nDear Little Pieeee : \n\nPapa sends good big kisses to you, also to little Jeanne. Papa thinks \noften of both of you. You must show little Jeanne how to make beauti- \nful towers with the wooden blocks, very high, such as I made for you, \nand which toppled down so well. Be very good. Give good caresses to \nyour mamma when she is sorrowful. Be very gentle and kind also to \ngrandmother and grandfather. Set good little traps for your aunts. \nWhen papa comes back from his journey you will come to the railway \nstation to meet him, with little Jeanne, with mamma, with every one. \n\nMore good big kisses for you and for Jeanne. Your \n\nPapa. \n\nHere is another touching extract from a letter of Dreyfus to his wife : \n\nI do not know anything of what is passing around me. I live as in a \ntomb. I am incapable of deciphering in my brain this appalling enigma. \nAll that I can do, then, and I shall not fail in this duty, is to sustain \nyou to my last breath \xe2\x80\x94 is to continue to fan in your heart the flame which \nglows in mine, so that you may march straight forward to the conquest of \nthe truth, so that you may get me back my honor, the honor of my chil- \ndren. You remember those lines of Shakespeare, in "Othello." I found \nthem again not long since among my English books. I send them to you \ntranslated (you will know why ! ) \n\n" Celui qui me vole ma bourse, \nMe vole une bagatelle. \nC\'est quelque chose, mais ce n\'est rien. \n\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT ACTORS; \n\n\n\n1. Zola. \n3. Mercier. \n\n\n\n2. Clemenceau. \n4. Carriere. \n\n\n\n\n\n^;,-. \n\n\n\n; 5^?i \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\' \xe2\x96\xa0\xc2\xbb\'" \'-SV- \n\n\n\n\nCOLONEL PICQUAKT IN THE CHEKCHE-MIDI PRISON. \n\n\n\n\nFIRST SCENE OF THE TRAGEDY: \n\n\n\n1. M. Cochefert, Chief of the Secret Service. \n\n2. Major Du Paty de Clam dictating Trial Passages of the Bordereau to Captain Dreyfus \n\nbefore his arrest. \n\n\n\n\nTHE SECRET CUUKT-.MAKTIAE. \n\n\n\n1. Dreyfus before the Court. \n\n2. Keadins the Verdict. \n\n\n\n3. Maurel-Pries. \n\n4. Maitre Demange. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOPENING OF THE TKIAE: DKEYEUS ])ECLAUEy lllS INNOCENCE. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n, >Si \'.1 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0:$iC ^> \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n/ \' \n\n\n\nMAITRE LABORI. \n\n\n\nFURTHER EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRISONER 65 \n\nEUe etait a moi, elle est a lui et \n\nA etait I\'esclave de mille autres. \nMais celui que me vole ma bonne renommee, \nMe vole une chose que ni I\'enrichit pas, \n\nEt que me rend vi\'aiment pauvre." \n\nAh, yes! he has rendered me "vraiment pauvre," the wretch who has \nstolen my honor! He has made us more miserable than the meanest of \nhuman creatures. \n\nThe quoted verses are a rendering of\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Who steals my purse steals trash ; . , . \nBut he vpho filches from me my good name \nRobs me of that vfhich not enriches him, \nAnd makes me poor indeed." \n\nUnder date of June 16, 1895, the unhappy prisoner wrote: \n\nTo-day a more peculiarly intimate sadness invades my soul, because \non this day, Sunday, we used to be together all day, and we used to end it \nwith your dear parents. But my heart, my conscience, and my reason, \ntoo, tell me that these happy days will return to us. I cannot admit that \nan innocent man can be left to expiate indefinitely, for a guilty wretch, \na crime as abominable as it is odious ; and then, to sum it up in one word, \nwhat must give you, as it gives me, unconquerable energy, is the thought \nof our children, as I have already told you before ; for ideas which emanate \nfrom such a subject must, from their nature, repeat themselves. We must \nhave our honor, and we have not the right to be weak; without it, it \nwould be better to see our children die. \n\nAs for our sufferings, we all suffer alike. Do you think that I do not \nfeel what you suffer \xe2\x80\x94 you, who are struck doubly, in your honor and in \nyour love ? Do you believe that I do not feel how your parents suffer, \nyour brothers and your sisters, for whom honor is not an empty word? \nBut I hope that our anguish is to have an end, and that that end is near. \nUntil that day we must guard all our courage, all our energy. \n\nThank Mathieu for those few words he wrote to me. How the poor \nboy must suffer ; he who is honor incarnate ! But tell him that I am with \nhim in thought \xe2\x80\x94 that our two hearts suffer together. There are moments \nwhen I think that I am the plaything of a horrible nightmare; that all \nthis is unreal ; that it is only a bad dream ; but it is, alas ! the truth. \nBut for the moment we ought to put aside every weakening thought. We \nought to fix our eyes upon one single object ; our honor. When that is \nreturned to me, and when I know the meaning of what is now for me an \n5 \n\n\n\n66 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nunsolvable problem, perhaps I shall understand this enigma which baffles \nmy reason, which leaves my brain panting. \n\nI will wait, then, for that moment, sure that it will come. I wish for \nus all that it may come soon ; I even hope it, so immovable is my faith in \njustice. Mystery has no place in our century. Everything is brought to \nlight, and must be brought to light. \n\nMy Sunday has seemed less long to me, my dear Lucie, because in this \nway I have been able to talk with you. As for our children, I have no \nadvice to give you. I know you ; our ideas on this subject are alike, both \nin regard to their bringing up and in regard to their education. Courage \nalways, dear Lucie, and a thousand kisses. \n\nDo not forget that I am answering letters dated three months ago, and \nthat my replies may therefore seem out of date to you. \n\nAlfred. \n\nOn July 15, 1895, Dreyfus wrote: \n\nMy energy is occupied in stilling the beatings of my heart, in contain- \ning my impatience, to learn at last that my innocence is recognized every- \nwhere and by every one. But if my energy is altogether passive, yours \nought, on the contrary, to be all active and animated by the ardent spirit \nwhich gives strength to my own. \n\nIf it were merely a question of suffering it would be nothing. But it \nis a question of the honor of a name, of the life of our children, and I do \nnot wish, you understand, that our children should ever have to lower \ntheir heads. Light, full, complete, must be let in upon this tragic story. \nNothing, therefore, should rebuff or tire you. All doors open, all hearts \nbeat for a mother who begs only for the truth, so that her children may \nlive. \n\nIt is almost from the tomb \xe2\x80\x94 my situation here is comparable to that, \nwith the added grief that my heart still beats ^ \xe2\x80\x94 that I write these words \nto you. Thank your dear parents, our brothers and sisters, as well as \nLucie and Henri, for their good and affectionate letters. Tell them all the \npleasure which I take in reading them, and tell them that if I do not an- \nswer directly it is because I could do nothing but keep on repeating what \nI have already said. Kiss your dear parents for me ; tell them all my \naffection. Long, tender kisses for the children. As for you, my dear and \ngood Lucie, your letters are my daily reading. Continue to write me long \nletters ; with them I come nearer to living with you, with our dear chil- \ndren, than I could by my own thought alone, which, indeed, never leaves \nyou for an instant. \n\n\n\nFURTHER EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRISONER 67 \n\nThe prisoner, on September 7, 1895, wrote: \n\nShould it last much longer either one or the other will give way under \nit. Well, my dear Lucie, that must not be ! We must before all else get \nback our honor, the honor of our children. We must not allow ourselves \nto be overcome by a fate so infamous when it is so unmerited. However \nnatural, however legitimate, may be the cries of pain of souls who suffer \nfar beyond all imaginable suffering, to groan, my dear Lucie, will do no \ngood. If, when you receive this letter, the mystery has not been made \nclear, then, I think, it will be time, when the courage, the energy which \nduty gives, with the invincible force which innocence gives, for you to \ntake personal steps, so that at last light may be thrown upon this tragic \nstory. You have neither mercy nor favor to ask for, but only a deter- \nmined search for the truth, a search for the wretch who wrote that infa- \nmous letter, and, in one word, justice for us all ! And you will find in \nyour own heart words more eloquent than any that could be contained in \na mere letter. We must, in a word, find at last the key to this mystery. \nWhatever may be the means, your position as a wife and a mother gives \nyou every right, and should give you every courage. \n\nFrom what I myself feel, from the state of my own heart, I know but \ntoo well how it must be with you all, and in my long nights I see you \nsuffering, agonizing with me. \n\nIt must end. Men cannot, in a century like ours, leave two families \nin agony without clearing up a mystery like this. The truth can be made \nknown, if only they are willing to have it so. \n\nIn the course of a long letter dated May 22d, Dreyfus said: \n\nIt is from the thought of you, the thought of our dear children, from \nmy determined resolve to sustain you, to live to see the day when our \nhonor shall be given back to us, that I draw all my strength. When I \nsink under the united burden of all my woes, when my brain reels, when \nmy heart can bear no more, when I lose all hope, then to myself I mur- \nmur three names \xe2\x80\x94 yours, those of our dear children \xe2\x80\x94 and I nerve myself \nagain against my agony, and not a sound passes my silent lips. To tell \nthe truth, I am physically very weak, it could not be otherwise. But \neverything is effaced from my mind, hallucinations of memories, sufferings, \nthe atrocities of my daily life, before so exalted, so absolute a preoccupa- \ntion, the thought of our honor, the patrimony of our children. So I come \nagain, as always, to cry to you with all my strength, with all my soul, \n"Courage, and still courage, to march steadfastly onward to your goal \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n68 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe unclouded honor of our name" \xe2\x80\x94 and to wish for both our sakes that \nthis goal may soon be reached. The dear little letters written by the chil- \ndren always move me deeply, cause me extreme emotion ; I often wet \nthem with my tears, but I draw from them also my strength. In all my \nletters I read that you are raising these dear little children admirably. If \nI have never spoken of this to you it has been because I knew it, because \nI knew you. \n\nTo speak of my love for you, the love that unites us all, would be \nuseless, would it not? Still, let me tell you again that my thought never \nleaves you for an instant day or night, that my heart is always near to \nyou, to our children, to you all, ready to sustain you, to animate you with \nmy unconquerable will. I embrace you with all my strength, with all \nmy heart, and also the dear children. \n\nFinally Dreyfus began to give way to despair. After addressing a \nheartrending appeal to the governor of French Guiana, in September, \n1898, no encouragement was forthcoming, and he broke down. But there \nwas already sunshine in the distance, as the following letter shows : \n\nIf my voice had ceased to make itself heard, this would have been be- \ncause it had forever died away. If I have lived, it has been for my honor, \nwhich is my property and the patrimony of our children ; it has been for \nmy duty, which I have done everywhere and always ; and as it must ever \nbe accomplished when a man has right and justice on his side, without \nfear of anything or of anybody. When one has behind one a past devoted \nto duty, a life devoted to honor, when one has never known but one lan- \nguage, that of truth, one is strong, I assure you, and atrocious though fate \nmay have been, one must have a soul lofty enough to dominate it until it \nbows before one. Let us, therefore, await with confidence the decision of \nthe Supreme Court, as we await with confidence the decision of the new \njudges before whom this decision will send me. At the same time as \nyour letter I have received a copy of the petition for revision, and of the \ndecree of the Court of Cassation, declaring it acceptable. I read with \nwonderful emotion the terms of your petition, in which you expressed \nadmirably, as I have already done in mine, the feelings by which I am \nanimated in asking that an end shall be put to the punishment of an inno- \ncent man \xe2\x80\x94 I may add to that of a noble woman, of her children, of two \nfamilies, of an innocent man who had always been a loyal soldier, who \nhas not ceased, even in the midst of the horrible sufferings of unmerited \nchastisement, to declare his love for his native land. \n\n\n\nTHE PEISONER HEARS GOOD NEWS 69 \n\n\n\nChapter XVL \n\nTHE PRISONER HEARS GOOD NEWS \n\nThe Procureur-G^neral of Cayenne, M. Darius, on November 15, 1898, \nentered the hut occupied by Dreyfus on Devil\'s Island and said to him : \n\n"Dreyfus, the Court of Cassation has decided to revise your case. \nWhat have you to say ? " \n\nThe prisoner was almost overwhelmed by the good news, it is admit- \nted. But, according to the Pro cureur- General, the prisoner contented \nhimself with replying: \n\n"I shall say nothing until I am confronted by my accusers in Paris." \n\nBut, from a letter written by Dreyfus to his wife, later, in November, \n1898, he said : \n\nMy Dear Lucie: \n\nIn the middle of the month I was told that the petition for the revi- \nsion of my judgment had been declared acceptable by the Court of Cassa- \ntion, and was invited to produce my means of defence. I took the neces- \nsary measures immediately. My requests were at once transmitted to \nParis, and you must have been informed of this some days ago. Events \nmust therefore be moving rapidly. In thought I am night and day, as \nalways, with you, with our children, with all, sharing our joy at seeing \nthe end of this fearful drama approaching rapidly. Words become pow- \nerless to describe such deep emotions . . . According to information \nwhich I sent you in the last mail, all will be over in the course of Decem- \nber. Therefore, when these lines reach you I shall be almost on the point \nof starting for France. \n\nWe will conclude this series of extracts from the letters of Dreyfus with \nthe letter received by his counsel, Maitre Demange, December 31, 1894, \nmade public when sent to the Minister of Justice, M. Sarrien, July 11, \n1898, as showing the lines the prisoner indicated for those who were en- \ngaged in the work of attempting to establish his innocence : \n\n\n\n70 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nDu Paty de Clam came to-day, Monday, December 31, 1894, at 5:30 \nP.M., after the rejection of my appeal, to ask me, on behalf of the minis- \nter, whether I had not, perhaps, been the victim of my imprudence, \nwhether I had not meant merely to lay a bait . . . and had then found \nmyself caught fatally in the trap. I replied that I never had relations \nwith any agent or attache, . . . that I had undertaken no such process as \nbaiting, and that I was innocent. He then said to me on his own respon- \nsibility that he was himself convinced of my guilt, first from an examina- \ntion of the handwriting of the document brought up against me, and from \nthe nature of the documents enumerated therein ; secondly, from informa- \ntion according to which the disappearance of documents corresponded with \nmy presence on the General Staff; that, finally, a secret agent had declared \nthat a Dreyfus was a spy, . . . without, however, affirming that that \nDreyfus was an officer. I asked Paty de Clam to be confronted with this \nagent. He replied that it was impossible. Paty de Clam acknowledged \nthat I had never been suspected before the reception of the incriminating \ndocument. \n\nI then asked him why there had been no surveillance exercised over \nthe officers from the month of February, since Commandant Henry had \naffirmed at the court-martial that he had been warned at that date that \nthere was a traitor among the officers. Paty de Clam replied that he knew \nnothing about that ivasiness ; that it was not his affair, but Commandant \nHenry\'s ; that it was difficult to watch all the officers of the General Staff. \n.... Then, perceiving that he had said too much, he added : \n\n"We are talking between four walls. If I am questioned on all that \nI shall deny everything." \n\nI preserved entire calmness, for I wished to know his whole idea. \n\nTo sum up, he said that I had been condemned because there was a \nclue indicating that the culprit was an officer, and the seized letter came \nto give precision to that clue. He added, also, that since my arrest the \nleakage at the ministry had ceased ; that perhaps . . .\'- had left the letter \nabout expressly to sacrifice me, in order not to satisfy my demands. \n\nHe then spoke to me of the remarkable expert testimony of M. Bertil- \nlon, according to which I had traced my own handwriting and that of my \n\n\n\n* The leaders indicate an omitted jiame. \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER HEARS GOOD NEWS 71 \n\nbrother in order to be able, in case I should be arrested with the letter on \nme, to protest that it was a conspiracy against me. He further intimated \nthat my wife and family were my accomplices \xe2\x80\x94 in short, the whole theory \nof M. Bertillon. \n\nAt this point, knowing what I wanted to discover and not wishing to \nallow him to insult my family as well, I stopped him saying : \n\n" Enough ; I have only one word to say, namely, that I am innocent, \nand that your duty is to continue your inquiries." \n\n"If you are really innocent," he exclaimed, "you are undergoing the \nmost monstrous martyrdom of all time." \n\n"I am that martyr," I replied, "and I hope the future will prove it to \nyou." \n\nTo sum up, it results from this conversation : \n\n1. That there have been leakages at the ministry. \n\n2. That . . : must have heard, and must have repeated to Command- \nant Henry, that there was an officer who was a traitor. I do not think he \nwould have invented it of his own accord. \n\n3. That the incriminating letter was taken at . . . From all this I \ndraw the following conclusions, the first certain, the two others possible: \n\nFirst, a spy really exists ... at the French ministry, for documents \nhave disappeared. \n\nSecondly, perhaps that spy slipped in in an officer\'s uniform, imitating \nhis handwriting in order to divert suspicion. \n\nThirdly [here four lines and a half are blank]. \n\nThis hypothesis does not exclude the fact No. 1, which seems certain. \nBut the tenor of the letter does not render this third hypothesis very prob- \nable. It would be connected rather with the first fact and the second hy- \npothesis \xe2\x80\x94 that is to say, the presence of a spy at the ministry and imita- \ntion of my handwriting by that spy, or simply resemblance of handwriting. \n\nHowever this may be, it seems to me that if your agent is clever he \nshould be able to unravel this web by laying his nets as well on the . . . \nside as on the . . . side. This will not prevent the employment of all \nthe methods I have indicated, for the truth must be discovered. \n\nAfter the departure of Paty de Clam I wrote the following letter to the \nminister : \n\n" I received, by order, the visit of Paty de Clam, to whom I once \n\n\n\n72 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nmore declared that I was innocent, and that I had never even committed an \nimprudence. I am condemned. I have no favor to ask. But in the \nname of my honor, which I hope will one day be restored to me, it is my \nduty to beg you to continue your investigations. When I am gone let \nthe search be kept up ; it is the only favor that I solicit. " \n\n\n\nWOEKma FOR THE TRUTH 73 \n\n\n\nChapter XVTI. \n\nWORKING FOR THE TRUTH \n\nWe must now leave Dreyfus on Devil\'s Island and turn back to the \nevents which followed his degradation, January 5, 1895. \n\nFor about two years little or nothing was heard of the case of the \nunhappy prisoner. But loyally, steadily, and fearlessly, his devoted wife, \nhis brother Mathieu and others persisted in their efforts to get at the \ntruth. \n\nAs for the War Office officials, they were quite pleased with the result \nof their efforts, so much so that some of those concerned, particularly Du \nPaty de Clam, were promoted. \n\nM. Meline was then Premier, M. Hanotaux was Minister of Foreign \nAffairs, M. Lebon was Minister of the Colonies, and the Minister of War \nwas General Billot. Colonel Picquart was head of the Intelligence De- \npartment. \n\nDuring the month of March, 1896, there came into the possession of \nColonel Picquart, a fearless, intelligent, and apparently honest officer, a \nFrench post-card, or petit bleu, torn into fragments (as was the case with \nthe bordereau which brought about the conviction of Dreyfus), which, \nstrange to say, had also been found by a spy who had investigated the \ncontents of the waste-paper basket of the German Embassy at Paris. \n\nWhen pieced together, the petit lieu read : \n\n"I await before everything a more detailed explanation than that \nwhich you gave me the other day upon the question at issue. I beg you, \ntherefore, to give it to me in writing, so that I can judge if I may continue \nmy relations with the firm of E or not." \n\nThis post- card, (or petit hleu) was addressed to Major Esterhazy, 27 \nEue de la Bienfaisance, Paris, an infantry officer whose reputation was \nsomewhat shady, to put it as mildly as possible. \n\nThe full title of Esterhazy was "Major Count Ferdinand von Walsin \n\n\n\n74 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nEsterhazy." He claimed to be a direct descendant of the noble Esterhazy \nfamily of Austria, but the head of that house protested against this claim \nand even threatened to prosecute Major Esterhazy for bearing the name \nof the family. \n\nHowever, to continue our story, the interest of Colonel Picquart was \naroused by the wording of the petit bleu, and he started an investigation of \nthe matter. He obtained specimens of Esterhazy\'s handwriting, and, to \nthe astonishment of the head of the Intelligence Department, he found \non comparing the major\'s writing with that of the bordereau that Ester- \nhazy was seemingly the author of the document which had sent Dreyfus \nto Devil\'s Island. A sample of Esterhazy\'s handwriting was submitted \nto M. Bertillon, the head of the Anthropometric Department of the Paris \nPrefecture of Police, who had previously, in 1894, identified the hand- \nwriting of Dreyfus as being that of the author of the bordereau, and at this \ntime he pronounced Esterhazy\'s writing to be that of the author of the \nbordereau. \n\nFurther investigation convinced Colonel Picquart that Esterhazy and \nnot Dreyfus was the writer of the bordereau, and Picquart appealed to \nGeneral Gonse, Deputy Chief of the Headquarters Staff, and to General \nde Boisdeffre, Chief of the Headquarters Staff, urging immediate action. \nThe generals consulted, and, instead of promptly taking steps to establish, \nif possible, the innocence of Dreyfus, they seem to have arrived at the con- \nclusion that the best thing to do was to hush the matter up, in order to \n" protect the honor of the army, " and save certain high personages from \napparently well-merited condemnation. Therefore General Billot, the \nMinister of War, took no steps toward possibly clearing Dreyfus. But, \non the contrary, he seems to have hampered the work of those who were \nmoved to pity the prisoner and who urged the detection of the real traitor. \n\nIn the case of two men in the War Office, Du Paty de Clam and Lieu- \ntenant-Colonel Henry, there was a feeling of consternation at the discovery \nof the resemblance of the handwriting of Esterhazy to that of the bordereau. \n\nFor a while this important discovery was kept secret, but the news \neventually leaked out, and further inquiry into the Dreyfus affair was im- \nminent. Picquart became the champion of the prisoner of Devil\'s Island, \nand Du Paty de Clam and Henry, as persecutors of Dreyfus, were placed \non the defensive, with the result that the whole Headquarters Staff, and \n\n\n\nWORKING FOR THE TRUTH 76 \n\nthose of the Intelligence Department involved in the condemnation of \nDreyfus, banded together to defend themselves by any means against the \ndisgrace which threatened them. In this effort, it has since been shown, \nforgery and even murder were resorted to in order to heap up evidence \nagainst Dreyfus. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Henry was the leader of this gang of conspirators. \nAt all hazards Picquart must be discredited, for the Minister of War was \nslowly being interested in the new developments. \n\nA press campaign, ostensibly against Picquart but really directed \nagainst Dreyfus, was opened in some of the newspapers of Paris. \n\nThe Eclair, in September, 1896, printed an article setting forth that \nDreyfus had really been convicted on documents which had been secretly \ncommunicated to the court-martial of 1894, and one of these documents \nwas referred to as having actually mentioned Dreyfus by name \xe2\x80\x94 which has \nsince been proved incorrect. This was the document known as " Cette \n\ncanaille de D " document, no name being given, but Dreyfus being \n\ninferred, though it has since been shown to have probably referred to a \nspy named Dubois. The first version printed was that the document con- \ntained the words : \n\n" DecidSment cet animal de Dreyfus devient trop exigeant." ("Deci- \ndedly that animal Dreyfus is becoming too exacting.") \n\nThe second version was that the document read : \n\n" Cette canaille de D "etc., etc. ("That rascal D " etc., etc.) \n\nThen facts about the secret dossier, or secret batch of papers used at \nthe court-martial of 1894, began to appear in the papers and, in due course \nof time, M. Bernard Lazare was bold enough to publish a pamphlet in \nfavor of Dreyfus. \n\nThis was followed, November 10, 1896, by the publication in the \nMatin of a facsimile of the bordereau, or incriminating document, which \nthe paper mentioned obtained from M. Teyssonieres, one of the three ex- \nperts in handvn-iting who testified at the Dreyfus court-martial. This \ninflamed public curiosity, and sides were formed for and against Dreyfus. \nUp to about that time, only the faithful few were believers in the inno- \ncence of the prisoner. From that time on people began to compare the \nhandwriting for themselves, and the number of Dreyfus\'s friends increased. \n\nAs the interest of the public in the case increased. Generals de Bois- \n\n\n\n76 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ndeffre and Gonse continued to block the efforts made by Colonel Picquart \nin behalf of Dreyfus, representing to General Billot, the Minister of War, \nthat Picquart had been in the habit of consulting a lawyer, named Leblois, \nabout the secret papers in the case. This was a serious accusation, as it \nrendered Picquart open to the charge of communicating to a civilian secret \ndocuments belonging to the War Office. \n\nAt the same time hints crept into the papers of a corruption fund of \n35,000,000 francs having been raised abroad for the war chest of those \nworking in behalf of the prisoner, and it was intimated that a suspicious - \nlooking American vessel had been sighted off Devil\'s Island. This caused \nthe authorities to redouble their precautions ; the life of Dreyfus on his \nprison island was made more burdensome than ever; his exercise was re- \nstricted. A guard, pistol in hand, with orders to shoot the prisoner on \nthe slightest evidence of an attempt to escape, was stationed in his room, \nand decoy letters were sent to the unhappy man in the hope of getting \nhim to answer them, and thus, possibly, giving the authorities an excuse to \nshoot him. \n\nFinally, M. Castelin, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, repre- \nsenting the district of Aisne, gave notice that he would interpellate the \nGovernment, on November 18, 1896, regarding the various Dreyfus rumors \nafloat and the action the Government was taking or contemplated taking in \nthe case. \n\n\n\nCOLONEL HENRY TO THE RESCUE 77 \n\n\n\nChapter XYIII, \nCOLONEL HENRY TO THE RESCUE \n\nThe announcement of an interpellation in the Chamber made the mil- \nitary authorities more and more anxious. Something had to be done. \nLieutenant-Colonel Henry came to the rescue of his chiefs. As he after- \nward admitted before committing suicide, Henry forged a note, in bad \nFrench, purporting to be from Major Panizzardi, the Italian military at- \ntache, to Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the military attach^ of Germany. It \nread: \n\nMy Deak Friend: \n\nI read that a deputy is going to interpellate upon Dreyfus. If . . . \nI shall say that I never had relations with that Jew. That is agreed. If \nyou are asked, say likewise, for no one must ever know what has passed \nwith him. \n\nThis forgery was shown to Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse, who, in \nturn, showed it to General Billot, but it was not shown to Colonel Pic- \nquart. The Minister of War, however, referred to the so-called Panizzar- \ndi note in a conversation with Picquart, who immediately expressed doubts \nas to its authenticity. This did not have any weight with General BiUot. \nHe appeared in the Chamber of Deputies and, replying to the interpella- \ntion, said the Dreyfus court-martial was regularly composed, that the ap- \npeal was rejected unanimously, that the affair was a thing already passed \nupon by the court, otherwise a chose jugee, and that the state reasons \nwhich, in 1894, made it necessary to hear the case in secret still prevailed. \nThis mysterious statement had weight with the deputies, who received the \nannouncement with approval; and once more the military authorities \nbreathed freely. \n\nThe governments of Germany and Italy were not so easily satisfied. \nThey entered protests against the authenticity of the documents, but their \n\n\n\n78 DREYPUS: THE PEISOKEE- OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nprotests were not allowed to become public at that period, and General \nBillot congratulated himself upon having saved "the honor of the army." \n\nIt now remained to get rid of Colonel Picquart, who was entirely too \nhonest-minded for the position he held. Therefore it was arranged to \nsend him away from Paris on various pretexts, termed "missions." First \nhe was sent to Nancy, then to Besancon, next to Algiers, and finally to \nthe frontier of Tunis, where he was given command of the Fourth Eegi- \nment of Algerian sharpshooters. Besides this, it was proposed to send him \non a " mission " into a district from which it is more than likely he would \nnever have returned. But Colonel Picquart slipped out of the trap set for \nhim, appealed to his immediate superior, placed the case plainly before \nhim, met with some sympathy, did not go on the "mission, " and thereby, \nin all probability, saved his life ; for Picquart had no doubt it was intended \nto get rid of him by foul means or fair. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Henry, having thus disposed of his rival Picquart, \nwas promoted to his place as Chief of the Intelligence Department. The \nfriends of Picquart could obtain no news of him; his most private letters \nwere opened at the War Office, and every effort was made to suppress him \neffectually. \n\nPicquart, in May, 1897, protested to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry against \nthe mystery which was made to surround his whereabouts, and Henry \nreplied in a threatening manner, saying the mystery was the result of Pic- \nquart\'s own action in opening letters and in attempting to prevail upon \nofficers to give testimony as to a certain document being in the handwrit- \ning of a person other than Dreyfus. There were other statements in the \nletter which so alarmed Colonel Picquart that he succeeded in obtaining \nleave of absence from his friendly general in Tunis, and went to Paris, \nwhere he placed the case before M. Leblois, his friend and lawyer. Pic- \nquart also placed in the lawyer\'s hands the threatening letter sent him by \nHenry, and letters which he had received from General Gonse, after which \nhe returned to his post in Tunis. \n\n"With Picquart out of the way, the enemies of Dreyfus thought the \nproposed further inquiry into the case would be dropped. \n\nBut they reckoned without faithful Madame Dreyfus, who was working \nincessantly for the prisoner of Devil\'s Island. The facts in the case, espe- \ncially the new developments, were placed before M. Scheurer-Kestner, an \n\n\n\nCOLONEL HENRY TO THE EESCUE 79 \n\nAlsatian countryman of Dreyfus and one of the vice-presidents of the \nSenate. He became so impressed with the statements made to him that \nhe soon developed into a champion of Dreyfus, and with Mathieu Drey- \nfus, a brother of the prisoner, he denounced Esterhazy as being the author \nof the bordereau. \n\nAffairs were now beginning to look much brighter for the prisoner, \nand the hope of his friends mounted still higher when M. Emile Zola, the \nfamous novelist and author of "Nana," joined the ranks of the Dreyfusards, \nor friends of the prisoner. \n\nM. Mathieu Dreyfus, in November, 1897, wrote to the Minister of \nWar and squarely denounced Esterhazy as the author of the bordereau. \nHe also firmly insisted that justice be done to his brother. In this matter, \nM. Mathieu Dreyfus acted on the advice of M. Scheurer-Kestner. \n\nThere are various stories told as to how this vice-president of the \nSenate was converted from a believer in the guilt of Dreyfus into a staunch \nchampion of the prisoner. One version is that, while at dinner one day, \nhe expressed wonder at the fact that an officer holding such a high position \nas Dreyfus and being so well provided with the world\'s goods could have \nbecome a traitor, whereupon an officer who was present said the reason \ncould be found in the fact that Dreyfus had purchased a house in Paris, \nfor which he had agreed to pay 228,000 francs, and that he was in need \nof money. This officer also said he had this " fact " from one of the offi- \ncers who composed the Dreyfus court-martial. M. Scheurer-Kestner, it \nis further asserted, investigated this matter and found it to be absolutely \nfalse. He afterward met M. Leblois, Picquart\'s lawyer, who placed before \nthe vice-president of the Senate all the letters which he had in his posses- \nsion in connection with the affair. Some time afterward M. Scheurer- \nKestner called upon the Minister of War and urged him to make inquiries \nin the matter, telling him of his own investigations, and saying he was \nconvinced Dreyfus was innocent. This was in July, 1897. \n\nThe next step was taken by the Figaro, probably the most influential \npaper in France, which came out boldly for a revision of the Dreyfus trial. \nM. Scheurer-Kestner then headed the campaign which was destined to \nend in a victory for the Dreyfusards, so far as obtaining a revision of the \ntrial was concerned. \n\nIn the mean while, Major Forzinetti, governor of the Cherche-Midi \n\n\n\n80 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nprison, where Dreyfus was confined after his arrest, was removed from \nactive service and sent into the army reserve for declaring to M. Henri \nEochefort, editor of the Intransigeant, his belief that Dreyfus was inno- \ncent. \n\nThe private apartments of Picquart were searched, and he was recalled \nfrom Tunis, in order to be examined by General Pellieux, who had been \ndetailed by the Government to inquire into the charges so openly brought \nin the press and elsewhere against Esterhazy. The latter, driven to des- \nperation, was finally compelled to demand a trial by court-martial, which \nwas accorded him. It took place in January, 1898, but, subsequent de- \nvelopments show, he had previously been assured of protection from high \nquarters, as was the case when he fought a duel with Picquart, which, as \nis the case of most French duels, was not a very desperate affair. \n\nBefore the court-martial Esterhazy was charged with having written \nthe bordereau, and with having been in treasonable correspondence with \nColonel von Schwartzkoppen. Esterhazy admitted that the handwriting \nof the bordereau was his own, but he claimed it was in the result of a \ntracing made by Dreyfus upon his (Esterhazy\'s) writing, which the pris- \noner of Devil\'s Island afterward put together. The ^etit hleu, it was as- \nserted before the court, was a forgery perpetrated by Picquart. \n\nThe statements made by Esterhazy were accepted by the court as \naccurate in every respect, and he was promptly acquitted, and left the \ncourt with his mistress, Mademoiselle Pays, on his arm. They received \nan ovation in the street, the crowds shouting : " Vive I\'arm^e ! " " Vive la \nFrance ! " " Down with the Jews ! " " Down with traitors ! " etc., etc., which \nmust have made Esterhazy feel uncomfortable. \n\nThe acquittal of Esterhazy was followed by the arrest and imprison- \nment of Colonel Picquart, who was brought before a Military Court of \nInquiry, where he was accused of showing and divulging documents con- \nnected with the national defence and other matters, to his lawyer, M. \nLeblois, and with showing the latter his correspondence with General \nGonse. Only the latter charge was proved, and Picquart was dismissed \nfrom the army. \n\nThis was a sad blow, apparently, to the friends of Dreyfus, and his \nenemies were correspondingly elated. \n\n\n\nZOLA TO THE FRONT 81 \n\n\n\nChapter XIX. \nZOLA TO THE FRONT \n\nIt was at this stage of the campaign that Emile Zola came to the \nfront. In January, 1898, the novelist caused to be published in the Aurore, \na newspaper owned by a friend of his, a series of formal accusations, ad- \ndressed to the President of the Eepublic, each beginning with " J\'accuse," \n("I accuse,") against the courts-martial which had tried Esterhazy and \nDreyfus. The object j)f Zola in making these accusations was to bring \nabout his prosecution and thus cause light to be thrown upon the Dreyfus \naffair. \n\nThe Minister of War was compelled to prosecute M. Zola for these \ndenunciations ; but, in order to prevent the reopening of the Dreyfus case, \nwhich was the object the novelist had in view, the minister conlSned his \nattention to the following paragraph : \n\n" I accuse the first court-martial of having violated the law in con- \ndemning an accused person on a document kept secret. And I accuse \nthe second court-martial of having by order screened this illegality, com- \nmitting in its turn that which in a judge is a crime \xe2\x80\x94 ^knowingly acquit- \nting a guilty person." \n\nM. Zola was accordingly tried in February, 1898, before the Assize \nCourt, whose president, M. Delegorgue, did everything possible to prevent \nthe witnesses of the defence from giving testimony bearing on the Drey- \nfus case. He had plenty of weapons at his command, including the ever- \npresent gag of " state secrets " and the equally effective chose jugee and \n"professional secrecy." \n\nMaitre Labori, an able and fearless lawyer, was counsel for M. Zola. \n\nAlthough heavily handicapped by the ruliags of the president of the court, \n\nhe succeeded in bringing out valuable points in favor of Dreyfus, notably \n\nthe illegal manner in which the prisoner was condemned, the apparent \n\nerror in attributing the bordereau to Dreyfus, and the seeming identity of \n\nits real author, Esterhazy. \n6 \n\n\n\n82 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nPresident Delegorgue again and again announced that he could not \nadmit rebutting testimony on certain vital points raised by the prosecu- \ntion, or on the charges made by M. Zola in his famous " I accuse " letter. \nThis so exasperated the novelist that, during the second day of the trial, \nhe heatedly announced that he wished to be treated at least as fairly as \nthieves or murderers were treated. He claimed that while such criminals \nhad the right to defend themselves, he, M. Zola, was deprived of such \nrights. But the court ruled against the defence, and there was nothing to \ndo but submit. \n\nOne of the witnesses at the trial of M. Zola was M. Casimir-Perier, \nwho had resigned the presidency of the Eepublic, and had been succeeded \nby M. Eelix Faure, who died suddenly on the 16th of February, 1899, \nand was in turn succeeded in the presidency by M. Emile Loubet. \n\nOn being sworn, M. Casimir-Perier said : \n\n"Excuse me, but I cannot tell the truth. That is just what I may \nnot tell. It is my duty not to tell the truth." \n\nThe resignation of M. Casimir-Perier, it became known later, was in \nsome manner connected with the Dreyfus case, his friends holding that he \nresigned in order not to become further mixed up in the matter. \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre, the Chief of Staff, caused a sensation at the Zola \ntrial, by saying that, according to his view of the case, the guilt of Drey- \nfus was certain, adding that there were facts both anterior and subsequent \nto the trial which made this certainty unshakable. \n\nGeneral Mercier, the former Minister of War, advanced the opinion \nthat Dreyfus had been legally and justly condemned. \n\nMajor Esterhazy practically confined himself to refusing to reply to \nthe questions put to him, on the ground of professional secrecy, and Gen- \neral PeUieux made an excited speech, during which he dropped dark hints \nof danger threatening the fatherland, etc., etc., in the usual refrain of the \nFrench. \n\nThe examination of Colonel Picquart was obstructed throughout by \nthe judges, but Maitre Labori succeeded in making a fierce and effective \nattack on the enemies of Dreyfus, which caused the Headquarters Staff to \nmake a rally and wave the old fiction of mystery above their heads. \nGenerals de Boisdeffre and Pellieux proved themselves equal to the occa- \nsion. General Pellieux, turning to the jury, said: \n\n\n\nZOLA TO THE FEONT 83 \n\n"If the chiefs of the army are to be discredited in the eyes of the sol- \ndiers, your sons, gentlemen, will be led to the slaughter." \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre went a step further. He actually threatened \nthat the chiefs of the army would resign unless, practically, they were \nallowed to have their own way. \n\nAs a last shot, the new "secret document," \xe2\x80\x94 the forged Panizzardi de- \nspatch \xe2\x80\x94 was presented to the court, and Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse \nconfirmed the fact that it had been " intercepted by the vigilance of the \nGovernment. " \n\nMaitre Labori, however, was not permitted to see this document. \nBut Colonel Picquart declared it to be a forgery. It was produced in \ncourt at the very moment the prosecution was endeavoring to show that \nEsterhazy was not the author of the bordereau. \n\nMaitre Labori, in his summing up for the defence, said : \n\n" Zola\'s letter was a cry for justice and truth. It has rallied all save \nsome disturbers around what France counts the greatest and purest. Do \nnot be alarmed or allow yourselves to be intimidated. The honor of the \narmy is not involved. They tell you of dangers near. Do not believe in \nthese dangers. These brave officers, who have made a mistake, will yet \nfight with the highest courage and lead us to victory. Do not strike \nEmile Zola. Gentlemen, you know well that he stands for the honor of \nFrance. It is by the heart, by moral energy, that great battles are won, \nand I also cry \' Vive I\'arm^e ! \' when I ask you to acquit Zola. I cry at \nthe same time \' Long live the Republic ! \' \' Long live the right ! \' \' Long \nlive eternal justice and truth ! \' " \n\nM. Clemenceau, for the defence, reviewed the testimony which con- \nfirmed his conviction that Dreyfus had been illegally condemned, and pro- \ntested against the idea that this constituted an insult to the army. The \nonly person who had insulted the army, he declared, was Esterhazy, and \nit was high time to distinguish between the cry of " Vive I\'arm^e ! " and \nthat of " Vive Esterhazy ! " \n\n"Many Frenchmen are saying," he continued, "that it is possible that \nDreyfus was condemned irregularly, but that he was justly condemned, \nand that suffices. That is the sophistry of reasons of state. We dance \nevery 14th of July upon the ruins of the Bastile. These reasons of state, \nif they prevail, will constitute another and lower Bastile. It was a reason \n\n\n\n84 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nof state which, by the guillotine, stopped the magnificent movement of \n1789. There is no justice outside of the law. It is sad, no doubt, to \ncome into conflict with the military, brave men, who believed that they \nwere doing right. This happens to civilians without uniforms, it happens \nto civilians in \\miforms, for soldiers are nothing else. \n\n" Gentlemen, render the country the service of stopping a religious war \nat its commencement. You have seen what happened in Algiers. Say \nin the name of the French people that justice must be done even to the \nJews. Say to the religious war which has just begun : \' Thus far shalt \nthou go and no further.\' We appear before you, gentlemen; you are ap- \npearing before history." \n\nBy a vote of eight to four, the jury rendered a verdict against M. \nZola, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of 3,000 francs and to undergo a \nyear\'s imprisonment. \n\nThe case was carried to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the judg- \nment of the Assize Court on the ground that the case should have been \nbrought by the court-martial which M. Zola had libelled, and not by the \nMinister of War. Consequently a second trial took place, but M. Zola \ndeclined to be present; he was again sentenced to the fine and imprison- \nment, and left France for England, where he remained until the revision \nproceedings before the Court of Cassation enabled him to return to France. \n\n\n\nM. CAVAIGNAC AND THE DKEYFUS CASE 85 \n\n\n\nChapter XX. \nM. CAVAIGNAC AND THE DREYFUS CASE \n\nThe Meline Cabinet, in June, 1898, was succeeded by the Brisson \nCabinet. M. Sarrien became Minister of Justice, M. Cavaignac became \nMinister of War, with the firm intention of settling into oblivion for all \ntime the Dreyfus case, whose echoes were then heard all over the world. \n\n.1 Beplying to an interpellation in the Chamber of Deputies, M. Cavai- \ngnac made a memorable speech in which he attempted to put the quietus \nupon the Dreyfus case. He outlined the result of his investigations, and \nsaid considerations superior to reasons of law made it necessary to the \nGovernment to bring before the Chamber and the country the facts which \nconfirmed the conviction of Dreyfus. The minister said there was abso- \nlutely no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, which was based on his \nown confessions and on documents on file in the Intelligence Department \nof the War Office. \n\nThis so-called confession was a remark attributed to Dreyfus by Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Kenault, of the Eepublican Guard, who had charge of the \nprisoner at the Military School just previous to his degradation. He is \nalleged to have said, after vigorously protesting his innocence, that if he \nhad handed over documents to the agents of a foreign power he did so in \norder to obtain Ttiore ini\'portant papers in return, and, in any case, the doc- \numents he had surrendered were unimportant papers. \n\nIn short, M. Cavaignac reviewed the whole of the Government case, \nalready outlined, and wound up by saying that absolute proof, if it had \npreviously been needed, was furnished by the Panizzardi despatch. \n\nThe Chamber of Deputies was enthusiastic over the speech of the Min- \nister of War, and passed a resolution to the effect that it should be printed \nand placarded in every Commune throughout France, of which there are \nabout thirty-six hundred. \n\nBut this was not all M. Cavaignac did. In his efforts to crush utterly \n\n\n\n86 DEEYEUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe friends of Dreyfus, he ordered Esterhazy to be brought before a Court \nof Military Inquiry to justify his military career, owing to a serious indis- \ncretion upon the part of the major. Among other charges brought against \nhim, it was said that, in 1882, he wrote to Madame de Boulancy, his cous- \nin, a letter which was afterward seized by General Pellieux as a result of \nthe proceedings previous to the court-martial of Esterhazy. This letter \nshowed that Esterhazy had very bitter feelings against the French army \nand the Erench nation. He said that the French were an " accursed peo- \nple," and expressed the opinion that they were "not worth even the car- \ntridges for killing them ! " \n\nContinuing, this French of&cer said it would please him greatly to be \nslain as a captain of Uhlans (Prussian Lancers) while he was sabreing the \nFrench, and he said his favorite dream was to see Paris "beneath the red \nsun of battle, given over to pillage by a hundred thousand drunken \nsoldiers." \n\nIt was also asserted that Esterhazy had written certain letters to the \nPresident of the Eepublic, and he was charged with certain irregular pro- \nceedings before and after his court-martial. \n\nThe Military Court of Inquiry was asked to pronounce upon the fol- \nlowing questions : \n\nOught Esterhazy to be cashiered for habitual misconduct ? \n\nThere was three votes in the affirmative and two in the negative. \n\nOught Esterhazy to be cashiered for grave offence against discipline? \n\nThe court unanimously decided in the negative. \n\nOught Esterhazy to be cashiered for offence against honor? \n\nOne member of the court voted yes, and four members of the court \nvoted in the negative. \n\nThe Military Governor of Paris, General Zurlinden, in forwarding the \nfinding of this court to the Minister of War, M. Cavaignac, pointed out \nthat, as the decision was not unanimous, in accordance with army cus- \ntoms it would be sufficient to inflict only a disciplinary punishment \nupon the accused, by withdrawing him from the active list of the \narmy. \n\nThe minister, however, decided that Esterhazy should be cashiered; \nand some time afterward the name of Du Paty de Clam was also removed \nfrom the active list of the army. \n\n\n\nM. CAVAIGNAG AND THE DEEYFUS CASE 87 \n\nHaving apparently settled the cases of Esterhazy and Du Paty de \nClam, M. Cavaignac turned his attention to Colonel Picquart, who had \ninformed the Premier that he could prove that one of the three documents \nreferred to hy M. Cavaignac in the Chamber of Deputies, as proof of the \nguilt of Dreyfus, was a forgery. The Minister of War ordered Picquart to \nbe proceeded against, and he was arrested and lodged in prison. \n\nFor a while, things ran smoothly for the Headquarters Staff, But, in \nAugust, 1898, the generals had a rude awakening. They were informed \nthat Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, the head of the Intelligence Department, \nthe backbone of the prosecution of Dreyfus, who had in court dramatically \npointed to Dreyfus as the traitor, had broken down and confessed to hav- \ning forged at least one of the documents quoted by M. Cavaignac before \nthe Chamber of Deputies as furnishing absolute proofs of the guilt of the \nprisoner of Devil\'s Island. \n\nThis was followed by the news of the arrest of Henry and his impris- \nonment in Mont Val^rien, where, it is claimed, he cut his throat with a \nrazor. \n\nWe purposely use the words "it is claimed," in referring to the death \nof Henry, because the suicide theory has never been accepted in the best- \ninformed circles at Paris. Men who are versed in military customs are \nwell aware that a prisoner of such importance, arrested after making such \na startling confession, would never have been allowed to have a razor or \nother weapon within his reach, and, as in the case of a detective of the \nGovernment, Lemercier-Picard, who was found strangled to death by \nhanging in his apartments, the opinion has prevailed that Henry was mur- \ndered by the anti-Dreyfus clique\'s agents in order to save the honor of the \narmy. \n\nAt this point it may be interesting to refer to a legend current in Paris \nin 1894, which had it that General de Boisdeffre one day entered the \nbureau in which Dreyfus was at work, and, placing a document before \nhim, asked the captain if he would copy it, to which Dreyfus is said to \nhave replied, "Certainly." Continuing, the story says Dreyfus had no \nsooner cast eyes on the paper than he turned deadly pale and exhibited \nsigns of the greatest emotion, whereupon General de Boisdeffre is said to \nhave placed a revolver on Dreyfus\'s desk, with the words : \n\n" I will return in five minutes\' time. " \n\n\n\n88 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe general, it is further said, did return at the expiration of the time \nmentioned, and, finding Dreyfus still alive, remarked : \n\n"What, not yet?" \n\nThe arrest of Dreyfus is said to have been ordered immediately after- \nward. \n\nOf course this is only one of the many fairy tales in circulation at \nthat time, for General de Boisdeffre has never referred to the matter, and \nhe certainly would have done so had the story been true. It is true, how- \never, that a pistol was placed near Dreyfus when he was arrested. He \nsaw it, but declined to make use of it. \n\nThe death of Henry sealed the fate of M. Cavaignac as Minister of \nWar, and he was sensible enough to recognize it ; for he resigned. It also \nsent General de Boisdeffre into the background, for, as chief of the staff \nand main adviser of the minister, he was compelled to resign with M. \nCavaignac, and General Zurlinden, then Military Governor of Paris, was \nappointed Minister of War. \n\nZurlinden followed the example of M. Cavaignac in some respects. \nHe started to study the documents in the Dreyfus case. But it would \nseem he did not derive much satisfaction from them, for, after about a \nweek in office, he resigned and resumed the military governorship of the \ncity of Paris. General Chanoine succeeded General Zurlinden as Minister \nof War, and Esterhazy, possibly on account of his health, left France, and \nfrom that time on he may said to have been a wanderer on the face of the \nearth, making confessions, for considerations, to any one willing to pay \nfor them, that he wrote the bordereau, and offering to prove this and other \nmatters of an equally important nature. \n\nAt this point there is one question that is not quite clear, and that is, \nhow was it that Henry was compelled to admit that he had committed \nforgery. The generally accepted answer to this question is that the gov- \nernments of Germany and Italy, which had previously denounced the \nPanizzardi-Schwartzkoppen correspondence as forgery, took steps to im- \npress this upon the French Government in unmistakable terms. Previous \nto this the French Government and the French War Office had paid no \nattention to the repudiations of the German and Italian governments, \nthough they strongly denied having had any connection with Dreyfus. \n\nAnother version of the affair is that Captain Cuignet, of the Intelli- \n\n\n\nM. CAVAIGNAC AND THE DREYFUS CASE 89 \n\ngence Department, ascertained, with the use of au extra strong lamp, that \nthe Pauizzardi document had been "doctored," and was not identical with \nthe paper upon which the rest of the correspondence appears. \n\nThe details are not of great importance. The main facts, that Henry \nhad confessed to forgery, and that his death had resulted from his action, \nwere fully established, and higher and higher rose the hopes of the friends \nof the prisoner of Devil\'s Island. \n\nThe new minister of justice, M. Sarrien, in conjunction with Colonel \nPicquart, now began in earnest the work of inquiring as to whether it was \nnot advisable to revise the Dreyfus court-martial of 1894. The Brisson \nCabinet became committed to a revision, though the Minister of War was \nopposed to it. \n\nPicquart, from his prison, wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice \nasking permission to tell him all he knew of the Dreyfus affair. The \nminister replied that he was willing to hear anything the prisoner had to \nsay, and thereupon Picquart entered into a long description of the secret \ndossier as he knew the document in 1896, and charging that the fact that \npapers had been secretly communicated to the members of the Dreyfus \ncourt-martial was well known to General Mercier, General de Boisdeffre, \nthe late Colonel Sandherr, General Gonse, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, and \nColonel Du Paty de Clam. \n\nWhen the Minister of War, Zurlinden, heard of this, he sent the \nMinister of Justice a note tending to show that Picquart was not to be \ntrusted, and that he ought to be tried by court-martial for forging the \n\'petit bleu. In addition. General Zurlinden applied to the Cabinet for per- \nmission to try Picquart by court-martial, but the minister refused to allow \nhim to do so. \n\nAt a ministerial council held in the middle of September, 1898, under \nthe presidency of the President of the Eepublic, M. Sarrien referred to \nParagraph IV., Article 443, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which \nprovides for reopening a case, if, after a condemnatory verdict, fresher \nevidence is discovered tending to show that the innocence of the person \ncondemned may be established. The minister then pointed to the confes- \nsion of Henry as being of a nature to throw a legitimate suspicion upon \nthe evidence which he furnished before the court-martial which sentenced \nDreyfus. \n\n\n\n90 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe ministers were divided upon the question of reopening the cage. \nThe Minister of War was decidedly against such a step, and so was the \nMinister of Public Works, M. Tillaye, while the President was somewhat \nundecided. In the end the question was referred to the Permanent Com- \nmission of Ee vision of the Ministry of Justice, to decide whether the case \nshould or should not be re-tried by carrying it to the Court of Appeals. \nThe commission could not agree, and then the Brisson Cabinet applied, \nthrough the Procureur-G^n^ral, to the Court of Appeals direct. Eventu- \nally M. Bard, one of the members of the court, was instructed to report \nupon the case, and thus was taken the first great step toward revision. \n\n\n\nBEFORE THE COURT OF CASSATION 91 \n\n\n\nChapter XXL \nBEFORE THE COURT OF CASSATION \n\nAbout a month after the revision question had been taken before: \nthe Court of Appeal, probably better known as the Court of Cassation, \nthere was a debate in the Chamber of Deputies on October 25, 1898, oh \nthe action of the Government, during which the Minister of War, General \nChanoine, ascended the tribune and announced that, representing as he did \nthe army, he could not be a party to a revision of the Dreyfus case. The \nresignation of the Brisson Cabinet followed. It was succeeded on October \n31st by a Cabinet presided over by M. Dupuy, who held office at the time \nof the court-martial of Dreyfus, and M. de Freycinet was the Minister of \nWar. This ministry was not favorable to Dreyfus, and on September 21st \nColonel Picquart was brought before the tribunal on the charge of com- \nmunicating War Office documents to a civilian, M. Leblois, his lawyer. \nThe Military party, however, demanded that Picquart should be surren- \ndered to the military authorities so that he might be prosecuted for forg- \ning the petit hletc. The civil judge yielded, and Picquart was turned over \nto the military authorities, whereupon he loudly exclaimed in court : \n\n" I absolutely oppose my being surrendered. I submit my case to your \nwisdom, but I have something further to say. It is only here^ and a few \nminutes ago, that I learned the reality of the abominable plot in which \nthis morning I still could not believe. It is the charge of forgery in re- \ngard to the petit Meio. You would have understood the matter more \nplainly if this trial had taken place, for it would have enlightened you \nwith regard to the good faith of my accusers. I shall perhaps this even- \ning go to the Cherche Midi, and now is probably the last time prior to \nsecret trial that I can say a word in public. I would have people know, \nif there be found in my cell the rope of Lemercier-Picard, or the razor of \nHenry, that I have been assassinated. For a man like myself cannot for \nan instant think of suicide. I shall face this accusation erect and fearless, \n\n\n\n92 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nand with the same serenity with which I have ever met my accusers. \nThat is what I had to say, Monsieur le President." \n\nThese utterances were received with cheers for Picquart upon the part \nof the Dreyfusards and with cries of " Down with the forgers ! " from the \nanti-Dreyfusards. \n\nThere was little doubt that the bold statement made by Picquart in \ncourt saved his life. \n\nThe Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation met October 27, 1898, \nto consider the report of M. Bard. \n\nAfter referring to the party passions aroused by the case and the preju- \ndice, even before the verdict, expressed against the prisoner, M. Bard \nsaid: \n\n" The echoes from outside cannot disturb that fear, for we have but a \nsingle passion, that of justice and truth." \n\nContinuing, the reporter of the court said the bordereau was the essen- \ntial document in the case against Dreyfus, and that the word of Lieuten- \nant-Colonel Henry, a self-confessed forger, was the only guarantee of its \norigin. The forgery of Henry, under the circumstances, left nothing of the \noriginal trial of 1894 intact, especially as the handwriting experts of 1897 \ncompletely contradicted the testimony of the handwriting experts of 1894. \n\nM. Bard then said : \n\n" It is not too much to affirm that the accusation is now entirely nulli- \nfied. It might indeed be asked, whether, as an acquittal was incumbent, \nthe court ought not to certify as it did last January, in quashing a judg- \nment of an Algiers court-martial, that there was no crime, and simply \nannul the judgment without ordering a fresh trial. \n\n"Whatever might be the opinion of the court on the judgment of 1894, \nit would not forget that the military authorities were opposed to revision. \nIt was the function of the Court of Appeals to bring the truth to light. \nIt was a delicate task, but it would be derogatory to the court to suspect \nit of shirking its duty. Already there have been too many derelictions \nof duty in this long series of incidents. Free from all considerations or \nsuggestions which had inspired others, and solely anxious for justice, the \ncourt has a great duty before it, and it will follow the dictates of its \nconscience." \n\nWhen M. Bard had concluded his report the court was addressed by \n\n\n\nBEFOEE THE COUKT OF CASSATION 93 \n\nthe Procureur-Gen^ral, M. Manau, and by counsel for Madame Dreyfus, \nM. Mornard. \n\nThe court, on October 29, 1898, delivered judgment as follows: \n\n"In view of the letter of the Minister of Justice of September 20, \n1898; \n\n" In view of the arguments submitted by the Public Prosecutor attached \nto the Court of Cassation, denouncing to the court the condemnation pro- \nnounced by the first court-martial of the Military Court of Paris, on De- \ncember 22, 1894, on Alfred Dreyfus, then captain of artillery, attached \nto the General Staff of the army ; \n\n" In view of all the documents of the case, and also of Article 443 to \n446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amended by the law of June 10, \n1895, on the admissibility, in proper form, of an application for revision \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Whereas, the court has had the matter brought before it by its Public \nProsecutor, in virtue of an express order of the Minister of Justice, acting \nafter having taken the opinion of the Commission established by Article \n444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; \n\n" Whereas, the application comes within the category of cases provided \nfor by the last paragraph of Article 443, and has been introduced within \nthe period fixed by Article 444; \n\n"Whereas, finally, the judgment, the revision of which is asked for, \nhas the force of a chose jugee. \n\n" As regards the state of the case : \n\n" Whereas, the documents produced do not place the court in a position \nto decide on all the merits of the case, and there is ground for making a \nsupplementary inquiry; \n\n" For these reasons, the court declares the application in proper form \nand legally admissible ; states that it will institute a supplementary inquiry ; \nand declares that there is no ground for deciding at the present moment \non the Public Prosecutor\'s application for the suspension of the penalty." \n\n\n\n94 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXIL \n\nHOPES GROW STRONGER \n\nThe Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 29, 1898, \nbegan taking testimony in the revision proceedings. All was not smooth \nsailing, however. M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, President of the Civil Sec- \ntion of the court, joined in the attacks made upon his colleagues, and mat- \nters became so complicated and feverish that, after a great deal of squab- \nbling, the adjudication of the Dreyfus case was transferred to the United \nChambers of the Court of Cassation. This was practically declaring that \nthe highest criminal court in the country was incapable of dealing with \nthe case. \n\nMatters had reached this stage, when M. Felix Faure, President of the \nEepublic, died suddenly, and the country was thrown into a state of tur- \nmoil. All parties looked upon the President\'s death as an opportunity to \ncreate disturbances, and they did so in their own ways. The Eoyalists \nand Bonapartists actively plotted against the Government, and M. D^rou- \nIhde, founder of the League of Patriots, attempted to incite a detachment \nof troops to march upon the Elys^e Palace. These troops were com- \nmanded by General Eoget, and had taken part in the funeral procession. \nThe soldiers paid no attention to M. D^roul^de, and he and others were \narrested and acquitted of inciting soldiers and troops to rebellion, although \nhe pleaded guilty to the charge. \n\nWhile the question of revision was before the Court of Cassation the \nusual number of rumors was circulated. The anti-Dreyfusards and a ma- \njority of the court were against the revision, and this had a depressing \neffect upon the Dreyfusards. Here the Figaro stepped into the breach \nand managed to publish all the evidence taken in secret before the Court \nof Cassation. Thus did the press throw its searchlight upon the mysteries \nof the Headquarters Staff, and up went the hopes of the friends of Dreyfus. \n\nWhen the judges of the United Chambers of the Court of Cassation \n\n\n\nHOPES GROW STEONGER 95 \n\nmet in the Palace of Justice to hear the report of M. Ballot-Beaupr^, \nPresident of the Civil Section of the court and successor of M. Quesnay de \nBeaurepaire, who had resigned, there was a period of expectancy through- \nout the world. The report, which was an exhaustive one, dealt with the \nbordereau as the one question at issue. Was the bordereau in the hand- \nwriting of Dreyfus ? In reply M. Ballot-Beaupre said : \n\n" Gentlemen, after a profound study of the question, I, for my part, \nhave come to the conviction that the bordereau was not written by Drey- \nfus, but was written by Esterhazy." \n\nIt then became known that there existed two letters, written in 1892 \nand 1894, written by Esterhazy upon the same kind of water-mark and \nliligree tracing paper as that upon which the bordereau was written, which \nfact does not appear to have been known to the members of the court- \nmartial of 1894. \n\nIn conclusion, M. Ballot-Beaupre said : \n\n" I do not ask you to proclaim the innocence of Dreyfus, but I say \nthat a fact unknown to the judges of 1894 tends to prove it. This suffices \nto ordain the sending of the prisoner before a new court-martial to bring in \na, definite verdict with a full knowledge of the case." \n\nThe Procureur-G^n^ral, M. Manau, took the same ground. He said \nthe paper upon which the bordereau was written had spoken and estab- \nlished the innocence of Dreyfus, so far as the authorship of the borde- \nreau was concerned. He added: \n\n"What remains is that, whoever may be guilty, a crime of treason has \nbeen committed, but Esterhazy, having been acquitted of having written the \nbordereau, cannot be prosecuted again, were he a hundred times guilty. \nAs to the innocence of Dreyfus, I do not ask you to proclaim it \xe2\x80\x94 that is \nfor the new court-martial, to which, if the court so decides, the case will \nbe referred. Your mission, gentlemen, is another \xe2\x80\x94 to say whether there \nare sufficient elements to prove that the judgment of the court-martial of \n1894 is tainted with suspicion. It being now established that Dreyfus \nhad nothing to do with the bordereau, we will dispense ourselves from \nentering upon a technical discussion of the facts. That will be for the \nnew court-martial. It will be for them to reconcile the opinions of the \nformer Ministers of War on that point, and to discuss with their special \nscience the things which are unknown to us." \n\n\n\n96 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe Procureur-G^n^ral, during the course of his argument, pointed to \nthe lack of incentive to commit such a crime in the case of Dreyfus, \nshowing that he was well-to-do, and had married a wealthy woman, while \nColonel Du Paty de Clam had admitted in his report that Dreyfus led a \nregular life, and did not live beyond his means. It was also shown that \nthe prisoner had a splendid future before him. His position was compared \nwith that of Esterhazy, the needy adventurer, who was seeking money in \nall directions. \n\nM. Manau wound up with the statement that there was nothing in \nthe secret dossier to incriminate Dreyfus, adding : \n\n" We do not yet understand why there was so much delay in submit- \nting these documents to investigation. They were secret only for Drey- \nfus, and they cannot be brought up against him. He knows, as the basis \nof his indictment and conviction, solely the bordereau and his alleged \nconfession. The examination of the secret papers results in showing that \nof the three documents by which M. Cavaignac (when Minister of War) \nsought to justify the condemnation of the prisoner, two are forgeries, and \nthe third does not apply to Dreyfus. \n\nFinally, the Procureur-G^n^ral touched upon the alleged confessions of \nDreyfus to Captain Lebrun-Renault, who had charge on the prisoner on \nthe day of his degradation. He said that it was only in November, 1897, \nthat the story of the alleged confession was brought up at the request of \nGeneral Billot, and he held that this was clear proof that the so-called \nconfession was not made by Dreyfus. \n\nM. Manau severely criticised M. Cavaignac, who, he said, had de- \npended for the proof of Dreyfus\'s guilt on a sheet from a note-book de- \nstroyed by Captain Lebrun-Renault. The Procureur-G^n^ral then re- \nmarked : \n\n" I have the right to say that these confessions never existed, and I \nshould like to know whether the incomprehensible evidence of M. Bertil- \nlon was not the first cause of Dreyfus\'s condemnation." \n\nM. Manau alluded to the accounts of officials who had been in contact \nwith Dreyfus, and who all affirmed their belief in his innocence, and \nquoted letters written from the Devil\'s Island wherein the prisoner repelled \nthe imputations brought against him. He had been told in 1894 that \n" superior interests " were opposed to any search for the real culprits. In \n\n\n\nHOPES GROW STRONGER 97 \n\nhis letters he asked that, notwithstanding these interests, honor might be \nrestored to the name he bore, and that he should be restored to his family. \nWhat was there more human? The chief officer of Devil\'s Island de- \nclared that Dreyfus was an abominable being, loving neither his wife nor \nhis children. If so, how could he write such letters? \n\nIn conclusion, M. Manau said : \n\n"I decline to believe that the court can refuse Dreyfus the supreme \nrelief which is being solicited for him. The country, the world, and his- \ntory are awaiting the decision ; they will pass a judgment without appeal. \nBefore them and before the court we assume the responsibility of our con- \nclusions as magistrates and as citizens with the consciousness of having \ndone our duty. These conclusions are : \n\n" We affirm the existence of several new facts which are of a nature to \nestablish the innocence of Dreyfus. Consequently, let it please the court \nto pronounce the abrogation of the judgment of December 22, 1894, and \nto send Dreyfus, in the quality of an accused person, to such court-martial \nas it may be pleased to designate." \n\nNo sooner were the facts of the alleged confession first published, early \nin 1895, than M. de Civry, managing editor of the Echo de I\'Armee, \nwrote an article on the subject, directed against Dreyfus, and, incidentally, \nsent the proof to the late Colonel Sandherr, then head of the Intelligence \nDepartment of the War Office, for revision before publication. The reply \nof Colonel Sandherr to M. de Civry is quite an important piece of evidence \nin favor of Dreyfus. It is as follows : \n\nSatubdat, January 6, 1895. \nMy Deae de Civry : \n\nNo, do not publish the article which Georgin has just submitted to me. \nIt would open the door to needless discussions ; for, I tell you frankly, it \nis not correct. Dreyfus did not make confessions to the captain of the \nKepublican Guard, as he has told you. Hence, no capital can be made \nout of the confessions, and you must not set them against the public pro- \ntestations of the condemned man. The latter simply recalled the words \nof the minister which Major Du Paty de Clam had been deputed to convey \nto him. The captain, who, without proper reason, has noised abroad the \nconversation held by him with the condemned man before the degradation, \nhas involuntarily omitted to put in his mouth the words \' he said \' in \nspeaking of these remarks of the minister: \' If I have furnished documents, \n7 \n\n\n\n98 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nhe said, it was to obtain others. \' I do not know the full text of these \nremarks, but rest assured they are the words of the minister; not of Drey- \nfus. This mistake might elicit protestations from the defence or the fam- \nily. Pass this incident over, therefore, in silence. The less you speak of \nthis sad affair in the Echo de VArmee the better will it be for us. You \nhave better things to do. Georgin agrees with me. " \n\nThus ended the great fight for the revision of the Dreyfus case. \n\n\n\nDEEYFUS BROUGHT BACK TO FRANCE 99 \n\n\n\nChapter XXIII. \n\nDREYFUS BROUGHT BACK TO FRANCE \n\nNo sooner had the Court of Cassation pronounced in favor of the revi- \nsion than the then Minister of War, M. de Freycinet, resigned, as a pro- \ntest against the court\'s action, and M. Krantz, a man of more moral cour- \nage, succeeded him, and orders were sent to the Governor of French \nGuiana to ship Dreyfus back to France. \n\nThen all thoughts were turned toward Devil\'s Island, and more and \nmore sympathy for the prisoner was aroused, due in great measure to the \npublication of the testimony before the Court of Cassation of M. Lebon, \nthe Minister of the Colonies, who admitted having ordered the sick man \nto be placed in double irons and subjected to other punishments, because \nit was feared he might be rescued. The French cruiser Sfax was ordered \nto take the prisoner on board, and there were many heartfelt good wishes \nfor Dreyfus when it became known that he was homeward bound. \n\nHe was embarked at Cayenne on June 8, 1899, and was landed at \nAliquen, on the Quiberon Peninsula, during the night of July 1st, and \nin very stormy weather. But it is to be presumed that the elements did \nnot affect the prisoner\'s joy at once more setting foot on French soil. He \nsaw ahead of him his honor vindicated, and a reunion with the faithful \nwife who had labored so gallantly in his behalf for five long and weari- \nsome years in spite of every cruel obstacle thrown in her path. \n\nThe captain of the Sfax, referring to Dreyfus after the prisoner had \nbeen landed, said : \n\n"There is extraordinary energy in this man. During the twenty days \nwe were at sea he gave no sign of weakness." \n\nAnd this was in spite of the fact that he was confined in a cabin, with \nthe window closed and an armed sentry at the door. \n\nA member of the crew of the Sfax, in his diary, described the embark- \nation of Drevfus as follows: \n\n\n\nLofC\xc2\xab \n\n\n\n100 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAiTD \n\n" In a steam launch we perceived a civilian attired in a suit of dark \nblue cloth, and wearing a cork helmet. He hid his head in his hands. \nSometimes he rose and took a couple of steps, and then he sank down on \na bench. He seemed exhausted. We wondered who this personage could \nbe. All sorts of rumors were current among the crew, and, after an hour\'s \ninterval, the officers left the captain\'s cabin and orders were given for a \nboat to go alongside this launch and fetch the man on board the Bfax. \nThis was done, and ten minutes later we saw former Captain Dreyfus \nascending the ladder with difficulty, and with uncertain steps, followed by \nthe gendarmes, who had revolvers in their belts. He staggered as he \nreached the deck, but he recovered his composure. With a still trembling \nhand he saluted in the military style, drawing himself up with a quick \nmovement, as he was very bent. He had gray hair and a dark-red beard. \nHis general appearance was fairly good, in spite of the seasickness from \nwhich he was suffering." \n\nAfter his arrival on board the Sfax, Dreyfus was taken to his cabin \nby the second officer of that cruiser, and was furnished with a wardrobe, \ntable, washstand, and bed. The port-hole of the cabin was strongly \nbarred. \n\nThe 8fax weighed anchor June 10th, without having had time to take \non board her full supply of coal or water, and sailed for the island of St. \nVincent. \n\nDreyfus was watched night and day. During the day-time he was \nallowed to take three turns on deck, in the morning from nine until ten, \nfrom eleven until noon, and in the afternoon from four until five o\'clock. \nAll the officers and sailors were expressly forbidden to hold any commu- \nnication with the prisoner. His meals were sent to him in his cabin from \nthe officers\' table. \n\nThe prisoner spent his time in reading and writing, though sometimes \nhe looked long out of the port-hole, apparently plunged in deep thought. \nHis baggage consisted of two portmanteaus, containing linen, books ; sev- \neral packages of chocolate, small biscuits, and several bottles of toilet \nvinegar. He generally went to bed at seven, arose about midnight to \nsmoke a cigarette, and got up regularly at five o\'clock in the morning. \n\nJune 13th, at 2 :30 p.m., the 8fax arrived off the island of St. Vincent, \nfrom which place no letters or telegrams were allowed to be sent, as the \n\n\n\nDREYFUS BROUGHT BACK TO FRANCE 101 \n\njourney of Dreyfus was to be kept a secret. The cruiser arrived at Ali- \nquen July 1st, \n\nThe fishermen of that place were the first to make out the cruiser, and \nthey spread the news of her coming, resulting in the whole population, \nabout one hundred and fifty persons, rushing off to the pier, where a closed \ncarriage drawn by two white horses was drawn up. In the vehicle was \nM. Viguier, Director of the Criminal Department. The One Hundred and \nSixteenth Eegiment of the Line stood waiting in the rain for the landing \nof Dreyfus. Shortly before two o\'clock a launch approached the pier. \nDreyfus got out of the boat, and, between two gendarmes, with slow and \nweary steps, he ascended the side of the pier, and reached the carriage of \nM. Viguier. As the prisoner entered the carriage it was surrounded by \ntroops, and he was driven at a rapid pace, still in the pouring rain, to the \nQuiberon railroad station, about a kilometer from Aliquen. \n\nA special train was waiting at Quiberon. It consisted of four carriages, \nand started in the direction of Eennes as soon as the prisoner was on \nboard. The train, however, was stopped at La Eablais, a level crossing a \nmile or so outside the city. Carriages were in waiting there. The pris- \noner and his immediate escort entered the vehicles, and Dreyfus was \ndriven rapidly to the prison at Eennes. His carriage was surrounded by \ngendarmes, and as it approached the prison the gates were opened and two \nhundred gendarmes, who had been on duty inside, suddenly rushed out \nand barred the street on either side of the entrance. Those who were able \nto obtain a glimpse of Dreyfus as he was hurried into the prison noticed \nthat he looked startled and tired. He wore a blue suit with a gray over- \ncoat and a soft felt hat. His hair was gray, and his beard was trimmed \nto a point. The eyes of the prisoner seemed to lack expression. He first \nlooked at the ground, then at his escort, and afterward at the prison, but \nhe seemed to see nothing, or to be in a dream. A moment later Dreyfus \nwas again in a prison, not to reappear again until brought before the sec- \nond court-martial which was finally to decide his fate. \n\nSome days previous to this Madame Dreyfus had arrived at Eennes, \nand a well-known resident of the place, Madame Godard, placed her house \nat her disposal. \n\nMadame Dreyfus was immediately informed of the arrival of her hus- \nband at Eennes, and was accorded permission to visit him. As may be \n\n\n\n102 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nsupposed, the meeting between the long-separated and long-suffering hus- \nband and the wife was touching in the extreme. \n\nThe prisoner was also allowed to see the lawyers who had been pro- \nvided for him, and the next few days were spent in talking over the events \nof the past five years, of which the prisoner was profoundly ignorant. \nBut he was deeply distressed when told of the machinations of which he \nhad been a victim, and for a time seemed very much discouraged. The \ncheering words of his wife and the advice of his friends and lawyers even- \ntually gave him more nerve, and he began to prepare for the trying ordeal \nto which he was to be subjected. \n\n\n\nHOW M. LEBON TREATED DREYFUS 103 \n\n\n\nChapter XXIV. \nHOW M. LEBON TREATED DREYFUS \n\nOne of the features of the case which aroused the foreign press a great \ndeal against the persecutors of Dreyfus, was the treatment to which he \nwas subjected to by M. Lebon, the Minister of the Colonies, while the \nprisoner was on Devil\'s Island, and the minister was so severely criticised \nthat, on July 12, 1899, although no longer a member of the ministry, he \nfelt compelled to issue a full statement of his position, which certainly \ndid not change the opinion people had formed about him. In this docu- \nment, M. Lebon said : \n\n" M. Louis Havet having substituted definite charges for the system of \nvague insults of which I have been the object for two years, and M. Guil- \nlian having dispelled some of the legends which there is an attempt to \nsubstantiate with reference to the He du Diable, I feel bound to break the \nsilence which I have hitherto imposed upon myself from respect for the \nwork of justice now going on, and to explain myself as clearly as I can as \nto the measures which I adopted and my reasons for them. I shall say \nnothing, moreover, which cannot be verified by the records of the Colonial \nOffice, and I declare once for all that I accept entire responsibility for my \nacts, and that I entirely indorse the action of my old subordinates in the \nexecution of my orders or in the acts which they reported to me, and \nwhich I did not blame at the time. \n\n" I first recall certain facts outside my own administration. The pub- \nlic degradation of Dreyfus having taken place early in January, 1895, M. \nGu^rin, then Minister of Justice, and M. Delcasse, then Minister for the \nColonies, asked Parliament on the 11th of that month to indicate the lies \ndu Salut as a place of transportation in a fortified enclosure, together with \nthe Ducos Peninsula, in order, as the preamble of the bill said, \' to \nincrease the guarantee of supervision, and thus render the repression as \neffective as possible.\' > The bill was promulgated on February 9th, and \n\n\n\n104 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwas countersigned by MM. Traireux and Chantemps. It was in the spring \nof the same year, 1895, that general instructions were given for the new \ntransportation service, and I did not become Minister for the Colonies \nuntil a year later, at the end of April, 1896. During the first months of \nmy ministry I had no occasion to pay any attention to the system estab- \nlished at the lie du Diable. The measures to be taken for the pacification \nof Madagascar, with the choice of a suitable man to be sent there, occu- \npied my whole time, and I had no inclination to display \' fury or hatred \nor the instinct of an executioner,\' which M. Louis Havet deigns to admit \nare totally lacking in me. I will add, in order to reassure him imme- \ndiately as to the reasons for my action, that I should never have dreamed \nthat I should one day be accused of having yielded to the \' fear of jour- \nnalists.\' In the mistakes I may have made during my public life it is \nrather in the contrary direction that I seem to myself to have erred. \n\n" What, then, were my motives ? And first, how did matters stand in \nthe summer and autumn of 1896, as regards the Dreyfus affair? In the \nexcitement of the past few months this question would appear to have \nbeen totally forgotten. No one then publicly defended the innocence, \ntrue or supposed, of the prisoner. No one disputed the authority of the \nchose jugee. Everybody, except a few who had special knowledge, was \nanxious that Dreyfus should not escape, and was eager to discover the ac- \ncomplices who were almost universally thought to have helped him. It \nwas by no means my duty to listen to outside rumors nor to substitute \nany personal opinion for the decisions of those who had been qualified to \nexpress one. I had in his case, as in that of all transported convicts, \nmerely to insure the execution of the decrees of justice and of the laws. \nHow did I come to think that there might be some doubt of the effective- \nness of the system at Devil\'s Island, and how was I led, a full year \nbefore the commencement of the revisionist agitation, and without making \nthe slightest mention of it to the journalists, as can easily be shown, to \nadopt the measures for which I am now blamed ? \n\n" Within the space of a few weeks I learned that, one after another, two \nservice telegrams relative to the prisoner had been communicated to the \npress ; that another sent, like the first, by one of my predecessors had \nnever reached its destination; that, finally, a person connected with the \npenitentiary administration could not be counted upon for the faithful exe- \n\n\n\nHOW M. LEBON TREATED DREYFUS 105 \n\ncution of his duties, but that he frequently spoke of the possibility of pro- \ncuring Dreyfus\'s escape. It was at this moment, early in September, that \nthe English papers disseminated broadcast a report that an American ship \nhad carried off Dreyfus, and then for the first time I obtained explanations \nof the organization of Devil\'s Island, and easily discovered that such a \nrescue was physically possible. \n\n" Now, I did not wish that Dreyfus should escape, nor was I anxious \nto have his sentinels obliged to apply the general orders which permit \nrecourse to the most extreme measures in order to prevent a prisoner \nfrom escaping. Hence my telegram of September 4th, to the Governor of \nGuiana. Here is its complete text as regards the point in question : \n\n"\'You will keep Dreyfus until further orders in hut, double staple at \nnight. You will surround perimeter court round hut with solid palisad- \ning, with sentinel inside.\' \n\n" In order thoroughly to indicate the essentially temporary character \nof this measure of rigor, I telegraphed that the prisoner should be carefully \ninformed that it was a measure of security, not of punishment; and, be- \nlieving that my orders were already on the point of being fulfilled, I tele- \ngraphed again on the 19th, to say that as soon as the palisading was fin- \nished the double staple should be removed. Unfortunately, the work was \ndone with less celerity than I had hoped, but neither then nor afterward \nwas I apprised of the slightest disorder in the prisoner\'s health. \n\n" Was I right or wrong in being so anxious as to the possibility of \nescape ? All I can say is that during my two years\' tenure of office hardly \na month passed in which similar projects were not brought to my attention, \neither by the Prefecture of Police, by the Detective Department, or by \ndiplomatic or consular agents. The external defence of the island being \nhenceforth assured, none of these projects affected the prisoner\'s treatment. \nOn the contrary, the work hastily done in September, 1896, having modi- \nfied the hygienic conditions of his hut, a new building more spacious and \nhealthier was prepared for him early in 1897, at the instance of one of the \nvery agents now being most unjustly attacked. \n\n" What is now called the Weyler forgery had nothing whatever to do \nwith all this, though it was contemporaneous with it. It was, however, \nthe cause of other measures which I felt bound to take as regards the \nprisoner\'s correspondence. The tenor of that document, and the way in \n\n\n\n106 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwhich it reached the Colonial Office, have been sufficiently indicated in the \ninquiry of the Supreme Court. I will only say that no one then, not even \na certain eminent personage in the Intelligence Bureau, affirmed or ap- \nproved it to be a forgery, and that it gave ground for believing that, apart \nfrom the prisoner\'s regular correspondence, then submitted, like that of all \nprisoners, to the control of the Penitentiary Department, there existed be- \ntween Dreyfus and his friends or family other relations which escaped all \nsupervision. This suspicion was confirmed by other facts, either concom- \nitant or subsequent, and gave rise toward the end of 1897 to a very sug- \ngestive report by the head of the local service as to the removal at the \nbeginning of 1898 of a suspected sentinel. If I had shown in the affair \nthat blind passion now attributed to me I should, perhaps, have adopted \nmeasures other than those which I had definitely adopted. I decided that \ncopies of the letters exchanged between Dreyfus and his family should be \ntransmitted instead of the originals, so that the apparent and known text \nshould alone reach its destination. But as to having attempted by means \nof subordinates, as is insinuated, to undermine the condemned man\'s con- \nfidence in his family by suppressing, mutilating, or deliberately delaying \nany of their letters, I affirm that such an idea prevailed neither in Paris \nnor Guiana. \n\n" Such is the strict truth free from all dissimulation or amplification. I \nam surprised that in facts which have been so long known to the parties \nconcerned, and on which no one ever ventured to present an interpella- \ntion, such tardy accusations should be revived. I might, moreover, show \nby relating either a conversation held or a correspondence exchanged with \ncertain leaders of the sad controversy now witnessed by us, the signal bad \nfaith which has been employed; but having no personal concern in this, \nand being only anxious to show that a servant of the Republic is not the \n\' sinister torturer \' represented, I limit myself to this too long explanation." \n\n\n\nDREYFUS\' S FINAL APPEAL FOR JUSTICE 107 \n\n\n\nChapter XXV. \n\nDREYFUS\'S FINAL APPEAL FOR JUSTICE \n\nA MONTH after Dreyfus had been landed in France and a week before \nthe opening of the court-martial at Rennes, the Paris Figaro published \nsome most interesting correspondence, showing how steadily the prisoner \nmaintained his innocence and how clearly he met all the points of his \naccusers. The letters, however, were not sent to their addresses, by order \nof Premier M^line. \n\nThe first letter of the series referred to follows : \n\nIle du Salut, February 28, 1898. \nOn the very morrow of my condemnation, now more than three years \nago, when Major Du Paty de Clam came to see me on behalf of the Min- \nister of War, to ask me, after I had been condemned for an abominable \ncrime which I had not committed, whether I was innocent or guilty, I \ndeclared that not only was I innocent, but that I wished for the light, the \ncomplete light, and I asked immediately for the aid of all the customary \nmeans of investigation, either through the military attaches or in any \nother mode at the disposal of the Government. I was told that interests \nsuperior to mine, owing to the origin of this lamentable and tragic history \nand owing to the origin of the incriminating letter, prevented the custom- \nary means of investigation, but that the inquiry would be continued. I \nhave waited for three years in the most terrible situation conceivable, \nsuffering continuously and without cause, but these researches never end. \nIf, then, interests superior to mine are to prevent, and must always pre- \nvent, the use of the only means of investigation which can finally put an \nend to this horrible martyrdom of so many human beings and throw com- \nplete light on this tragic business, these interests can surely not require \nthat a woman, children, and an innocent man should be sacrificed to them. \nOtherwise we must go back to the darkest ages of our history, when the \ntruth and the light are stifled. A few months ago I submitted the whole \ntragic and undeserved horror of this situation to the high equity of the \nGovernment. I now do the same to the high equity of Messieurs les \n\n\n\n108 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nDeputes to ask them for justice for me and mine, the life of my children, \nand an end to this frghtful martyrdom of so many human beings." \n\nThe prisoner wrote a similar letter to the Senators. \n\nDreyfus, on March 21st, wrote as follows to the Minister of War: \n\nA few months ago, probably in consequence of a report on the accu- \nsation, I was told that this was based \xe2\x80\x94 (1) on a charge against my family. \nThis document was unknown to me. It was never communicated to me, \nso I could not reply. It is, moreover, as atrocious as it is calumnious. \n(2) The presumption drawn from the handwriting. I declared that I was \nnot the author of the incriminating letter; I showed from its contents that \nI could not be. (3) The trembling of the hand. At the court-martial \nMajor Du Paty de Clam, in reply to a question, affirmed that it was warm \nat the time. M. Cochefort, a few moments later, declared with me that it \nwas piercingly cold. (4) The rest of the accusation. Another document. \nAt the court-martial the straightforward protest of Captain Besse against \nthe interpretation given to his deposition, and the explanation given by \nMajor Mercier, forced the Government commissary to abandon this por- \ntion of the accusation. Moreover, at the court-martial the oral evidence \nand the explanations brought out by the defence reduced this entire por- \ntion to nothing. (5) Moral causes \xe2\x80\x94 gaming, and women. I can only \nrefer to my own declaration, in opposition to which no serious proof was \ngiven, no signed deposition. The court upheld none of the atrocious anony- \nmous documents which had been appended to the dossier. In a letter to \nthe Minister of Justice a few months ago I asked, in the name of the im- \nprescriptible rights of truth and justice and in the interests of my wife and \nchildren, that a serious inquiry should be made to elucidate definitively \nall the anonymous gossip and reports. To sum up, I appeal. Monsieur le \nMinistre, to General de Boisdeffre\'s loyalty and to that of those who ob- \ntained my condemnation, that it may be made known that at the court- \nmartial, where the minister was represented, the accusation, save for the \nfirst document \xe2\x80\x94 of which I had no knowledge, and which was communi- \ncated therefore solely to the judges \xe2\x80\x94 the accusation was reduced by dis- \ncussion to a presumption as to handwriting. \n\nNo. 1 in this letter refers to M. Bertillon\'s theory that the bordereau \nwas both in Captain Dreyfus\'s hand and in that of his brother. \n\nThe following letter was written by Dreyfus to President Faure. It is \ndated February 14, 1897, but was never finished nor sent: \n\n\n\nDKEYFUS\'S FINAL APPEAL FOR JUSTICE 109 \n\nI venture once more to appeal to your high justice. For more than \ntwo years, innocent of an abominable crime the very thought of which \nrevolts my whole being, I have been undergoing the most frightful torture \nimaginable. I cannot possibly tell you. Monsieur le President, how I have \nsuffered ; my heart alone knows. Another pen than mine is needed to \ndescribe tortures such as these. And if I have lived, holding down my \nheart, keeping myself in check, swallowing insults and affronts, it is be- \ncause I would have wished to be allowed to die tranquil, knowing that I \nshould be leaving to my children a pure and honored name. But, alas ! I \nhave been too great a sufferer. I can endure it no longer. Ah ! Mon- \nsieur le President, I know not how to find words to tell you how I suffer, \nto describe the horrors of every minute in every hour of the day, horrors \nagainst which I succeeded in bearing up only in the supreme hope of be- \nholding once more for my dear children the day when honor will be \nrestored to them. And in this profound distress of my whole being, in \nthis agony of my whole strength, it is to you, Monsieur le President, to \nthe Government of my country, that I throw again this supreme cry of \nappeal, sure that it will be heard. And this supreme cry of appeal from \na Frenchman, a father, who now for more than two years has lain on a \nbed of torture, is ever the same \xe2\x80\x94 namely, for the truth of this terrible \ndrama, for the unmasking of the man or men who committed the infamous \ncrime. . . . \n\nOn January 6, 1898, Dreyfus wrote to the Governor of Guiana: \n\nI venture to send you the enclosed letter, asking you if it would not \nbe possible to have it transmitted at my expense by telegraph to the \nPresident of the Eepublic. \n\nThe enclosed letter was as follows : \n\nNot having received any letters from my family now for two months, \nmy brain maddened, I onco more affirm to you that I never was, that I am \nnot, and that I cannot possibly be the culprit. \n\nThe following is the letter written by Dreyfus to the head of the local \npenitentiary service in October, 1896, on learning that he was to be put \nin irons : \n\nI have just been warned that I shall be put in irons at night. I \nshould be very grateful to you if you would tell me what fault I have \n\n\n\n110 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ncommitted. Since I have been here I believe that I have strictly obeyed \nall the rules, all the orders. All that has been told me I have executed in \nits integrity. I take the liberty, therefore, of asking you what I must do \nto avoid so terrible a punishment. I have been living only out of duty to \nmy wife and children. If I am to die, the sooner the better. \n\n\n\nOPENING OF THE SECOND DREYFUS COURT-MARTIA.L 111 \n\n\n\nChapter XXVI. \nOPENING OF THE SECOND DREYFUS COURT-MARTIAL \n\nThe second trial by court-martial of the prisoner of Devil\'s Island \nopened at 7:10 a.m., on Saturday, August 7th, in the Lyc^e, at Eennes, \nFrance. \n\nThe Prefect of Police and the Chief of the Secret Police, M. Viguier, \narrived at the Lyc^e shortly before 6 a.m., and began superintending the \npolice measures. At that hour only half a dozen gendarmes were visible \nabout the building. They were stationed about the entrance of the Lyc^e \nand inside the garden in front of it. The garden is separated from the \nsidewalk of the Avenue de la Gare, on which the Lycee is situated, by a \nhigh iron railing, within which no one was allowed to pass until Dreyfus \nwas transferred from his quarters in the military prison to a room within \nthe Lycee building, where he awaited the summons to appear before the \ncourt. \n\nStrong detachments of gendarmes, mounted and on foot, began to arrive \nat about six o\'clock, and took up positions in the side avenues about the \nLyc^e and in all the by-streets leading to the Avenue de la Gare. \n\nAt 6:15 A.M., the Prefect gave orders to close the Avenue de la Gare \nfor three hundred yards in front of the Lyc^e, and also to close all the \nstreets leading into the avenue. Consequently, gendarmes were imme- \ndiately drawn up across the avenue, and the space mentioned was cleared \nof all spectators. \n\nA detachment of infantry was then stationed across the avenue in two \ndouble lines, leaving between them a passage for Dreyfus to cross the ave- \nnue from the prison to the entrance to the Lycde. The crowd, which by \nthat time had increased to a few hundreds, was kept by gendarmes at a \ndistance of one hundred and fifty yards on either side of this passage. \n\nDreyfus soon afterward emerged from the military prison escorted by a \nlieutenant and four gendarmes. The party crossed the roadway quickly \n\n\n\n112 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nand disappeared within the Lyc^e, the hedges of soldiers hiding the pris- \noner from view. \n\nFrom 6:30 to 7 a.m., the principal personages participating in the \ncourt-martial arrived. The various generals interested passed into the \nbuilding, with hardly a cheer from the spectators, General Mercier (who \nwas Minister of War when Dreyfus was originally convicted) alone being \ngreeted with a few cries of " Vive 1\' Arm^e ! " " Vive Mercier ! " as he drove \nup in a closed carriage. \n\nColonel Picquart (the former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Bureau of \nthe French army, whose favorable attitude toward the prisoner did so much \nto bring about a revision of the latter\'s sentence) arrived at the Lycee on \nfoot, at 6 :40, wearing a high silk hat and a black frock coat, with the red \nribbon of the Legion of Honor in his buttonhole. There was no demon- \nstration when he appeared, but Picquart seemed to be in a most cheerful \nmood, smiling and chatting with his friends. \n\nThe scene inside the court-room was most animated. Every inch of \nspace was filled a quarter of an hour before the proceedings opened. \n\nThe large, airy, well-lighted room in which the trial took place was in \nthe form of a concert hall, with a stage and proscenium. The platform \nof the stage had been brought forward beyond the footlights. The room \nwas painted a light brown. The names of famous Bretons, such as Le \nSage, Eenan, and Chateaubriand were inscribed in golden letters on an \nornamental band about midway between the floor and ceiling. A long table \ncovered with dark-blue cloth was ranged in front of the stage, behind \nwhich were the seats of the members of the court-martial, a higher-backed \narmchair having been provided for the president. The seats were of pol- \nished mahogany, and were upholstered in dark-red cloth. \n\nBehind the members of the court sat the Supplementary Judges, who \nmust attend all sittings and be able to replace any member who may be ill \nor otherwise be unable to be present. Behind the Supplementary Judges \nwere a few privileged members of the public. \n\nOn a portion of the stage extending in front of the proscenium was \nplaced the bar at which the witnesses were heard. The bar had a wooden \nframe of light polished oak. It stood out prominently against the dark \ncloth-covered table of the judges. \n\nOn the right end of this extended platform stood a table for the use of \n\n\n\nw^Sp\'* \n\n\n\n\n\n\nr,i \n\n\n\nm \n\n\n\n-y: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nmr ^ 3\' , -^s? \n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0* \\-Bs-\\-:\\ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEETUEN OF DKEYFUS : ARRIVAL ON BOARD THE "SFAX." \n\n\n\n\nKETUKN OF DREYFUS: LEAVING THE TRAIN AT RABLAIS NEAR RENNES. \n\n\n\n\nSOME OF THE PRINCIPAL PERSONAGES IN THE DREYFUS CASE. \nM. Sclieurer-Kestner, vice-president of tlie Senate.\xe2\x80\x94 2. M. Ranc, senator for the Seine.\xe2\x80\x94 \n3. General Billot, War Minister.\xe2\x80\x94 4. M. Darlan, Minister for Justice.\xe2\x80\x94 5. M. de Castro, who \nwas the first to assert that the bordereau was written by Major Esterhazy.\xe2\x80\x94 6. Maitre Leblois, \ncounsel for Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart.\xe2\x80\x94 7. Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart.\xe2\x80\x94 8. Colonel \nPanizzardi, Italian military attach^ in Paris.\xe2\x80\x94 9. M. Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of Alfred \nDreyfus.\xe2\x80\x94 10. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry.\xe2\x80\x94 11. Colonel Schwartzkoppen, German military \nattach^ in Paris. \xe2\x80\x94 12. M. Henri Rochefort, director of the Intransigeant. \xe2\x80\x94 13. M. Castelin, \ndeputy for the Aisne.\xe2\x80\x94 14, 15, 16, and 17, MM. Gobert, Pelletier, Charavay, and Cr^pieux- \nJamin, handwriting experts. \n\n\n\nOPENING OP THE SECOND DREYFUS COURT-MARTIAL 113 \n\nMaitres Labori and Demange, counsel for the prisoner, and their two secre- \ntaries. At the left side was placed a table for Major Carriere, the Gov- \nernment Commissary, or ojfficial representative of the Government, and his \nassistants. \n\nMM. Labori and Demange, on entering, were greeted with warm \nhandshakes from numerous friends in the court-room. \n\nFormer President Casimir-Perier entered shortly before seven. An \nofficer met him at the door, and conducted him to the velvet-covered chairs \nreserved for witnesses. The ex-President found himself between Generals \nBillot and Chanoine, both in parade uniform. Other ex-Ministers of \nWar \xe2\x80\x94 Generals Mercier and Zurlinden, and M. Cavaignac \xe2\x80\x94 were seated \nin a row behind them. \n\nThe widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, dressed in deep mourn- \ning, was present in court, and replied to her name in the roll-call of \nwitnesses. \n\nM. Mathieu Dreyfus and Dreyfus\'s father-in-law, M. Hadamard, were \namong the audience. \n\nOn either side of the hall was a solid mass of newspaper men, for \nwhom rough pine tables and benches had been provided. \n\nIn the centre of the hall were placed chairs for the witnesses. Behind \nthese was another batch of the privileged public, and then a row of sol- \ndiers, in parade uniform, drawn across the hall, with fixed bayonets. \n\nA narrow space between the troops and the back of the hall was filled \nwith the "general public," which consisted of a few journalists and detec- \ntives, with gendarmes sprinkled among them. Back of the stage hung a \ncrucifix, before which the witnesses took the oath. Facing this, at the \nback of the hall, was an emblem of the Republic, with the letters " E. F." \n(E^publique Francaise). \n\nAt seven o\'clock MM. Labori and Demange and Major Carriere, with \ntheir assistants, took their seats, and the witnesses followed. Then sharp \nwords of command rang out from the officer in charge of the row of sol- \ndiers at the back of the court : \n\n" Carry arms ! " \n\n" Present arms ! " \n\nThere was a rattle of arms, and a moment later Colonel Jouaust, fol- \nlowed by the other members of the court, walked on to the stage from a \n8 \n\n\n\n114 DREYEUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nroom behind and took seats at the table. Deep silence fell upon the audi- \nence, who up to then had been engaged in a buzz of conversation. \n\nColonel Jouaust and his colleagues were in full parade uniform, with \nplumes in the front of their peaked shakos. Colonel Jouaust\'s aigrette \nwas white ; the others were tri-color. On the right hand of Colonel Jou- \naust sat Lieutenant-Colonel Brongniart, Major de Breon, and Captain \nParfait, all of the artillery. On his left hand were Majors ProfiUet and \nMerle and Captain Beauvais, also of the artillery. \n\nAn interesting figure, seated behind the judges, was the famous and \nmysterious lady known as La Dame Blanche (the White Lady), who never \nabsented herself from any of the proceedings connected with the Dreyfus \naffair, including all sessions of the Esterhazy, Zola, and Picquart trials, \nand the proceedings of the Court of Cassation. All the actors in the \ndrama are known to her. She is a pronounced Dreyfusarde, very rich, \nand wears splendid pearls. She was dressed that day in a " picture " hat \nwith black and white trimmings and a pink bodice. Her name is Mile. \nBlanche de Comminges, whose salon Colonel Picquart frequented, and \nwhom Henry and Du Paty de Clam attempted to implicate in an alleged \nplot of the Dreyfusards to substitute Esterhazy for Dreyfus as the author \nof the bordereau. \n\nThe splendid, gold-laced uniforms of the generals summoned as wit- \nnesses, and the uniforms of the judges, soldiers, and various ofificers pres- \nent, combined to light up the dark tints with which the walls of the hall \nwere painted, and gave a bright appearance to the court-room. \n\nImmediately after Colonel Jouaust was seated he gave the order to \nbring in the prisoner. All eyes were then turned to the right of the stage, \nbeside which was a door leading to the room in which Dreyfus was await- \ning the summons. Almost everybody but the most prominent o\xc2\xa3ficers \nstood on his feet. Some mounted on benches to obtain a better view. \n\nThere were subdued cries of "Sit down," amid which the door opened \nand Captain Alfred Dreyfus, preceded and followed by a gendarme, emerged \ninto the court-room. His features were deathly pale and his teeth were \nset, with a determined but not defiant bearing. He walked quickly, with \nalmost an elastic step, and ascended the three stept, leading to the platform \nin front of the judges. There ho drew himself up erect and brought his \nright hand sharply to the peak of his k^pi, or military cap, giving the mili- \n\n\n\nOPENING OF THE SECOND DEEYFUS COURT-MAETIAL 115 \n\ntaiy salute in a fashion that showed that years of incarceration of Devil\'s \nIsland and terrible anguish of body and mind had not impaired his sol- \ndierly instinct and bearing. \n\nThe prisoner then removed his k^pi and took the seat placed for him, \nfacing his judges, just in front of his counsel\'s table, and with his back \nto the audience. Behind him sat a gendarme holding a sheathed sabre in \nhis hand. Dreyfus, in a new uniform of captain of artillery, dark blue \nwith red facings, fixedly regarded the judges, with immovable features and \nwithout stirring hand or foot, scarcely even moving his head during the \nwhole course of the proceedings, except when he entered and left the \ncourt-room. \n\nDreyfus answered the formal question of the President of the Court, \nColonel Jouaust, as to his name, age, and other matters, in a clear, deter- \nmined voice. He sat facing the members of the court, with his hands \nresting on his knees, an apparently impassive figure. \n\nAfter the formal proceedings, which occupied a couple of hours, Colo- \nnel Jouaust began the examination, of Dreyfus respecting the famous bor- \ndereau, and what Dreyfus did with or could have known of its contents. \n\nWhen Dreyfus, wearing eyeglasses, rose from his seat for examination, \nhe stood erect, holding his k^pi in his hand before him. He looked Colo- \nnel Jouaust straight in the face during the whole interrogatory \n\nAfter the court had decided not to adjourn on account of the absence \nof certain witnesses, the clerk of the court was ordered to read M. d\'Or- \nmescheville\'s bill of indictment of 1894, which he did in a loud voice, \nDreyfus, in the mean while, listening unmoved as the old charges against \nhim were read. \n\nThis is the famous Acte d\' Accusation first made public in Ze Siecle \nof Paris, January 8, 1898. It accused Dreyfus of writing the bordereau, \nand of transmitting it, together with the documents therein mentioned, to \nthe agent of a foreign power. It also made serious reflections upon his \npersonal character. \n\nColonel Jouaust then said : \n\n" It results from the documents just read, that you are accused of hav- \ning brought about machinations or that you held relations with a foreign \npower, or with one or more of its agents, in order to procure it means, by \ndelivering to it documents indicated in the incriminating bordereau, to \n\n\n\n116 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ncommit hostilities or undertake war against France. I notify you that \nyou will be allowed to state during the course of these proceedings any- \nthin that appears to you useful for your defence." \n\nColonel Jouaust then added, as he handed the prisoner a long slip of \ncardboard upon which the bordereau was pasted : \n\n"Do you recognize this document? " \n\nDreyfus replied, with a passionate outburst: \n\n" No, Colonel ! I am innocent ! I declare it here as I declared it in \n1894. I am a victim " \n\nHis voice here was choked with sobs, which must have stirred every \nspectator in court. The voice of the prisoner did not seem human. . It \nresembled the cry of a wounded animal, as he ended his reply with the \nwords, " Five years in the galleys ! My wife ! My children I My God ! I \nam innocent ! " \n\nColonel Jouaust said : \n\n"Then you deny it?" \n\nDreyfus replied : \n\n"Yes, Colonel." \n\nOn the court proceeding to the roll-call of witnesses, the most notable \nabsentees being Esterhazy, Du Paty de Clam, and Mile. Pays, Dreyfus \nhalf turned his head toward the seats of the witnesses, especially when \nthe clerk of the court called Esterhazy. But when no response was re- \nceived, Dreyfus returned to his previous attitude, looking straight in front \nof him at Colonel Jouaust. \n\nEsterhazy at the time was in London. Du Paty de Clam was recently \nreleased from Cherche-Midi prison, where he was confined pending an in- \nvestigation to ascertain whether in shielding Esterhazy in 1897-98 he had \nacted on his own initiative or by orders of his superior officers. \n\nMile. Pays is a friend of Esterhazy, who plotted with him to ruin \nPicquart. \n\nThe court afterward retired to deliberate upon the case of the absentee \nwitnesses, the soldiers in the court-room, in response to the word of com- \nmand of the lieutenant in charge, carrying and presenting arms, the judges \nleaving and re-entering to the rattle of rifles, as the line of soldiers \nbrought their weapons, like a piece of machinery, smartly to the " Pre- \nsent ! " and then dropped the butts heavily to the floor. \n\n\n\nOPENING OF THE SECOND DREYFUS COURT-MARTIAL 117 \n\nThis performance was repeated every time the court retired. \n\nDreyfus was withdrawn into an inner room during the court\'s retircr \nments. \n\nOn the final return of the court, Major Carriere said he thought the \nabsence of Esterhazy ought not to prevent the trial proceeding. \n\n"Let him come or not," he said, "it matters nothing to me." \n\n\'Colonel Jouaust then proceeded to question Dreyfus as to his knowl- \nedge of the \'\'120 brake," a hydro-pneumatic attached to an improved \nFrench field-piece. The prisoner, in brief, said he had only a general idea \nof the brake. \n\nThe court then questioned the prisoner about his knowledge of the \ncovering of troops, and Dreyfus replied that he had no knowledge of this \nquestion in 1894, though he had certain documents concerning the provi- \nsioning and conveying of troops. \n\nColonel Jouaust then turned to the note referring to Madagascar, \nand said : " You could have obtained this document from the corporal\'s \ndesk?" \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 That is not usual. \nColonel Jouaust\xe2\x80\x94 No, but it could be done. The copying was finished \non the 28th, and the bordereau dates from several days later. Now for \nthe fifth document \xe2\x80\x94 the proposed Firing Manual for Field Artillery. \nDid you know the contents of the manual? \n\nDreyfus (emphatically) \xe2\x80\x94 No; never! \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 A witness said you communicated it to him. \n\nDreyfus (vehemently) \xe2\x80\x94 No; never! \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 A major lent you this Firing Manual? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 ^No, Colonel. I deny it absolutely. \n\nDreyfus then entered into an explanation of dates, but his memory \nfailed him. \n\nColonel Jouaust then took up the famous phrase, " I am starting for \nthe manoeuvres." He said: \n\n" You had never been to the manoeuvres, because it was the custom \nonly for probationers to go. But at the date of the bordereau you did not \nknow you would not go ? " \n\nDrej^fus \xe2\x80\x94 There had been fresh orders given. \n\nOriginally it was alleged that the bordereau was written in April, \n\n\n\n118 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n1894. It was subsequently discovered that Dreyfus knew as early as \nMarch that he was not to attend the spring manoeuvres. The real date \nwas then given, August, 1894. But Dreyfus did not attend the fall ma- \nnoeuvres of that year. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 At the Military School you were reproached for \nsaying the Alsatians were happier as Germans than as Frenchmen? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No ; I never uttered such words. \n\nGeneral de Dionne, who was at the head of the War School in 1892, \nwhere Dreyfus was a pupil, made this charge against the prisoner before \nthe Court of Cassation. Thereupon the general was confronted with a \nreport written by him in 1892, in which he spoke of Dreyfus in the high- \nest terms. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 How do you account for the bad note against you \nwritten by a certain general? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 He said he wanted no Jews on the General Staff. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 In 1892 you went to Mulhouse, Alsace. What \ndid you do there? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I went there three times, by way of Basle, without a pass- \nport. Once I arrived at my house, I never went out. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 You went there in 1886? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Yes, possibly. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you follow the German manoeuvres ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you converse with German officers? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I deny it absolutely. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 What was your object in going to Alsace? \n\nDreyfus^ \xe2\x80\x94 For instruction. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 You wrote certain information respecting the man- \nufacture of the Eobin shell. You said this information was requested by \na professor of the Military School. This was false. I am told you asked \nofficers indiscreet questions. \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 It is not true. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Had you relations with a lady living in the Rue \nBizet? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I had no intimate relations with her. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 I do not mean from a moral point of view, but \n\n\n\nOPENINa OF THE SECOND DREYFUS COUET-MAETIAL 119 \n\nfrom a military point of view. This woman was suspected of spying. \nWhy did you visit her? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I only learned that at my trial, in 1894. Major Gendrion \nintroduced me to her, and as Gendrion belonged to the Inquiry Bureau he \nought to have known if she was suspected. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Passing through the Champs Elys^es in 1891 you \nremarked : " Here lives a certain lady. Suppose we call on her. I have \nlost heavy sums at her house." \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 It is false. I have never gambled. Never ! Never ! \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you know Colonel Du Paty de Clam? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you know Lieutenant-Colonel Henry? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \' \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 You have no motive for animosity against them? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 And Colonel Picquart? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I don\'t know him. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 And Lieutenant-Colonel Esterhazy? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I don\'t know him. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Colonel Du Paty de Clam said that your writing at \nhis dictation was less firm when he made you undergo a trial on the day \nof your arrest. \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 My writing has not much changed. \n\nHere a non-commissioned officer who was standing in front of Major \nCarriere crossed the platform and handed Dreyfus his writing on the day \nof his arrest. \n\nDreyfus replied by insisting there was nothing to show any percepti- \nble change in his handwriting. \n\nHere occurred one of the most dramatic scenes in the examination. \nDreyfus, tremendously excited, swayed to and fro for a moment, and then \nall his pent-up emotion and indignation burst forth, and he cried in a pierc- \ning voice, heard throughout the court and even by those standing outside : \n\n" It is iniquitous to condemn an innocent man. I never confessed any- \nthing ! Never ! " \n\nDreyfus, as he uttered the words, raised his right, white-gloved hand \nand held it aloft as if appealing to Heaven to vindicate him. \n\n\n\n120 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you say : "If I handed over documents it was \nto have more important ones in return ? " \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you say : " In three years they will recognize \nmy innocence " ? Why did you say " three years " ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I asked for all means of investigation. They were refused \nme. I was justified in hoping that at the end of two or three years my \ninnocence would come to light. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Why three years ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Because a certain time is necessary to obtain light. \n\nColonel Jouaust then said : \n\n" Coming to the day of your degradation, what passed between you and \nCaptain Lebrun-Eenault? What did you tell him? " \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Nothing. It was really a sort of broken monologue on my \npart. I felt that everybody knew of the crime with which I was charged, \nand I wished to say I was not the guilty party. I wished to make clear \nthat the criminal was not he whom they had before their eyes, and I said : \n" Lebrun, I will cry aloud my innocence in the face of the people. " \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you not say, "The minister knows I handed \nover documents " ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. If I spoke of a minister who knew I was innocent, I \nreferred to a conversation I previously had with Du Paty de Clam. \n\nThis ended the first day of the second court-martial. \n\nColonel Jouaust treated Dreyfus brusquely, almost brutally, and it was \na matter of satisfaction to the friends of the prisoner when the latter set \nthe judge himself right on certain dates connected with Dreyfus\'s stay on \nthe General Staff. It was an unimportant point, but it was eloquent tes- \ntimony to the keenness of Dreyfus\'s intellect. \n\nThe prisoner sat most of the time with his legs stretched out, his \nspurs resting on the ground, his hands joined and resting on his lap. He \nrepelled the insinuations, that he had relations with German officers dur- \ning his stay in Alsace, in fiercely indignant terms. \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER ASSISTS THE JUDGES 121 \n\n\n\nChapter XXVU. \nTHE PRISONER ASSISTS THE JUDGES \n\nThe court-martial sat in secret session on Monday, August 9th, from \n6:30 A.M. until 11:45 a.m., in order to examine the secret documents in \nthe case, and this was continued until August 11th. Several of the docu- \nments were written in German, and in the course of the proceedings a \nGerman dictionary was sent for. When certain words and expressions \ncould not be exactly understood, even with the aid of the dictionary, Drey- \nfus, who is a perfect German scholar, volunteered a translation, and was \nallowed to give explanations, which were of valuable assistance to the \nmembers of the court. \n\nThe police measures were much more stringent than on the day of the \nopening of the trial. Strong detachments of infantry instead of gendarmes \ncordoned the streets leading to the Lyc^e. Gendarmes alone performed \nthis duty August 7th, and the sightseers, who were much less numerous, \nbarely numbering three hundred persons, were pressed still further back. \nEven persons standing inside the entrance hall of a house in view of the \ndoor of the Lyc^e were compelled to retire into the interior of the house, \nand the front door was closed. Absolutely nobody but police and soldiers \nwere thus within one hundred yards of Dreyfus when he crossed the \nAvenue de la Gare. The police authorities explain the rigor of these \nmeasures on the ground that yesterday a few cries against the prisoner \nwere raised while he was crossing the avenue. \n\nMaitre Demange, of counsel for Captain Dreyfus, in an interview after \nthe session of August 10th, expressed himself as very well contented with \nthe way in which matters were proceeding, and, judging from his manner, \nit was apparent that the defenders of the accused had not met with any- \nthing very surprising or alarming in the secret dossier. \n\nNaturally Maitre Demange declined to give any particulars respecting \nthe contents of the dossier, but he declared that he and his colleague. \n\n\n\n122 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nMaitre Labori, were satisfied of the desire of the members of the court to \nthresh the whole matter out, and to have full light turned upon the accu- \nsations against Dreyfus. \n\nThe court-martial concluded its secret sessions at nine o\'clock on Au- \ngust 11th, when M. Paleologue of the Foreign Ofi&ce completed his ex- \nplanations of the secret dossier. \n\n\n\nGENERAL MEECIER CONFRONTED BY DREYFUS 123 \n\n\n\nChapter XXVffl. \n\nGENERAL MEROER CONFRONTED BY DREYFUS \n\nThe second public session of the second court-martial of Captain Drey- \nfus began at 6:30 o\'clock August 12th. The red-and- white facade of \nthe Lyc^e was bathed in sunshine when Dreyfus crossed the Avenue de \nla Gare from his prison and entered the Lyc^e. The stringent police pre- \ncautions observed every day during the week were again taken, but barely \ntwenty persons gathered to witness the prisoner\'s appearance. \n\nM. Casimir-Perier, ex-President of France, arrived on foot shortly \nafterward, and was saluted by a crowd in waiting. Then came Colonel \nPicquart, formerly of the Secret Intelligence Bureau of the General Staff. \nHe was greeted with shouts of " Vive Picquart ! " which he smilingly \nacknowledged. \n\nThe curtain rose on the same theatre-like scene as on August 7th. \nThe judges, in uniform, were seated on the stage, behind the dark, cloth- \ncovered table on which, in a row, were kepis with gay-colored plumes and \nheavy gold-lace bands. Every inch of the court was occupied, in expec- \ntation of a sensational scene. \n\n- The session opened with precisely the same formalities as on August \n7th. Dreyfus entered the hall with the same quick, jerky step, and his \nfeatures were pale and rigid as he took a seat upon the platform. Drey- \nfus, on entering the court, saluted the president with the same soldierly \nmien, and Colonel Jouaust returned the salute, and said : \n\n"Sit down, Dreyfus." \n\nThe proceedings opened tamely. Matters began to get tedious as M. \nCasimir-Perier and General Mercier reiterated what had been already \nshown. But this was only the calm before the storm. When the storm \nbroke, it carried every one in court with it into a whirlpool of the wildest \nexcitement. \n\nColonel Jouaust, immediately after the court had settled down to work, \nopened the proceedings by saying to Dreyfus : \n\n\n\n124 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAJ^D \n\n"In January, 1895, the director of the penitentiary of the lie de Ee, \nin the course of duty, searched the clothes you brought from the prison. \nHe found this document in an inside pocket of your waistcoat." \n\nThe president here handed Dreyfus a paper, and asked : \n\n"Do you recognize it as having belonged to you? " \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Yes, Colonel. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Whose was it? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Mine. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Will you tell me how and under what circum- \nstances this document came into your possession ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 It is a document I used during my trial. In order to dis- \ncuss the value of the bordereau I wished to keep it. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 The Military Code gives you the right to have a \ncopy of the documents in your case. This document, therefore, was legiti- \nmately in your possession. Why did you wish to keep it ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 As a souvenir of the text of the bordereau? \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 That was not proper, and, therefore, it was taken \nfrom you. I merely wish to elucidate this point. That will do. \n\nM. de la Eoche-Vernet, a secretary attached to the French Embassy \nat Berlin, was the next witness called. He said he acted as the transmit- \nting agent of the Ministry of War and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in \nthe translation of the Panizzardi despatch, which was a very minute and \ncomplicated matter. Several drafts, he explained, were first made, and \nfinally an official translation was drawn up, which was the same as since \npublished. The original of this despatch was in cipher. It was sent, \nNovember 2, 1894, by Colonel Panizzardi, Italian attach^ in Paris, to the \nItalian Headquarters Staff in Eome. Its true construction, which obviously \nestablishes the innocence of Dreyfus, is : \n\n"If the captain has had no relations with you, it would be well to \ninstruct our Ambassador to avoid the comments of the press. " \n\nThe original has disappeared from the secret dossier. But there exists \na version given by Du Paty de Clam "from memory," which reads: \n\n" Captain Dreyfus arrested. The Minister of War has proof of his \nrelations with Germany. All my precautions are taken." \n\nQuestioned respectively regarding the draft and the translations, he \nsaid they were purely hypothetical, the first only having two words, " Cap- \n\n\n\nGENERAL MERCIER CONFRONTED B^Sl^DREYFUS 125 \n\ntain Dreyfus," of which the translators were really sure, the sense being \nto the effect that Dreyfus had been arrested, and that he had no relations \nwith Germany. \n\nM. Paleologue of the French Foreign Office was then called. \n\nThe net result of the two witnesses\' replies to MM. Labori and Dem- \nange was that never, in any translation, was there any question of rela- \ntions with Germany. \n\nThe next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, formerly President of France. \nHe said : \n\n" Monsieur le President, you ask me to speak the truth and all the \ntruth. I have sworn to do it. I will speak it, without reference, with- \nout reserve, in its entirety. Whatever I may have said in the past, what- \never people may believe and say, which, unfortunately, is not always the \nsame thing, that I alone am aware of incidents and facts which might \nthrow light, and that I have not hitherto said all, justice ought to know \nthat it is false. I will not leave this place without saying all. I intend \nto do this, not because I can add anything useful to what I have already \nsaid, but out of respect to my conscience and the judges and to the opin- \nion of men of good faith. I will not leave this place until I have left an \nunalterable conviction that I know nothing which might throw light on \nthe case, and that I have said all I know." \n\nWhen M. Casimir-Perier took the witness-stand at the first Zola trial, \nhe replied : \n\n"I cannot take oath to tell the whole truth, because I cannot tell it." \n\nThe witness read the text of the despatch received by Count von Mun- \nster-Ledenburg, the German Ambassador at Paris, from Prince Hohenlohe, \nthe German Imperial Chancellor, which the former communicated to M. \nCasimir-Perier during a visit to the Elys^e Palace. It ran : \n\n"His Majesty the Emperor, having every confidence in the loyalty of \nthe President of the Eepublic and the Government of the Eepublic, begs \nyour Excellency to tell M. Casimir-Perier that it is proved the German \nEmbassy was never implicated in the Dreyfus affair. His Majesty hopes \nthe Government of the Eepublic will not hesitate to declare so. Without \na formal declaration, the story which here continues to spread regarding \nthe German Embassy would compromise the position of the representative \nof Germany." \n\n\n\n126 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nM. Casimir-Perier then recounted how he had expressed to the then \nPremier and Minister of War his astonishment and indignation at the \ninterview concerning Dreyfus\'s alleged confession, which Captain Lebrun- \nEenault gave Le, Figaro on the subject of Dreyfus. \n\nThe witness then related the facts in connection with the futile efforts \nof M. Waldeck-Rousseau to prevent the first court-martial from sitting \nbehind closed doors, and said he (the witness) had never received any \nmember of the Dreyfus family. M. Casimir-Perier concluded this part of \nhis statement by raising his voice and speaking very excitedly, saying : \n\n"For the honor of the Chief Magistracy, which I occupied, for the \nhonor of the Republic, I will not allow it to be said that I had exchanged \na word with a captain in the French army accused of treason." \n\nThis statement caused applause in court, which Colonel Jouaust speed- \nily suppressed. \n\nThe ex-President ended his statement by saying : \n\n" I affirm, before this tribunal of a soldiers, that my resignation was \nnot connected with the diplomatic incident concerning Germany. It \npains me not to be able to second the court in the work of justice confided \nto it, for from this place must emerge at last, for the sake of the country, \nreconciliation and peace. I can do no more than tell the truth, the whole \ntruth, and nothing but the truth. As Chief of State, or when a citizen, I \nhave always, in my respect for France, regarded her as free to make a \ndecision as she is herself revered." [Applause, which was quickly sup- \npressed.] \n\nM. Demange then introduced the question of the letter which the \nanti-Dreyfusards asserted Dreyfus wrote to M. Casimir-Perier respecting \nhim. The witness emphatically replied that he had never entered into \nany such engagement, as alleged, and he asked that the letter, which was \npublished by the Eclair of Paris, should be produced in court, and that \nthe whole matter should be cleared up. M. Casimir-Perier ended this \nstatement with a slap of his hand on the rail of the desk. \n\nColonel Jouaust then asked Dreyfus if he had anything to say. \n\nThereupon the prisoner arose and, accompanying his utterances with \ngestures of his right hand, said : \n\n" My words have certainly been distorted, for I have no recollection of \nsuch a letter. The words the former President of the Republic has just \n\n\n\nGENEEAL MERCIER CONFRONTED BY DREYFUS 127 \n\nuttered are exact. I have never, even in my own mind, supposed there \nwas any engagement undertaken by him, and that he had not held thereto. \nI can well understand the indignation of M. Casimir-Perier ; but such an \nidea never crossed my mind. \n\n" Will you allow me to explain ? M. Demange had asked me at the \ntime of the trial, in conveying through M. Waldeck-Eousseau my request \nfor a public trial, that this publicity should only be on condition that the \nquestion of the origin of the documents remained secret. I gave my \nword of honor not to raise this question, and in that I bowed before the \nsuperior interests of my country. In my mind it was with the defence, \nand not with the President of the Eepublic, that the word of honor was \ngiven. I never had an idea that an engagement was made between the \nPresident and myself. Never ! Never ! Never ! " \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Then you declare false these letters in which it is \nsaid that the President of the Eepublic entered into certain engagements \nwith you? \n\nDreyfus replied: \n\n"In any case, the sense has been completely distorted." \n\nM. Casimir-Perier gave his evidence with a blanched face, but in the \ndetermined tone of a man who maintains every word uttered, which in- \nspired confidence in his words. The members of the court-martial listened \nto him respectfully. \n\nGeneral Mercier, who was attired in the undress uniform of a general \n\xe2\x80\x94 black tunic and red trousers \xe2\x80\x94 and wore on his breast the decoration of \na Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, was then called to the stand. As \nhe sat down he placed a brilliant crimson and gold k^pi on a shelf at- \ntached to the witness rail, where it remained, a striking patch of color, dur- \ning the time he gave his testimony, which lasted from 8:10 a.m. until \nnoon. Beside his k^pi he placed a black leather wallet full of papers, \nand he accompanied his remarks with a continual nodding of the head. \n\nHis forehead was wrinkled, his eyebrows were contracted, and his eyes \npeered through slits between his puffy eyelids. His cheeks were sallow, \nand he spoke almost inaudibly and in a weak, monotonous pitch of voice, \nwhich produced a soporific effect upon those who were not able to distin- \nguish his words, but who were within hearing of his voice. This mono- \nlogue, with hardly a break, except when the clerk read the various docu- \n\n\n\n128 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nments Mercier presented to the court, lasted nearly four hours, with ten \nminutes\' suspension at eleven o\'clock, when there was a general feeling \nthat the witness was going to prove, as the Dreyfusards predicted, an utter \nfiasco. \n\nAt the outset of General Mercier\' s testimony he prepared the court for \na war scare by declaring that the Emperor of Germany porsonally took an \nactive part in organizing espionage ; and then, later, when he defended his \naction in communicating the secret dossier to the court-martial of 1894, \nhe said : \n\n" I no longer have reason to keep silent, and I am going to accomplish \nwhat I consider my duty. In 1894 the diplomatic situation was perilous. \nM. Hanotaux (then Minister of Foreign Affairs) had indicated this. M. \nCasimir-Perier had spoken before the Criminal Chamber about the unusual \nstep taken by Count von Munster. He also exposed the somewhat unusual \nway by which he could double himself into an official personage and a pri- \nvate personage, later giving Count von Munster information that was at \nfirst refused him. \n\n" But M. Casimir-Perier amended his deposition, saying he had not \nsaid that the same day M. Dupuy and myself remained from 8 in the \nevening until 12 :30 o\'clock in his private office at the Elys^e awaiting the \nresult of telegraphic communications between the Emperor of Germany \nand Count von Munster. We remained four hours and a half waiting to \nsee whether peace or war would result from the exchange of programs." \n\nHere M. Casimir-Perier shook his head and hand in emphatic denial \nof General Mercier\'s statement. \n\nGeneral Mercier continued : \n\n" I had been warned during the afternoon that the situation was very \ngrave. Count von Munster had an order from his sovereign to ask for \nhis passports if his demands were not conceded. I was prepared to give \nthe order for mobilization. You see, we were within an ace of war. It \nwas only at 12:30 that M. Casimir-Perier notified me that Count von \nMunster had accepted the insertion of a somewhat vague note declaring \nthe Ambassador was not involved." \n\nM. Casimir-Perier here again made a repudiating gesture, and General \nMercier continued to explain that this was the reason for his action re- \ngarding the secret dossier. \n\n\n\nGENERAL MERCIER CONFRONTED BY DREYFUS 129 \n\nWhile he was under examination, General Mercier asked Colonel Jou- \naust to allow him to present a document showing how an espionage sys- \ntem was organized in France by Colonel von Schwartzkoppen, the former \nGerman military attach^ at Paris. The document referred to the fortifi- \ncations of the Meuse. General Mercier then entered into an explanation \ntending to prove that von Schwartzkoppen was at the head of the German \nespionage in France. The witness afterward had the clerk read the letter \ncontaining the words "Cette canaille de D " (That scoundrel of a \n\nD ). \n\nIn the mean while Dreyfus watched Mercier through his eyeglasses \napparently unmoved. Dreyfus had listened to General Mercier\' s pitiless \narraignment that morning, until he approached the end of his deposition, \nwith sphinx-like rigidity of features, but watching Mercier like a cat \nwatching a mouse. No one would have suspected the volcano slumbering \nwithin Dreyfus, which burst forth when human flesh and blood could \nstand it no longer. The only sign of the smothered fire within was his \nheaving bosom and the parching of his lips and palate, which he occasion- \nally moistened with his tongue. \n\nA casual observer might have missed these indications and have imag- \nined that he was an image cut in stone, with the eyes fixed on Mercier. \nBut, when, at last, his feelings obtained the mastery, and he sprang to his \nfeet and faced his accuser, man to man, and flatly denied the charges, \nalready known, which the general reiterated, one appreciated the depth of \nhis previously suppressed emotions; and Mercier, who, startled, had \njumped to his feet, at the ringing sound of Dreyfus\'s voice, from the chair \nin which he was seated while giving his evidence, recoiled before the ter- \nrible look Dreyfus threw at him, and stood aghast wondering whether the \nprisoner was going to spring upon him. \n\nAt the end of his evidence General Mercier said he believed that \nthe only motive of Dreyfus\'s treason was that Dreyfus had no feeling of \npatriotism. \n\nThis utterance brought forth hisses from the audience, whose blood \nhad been sent up to fever heat by the witness\'s savage attacks on \nDreyfus. \n\nGeneral Mercier, not heeding the hisses, closed by remarking : \n\n" If the least doubt crossed my mind, Messieurs, I would be the first \n\n\n\n130 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nto declare it to you and say before you, to Captain Dreyfus : \' I am mis- \ntaken, but in good faith.\'" \n\nThen Dreyfus electrified the spectators. He jumped to his feet, as \nthough the words had galvanized him into new life, and shouted with a \nvoice which resounded through the hall like a trumpet note : \n\n" That is what you ought to say ! " \n\nThe audience burst into a wild cheer, whereupon the ushers called for \nsilence. \n\nGeneral Mercier then stammered : \n\n" I would come and say : \' Captain Dreyfus, I was mistaken, in good \nfaith, and I come with the same good faith to admit it, and I will do all \nin human power to repair the frightful error.\'" \n\nThe prisoner then shouted : \n\n" Why don\'t you then ? That is your duty ! " \n\nColonel Jouaust and the other members of the court-martial in the \nmean time had risen and seized the two men, while the court rang with \nthe cheers of the spectators. \n\nGeneral Mercier, after a pause, when the excitement had partially \ncalmed, said: \n\n"Well, no. My conviction since 1894 has not suffered the slight- \nest weakening. It is fortified by the deepest study of the dossier, \nand also by the inanity of the means resorted to for the purpose of \nproving the innocence of the condemned man of 1894, in spite of \nthe evidence accumulated and in spite of the millions of money ex- \npended. " \n\nThe witness referred to the famous "syndicate," which Scheurer-Kest- \nner and Zola were accused of fathering. \n\n"There is a syndicate," wrote Zola at the time; "it is composed of all \nhonest and intelligent persons throughout the civilized world, who have \ngiven careful study to this case, who believe in elementary justice, in law, \nand in the rules of evidence." \n\nColonel Jouaust then said : " Have you finished ? " \n\nGeneral Mercier replied : " Yes. " \n\nGeneral Mercier, when he had finished his testimony, according to gen- \neral opinion had said really nothing, and had proved nothing. The over- \nwhelming proofs he was to have thrown down before the members of the \n\n\n\nGENERAL MERCIER CONFEONTED BY DREYFUS 131 \n\ncourt-martial like a bombshell failed to appear, and he left the court dis- \ncredited. \n\nMercier had played the well-worn war scare, but the effect must have \nbeen very discouraging to him, for his hearers listened, without stirring a \nmuscle, to his story of how France was on the threshold of a war with \nGermany. \n\nColonel Jouaust then announced that the sessions of the court-martial \nwould be resumed August 14th. \n\nM. Casimir-Perier thereupon arose and said : \n\n" After the deposition of General Mercier I shall ask the court to hear \nme, and I would prefer it to be in confrontation with him." \n\nThis announcement caused a sensation. Then followed a thrilling \ndemonstration against General Mercier. As he turned to leave the court \nthe audience rose en masse and hissed and cursed him, those at the back \nof the court standing on chairs and benches in order better to hound him \ndown. The gendarmes placed themselves between the general and the \naudience, which showed a strong disposition to maltreat the former Min- \nister of War. Though the general was cheered by the crowd outside the \ncourt-room on his departure from the Lyc^e, none of them had witnessed \nthe scene in court or listened to Mercier\'s weak brief. Moreover, the \ninhabitants of Eennes have always been anti-Drey fusard. Counter-shouts \nof " Vive la E^publique ! " and " Vive la Justice ! " were raised by those on \nboth sides. The gendarmes, however, cleared the streets, and the crowd \nquietly dispersed. \n\n\n\n132 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XIX, \nATTEMPT TO MURDER M. LABORI \n\nA COWAEDLY attempt to assassinate Maitre Labori, leading counsel \nfor the defence of Dreyfus, was made on Monday, August 14th. \n\nThe sitting of the court-martial that was pending seemed big with \nemotion. M. Casimir-Perier was to be confronted with General Mercier, \nand all looked forward with impatience to the moment when the great \nadvocate M. Labori, who had revealed himself at the Zola trial as per- \nhaps the most expert and formidable cross-examiner of the French bar, \nwas to exercise his incomparable intellect against the mysterious general \nwhose action in 1894 precipitated upon his country such a host of woes. \n\nFive minutes, ten minutes went by. M. Demange was in his place, \nbut the chair of his colleague was still vacant. This absence was strange, \nand was generally commented upon. \n\nHitherto M. Labori had been very punctual. But he must be merely \ndelayed at his house, it was thought. He might have slept late, or he \nwas collecting his notes. However, conjectures were cut short by the \nentrance of the judges, and Colonel Jouaust, after introducing Dreyfus, \nasked attention for a few words on the unseemly demonstrations of which \nthe court- room on August 12th was the scene. He would not tolerate, \nhe declared, manifestations of any sort; if need be, he would expel the \ndisturbers of the peace, or even clear the hall. \n\n"If," he continued, "we have given a large space to the journalists, \nit is in order that as large a number as possible of readers may follow the \ndiscussions here, which, however, arouse perhaps too much interest in the \npublic. I hope I shall not be obliged to take action against the press. " \n\nIt was noted then that for the first time the hall contained a number \nof gendarmes distributed along the benches. The measure seemed natural \nenough. The intervention of the president had been anticipated, and was \ngenerally approved. \n\n\n\nATTEMPT TO MURDER M. LABORI 133 \n\nYet still M. Labori did not come. \n\nSuddenly there was a hubbub at the entrance door. The tall form of \nM. Taunay, of the judicial police, was seen clambering upon a bench, and \nthen this announcement rang through the court : \n\n"Quick; a doctor! M. Labori is wounded." \n\nIt was like a pistol-shot in the court itself. \n\nThe faces of half the audience became white with consternation. \n\nSeveral persons rushed out, among them doctors and surgeons who \nwere present. One of them was M. Paul Eeclus. \n\nEvery one looked at his neighbor in dismay. Cries of " Ah ! les mis- \narables ! " and other expressions of the general emotion arose all about the \ncourt. \n\nAnd then, in the midst of the general distress, M. Demange rose in \nhis place and said: \n\n" Monsieur le President, painful news has just been spread abroad. \nIt is said that my colleague M. Labori has been wounded." Colonel \nJouaust replied, "It is deeply regrettable," while M. Demange went on to \nask that the sitting should be suspended pending further information. \n\nIt was just on the stroke of seven o\'clock. The excitement at this \nmoment was extreme. It was a difficult thing to scrutinize the heart, but, \nif any of the ordinary outward signs of human feeling are true indications \nof the inner workings of the soul, there were not two-score persons in that \nhall who were not profoundly shocked by the news which had just rung \nthrough the house. \n\nM. Labori, who had the day before received two letters threatening to \nkill him, but who had paid as little heed to them as to the scores of oth- \ners which he had received during the last two years, left his house during \nthe morning of August 14th, at six o\'clock, alone, his wife, who attends \nall the sittings of the court, intending to follow him a few moments later. \nOn the way he met Colonel Picquart and M. Gast, the Colonel\'s cou- \nsin. The three had passed the bridge of La Barbotiere, and, leaving the \ntow-path, had arrived on the Quai Eichemont near the bridge across the \nVilaine, when a pistol shot was heard behind them, and M. Labori, ut- \ntering the familiar French ejaculation, " Oh, la la ! " tottered and fell. \n\nHe had received a bullet in the back. \n\nThe details which follow were obtained from Colonel Picquart and M. \n\n\n\n134 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nGast. Their first thought was for their companion. A few moments were \ntherefore lost in assisting Maitre Labori. Moreover, neither Colonel Pic- \nquart nor his friend was armed. With a scrupulous correctness intelligi- \nble enough at a moment when the slightest violation of the laws of the \nland might entail the most serious inconveniences, but with a loyalty which \nthe present event has proved to be Quixotic, and which they profoundly \nregret at this hour, they were without revolvers, in spite of the threaten- \ning letters which the colonel has never ceased to receive for many months. \nHad they been armed they might have easily killed the assailant. \n\nThe would-be murderer, darting off at full speed, had, however, already \nput one hundred yards between himself and his victim. Yet as soon as \nMaitre Labori had been laid out on the pavement both his companions \nstarted in pursuit. There were workingmen, early risers, near by, who \nheard the shot and could help to identify him, but not one of them made \nthe slightest effort to capture him. M. Gast is a solid, somewhat heavily \nbuilt man, who soon found pursuit futile, and even Colonel Picquart, al- \nthough he is more active, and although, in M. Cast\'s words, he " ran like \na deer," had to abandon the chase. \n\nThe assailant had dashed along the river unarrested by the slightest \nobstacle, human or other, until he met on the banks of the Vilaine a com- \npany of workingmen unloading a barge. Seeing a man running toward \nthem, and hearing the cries of " Assassin ! " which had followed him from \nafar, they sought to capture him. But aiming his revolver he cried: \n\n"Leave me alone! I have just killed Dreyfus." \n\nIt was an "open sesame," and the man rushed on and gained the open \nfields, making in the direction of Chateaugiron. The forest of Rennes lay \nthere across country rich in lurking-places, a far finer refuge for a hunted \ncriminal than the clear spaces of the little wood where, in Zola\'s novel, \n"Paris," the Anarchist Sal vat is surrounded and tracked by the police. \n\nThe would-be assassin, who, according to the impression of Colonel \nPicquart, was not yet thirty, was described as red-haired ; he wore a short \nblack coat and a sort of round, white skull-cap, capable, however. Colonel \nPicquart said, of being rolled down like a turban upon the brow and ears. \nHe sped on into the country, finally followed by no one, left fairly to him- \nself to choose his lair. \n\nColonel Picquart, who had given up the pursuit and returned to his \n\n\n\nATTEMPT TO MUEDER M. LABORI 135 \n\nfriend, found Maitre Labori still lying on the pavement; but his wife had \narrived, and she was holding his head and shoulders on her knees, while \nwith a little Japanese fan, hastily snatched up as she had left the house, \nshe fanned the handsome, pallid face of her husband. \n\nA half -hour passed before a shutter was brought, and it was almost as \nlong before a doctor arrived. Four soldiers had been ordered to the spot \nwith the shutter to transport Maitre Labori to his house. He had not \nlost consciousness, and he spoke to his wife of the trial, urging her imme- \ndiately to inform the court and to have the proceedings interrupted. \n\nWhen, at the suspension of the sitting, Maitre Demange drove to the \nhouse, he found his friend still partially stunned, but not in pain. \n\n" Mon vieux," said Maitre Labori to his colleague ,"je vais peut-etre en \ncrever, mais Dreyfus est sauvS. " (" Old man, I shall perhaps die from it, \nbut Dreyfus is saved ! ") \n\nThe wound was at first thought to be fatal. It was feared that the \nbullet had perforated a lung and in its passage perhaps affected the spinal \ncord. Later, more accurate details were known. The bullet entered the \nback a little to the right of the backbone, on a level with the fifth or \nsixth rib. The state of the wound for the moment prevented surgical \nsearch for the bullet. \n\nMaitre Labori had only just recovered from typhoid fever, during \nwhich he was for a time in a critical state. His ardent, nervous, high- \nstrung organism, wrought up as it was to a pitch of terrible tension by his \nanxieties over work in the Dreyfus affair, was in an extremely unsatisfac- \ntory condition for combating this fresh shock. \n\nThe worst news would have surprised nobody at Eennes. M. Wal- \ndeck-Eousseau, and the Minister of Justice, and the whole world had to \nwait forty-eight hours at least for any certainty as to his real condition, \nand then, to the intense relief of all right-minded men, the doctors an- \nnounced that the wound was not mortal. \n\nThere was a terribly suggestive timeliness in that crime, and the course \ntaken by the day\'s proceedings threw this fact into the light with over- \nwhelming force. \n\nWere the fates combining against Dreyfus they could not have armed \namong mortals a more efficient agent of their designs than the still un- \nknown man who shot Maitre Labori in the early hours of the morning, as \n\n\n\n136 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nhe was making for the court-room himself to endeavor to riddle with \nshot and shatter with his invective and irony and scorn the last argu- \nments of the public accuser Mercier. \n\nIt was a master-stroke. The one man indispensable was suddenly \nthrown hors de combat just at the moment when most was expected of \nhim. \n\nWith Maitre Labori absent the bottom seemed to have dropped out of \nthe defence. \n\nThe examination of General Mercier which took place the same day \nwas one of the weakest exhibitions of forensic ingenuity and presence of \nmind which it was possible to conceive. The witnesses, General Mercier, \nM. Cavaignac, General Billot, and the rest, had held the floor as did the \nofficers their predecessors in the trial of 1894. M. Cavaignac delivered \nhimself of an impassioned diatribe quite as if he were at the tribune of the \nchamber. The prisoner was left almost without defence. \n\nMaitre Demange was, no doubt, a great lawyer, and it may well be \nbelieved that he was under the impression of the terrible event of that \nmorning. But his whole conception of his role seemed to be to reply to \nDreyfus\' s adversaries en hloc in a final address to the court. But he did \nnot possess the qualities of Maitre Labori \xe2\x80\x94 his astonishing readiness in \nrepartee, his quick-wittedness in general, his admirable enthusiasm, his \ncourage, his range of eloquence, his unrivalled knowledge of the case, and, \nabove all, his simply incomparable powers of cross-examination. \n\nThe formal, old-style methods of Maitre Demange stood him in sad \nstead. It was the great day, the critical moment. It was the day dreaded \nby all the adversaries of Dreyfus ; the day to which General Mercier and \nM. Cavaignac had looked forward with consternation. They had found \nin this terriblb tragedy, by the initiation and intervention of no ono knows \nwhat influence, that deus ex machina which in the old drama solves prob- \nlems with a timeliness that has become proverbial. And then, to cap all, \nthe general called on Maitre Labori to proffer his sympathy. \n\nThe Nationalist Deputy for Eennes. M. le H^riss^, signed the same \nday the following proclamation as Mayor of Eennes: \n\n"Dear fellow- citizens : An abominabla outrage, the author of which \ncannot claim to represent any party, has just dishonored our dear city of \nEennes. You will not allow yourselves to be affected by an act of mad- \n\n\n\nATTEMPT TO MURDER M. LABORI 137 \n\nness which can only serve the interests of the enemies of the work of jus- \ntice and truth which, with their patriotism and their robust good sense, \nthe members of the court-martial are called upon to accomplish. Resist \nprovocations from whatever quarter, preserve that dignified calm which \nyou have all along maintained. You will thus have deserved well of \nFrance and of the Republic, and served the good name of our old Breton \ntown." \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, Colonel Jouaust, and M. Gasimir-Perier called on \nMaitre Labori to know how he was getting on. \n\nSeveral journalists said to have associations with the persons arrested \nin Paris, among them a member of the staff of M. Gassagnac\'s paper, \nL Autorite, were arrested at Eennes. \n\nMaitre Labori is young, fair, handsome, and full of lusty life and high \nspirits. His talents as a speaker are not of the highest order; but no \nother member of the Paris bar knows better how to use law to defeat its \nobject. He can drive a motor car through the Gode. Until he pleaded \nfor Zola his luck was uninterrupted. He then had an attack of typhoid \nfever, which greatly weakened him and forced him to neglect business. \nThe Zola affair was a great advertisement, but it brought him no direct \nprofit and created for him endless enemies. He refused the handsome fee \nthe novelist offered ; nor does he accept pecuniary reward from Dreyfus. \n\nLabori is proud of his wife\'s beauty. She is equally proud of his good \nlooks and forensic talents, and loses no opportunity to hear him plead. \nShe is an Australian, and received her education as a pianiste in London. \nShe became a player at concerts and made the acquaintance of the de- \nformed but highly gifted Russian pianist, Pachmann, married him, had two \nchildren, and then fell in love with Labori. The passion was mutual. \nShe and Pachmann were divorced, and then she married Labori. The chil- \ndren live with her and find a devoted stepfather in him. \n\nMadame Labori had attended all the public sittings of the Rennes \ncourt-martial. Her beauty is beyond dispute. She is a striking blonde, \nand, though her path has not been always strewn with roses, she expresses \nthe joy of life in splendid health and a satisfied heart. \n\n\n\n138 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXX. \n\nEX-PRESIDENT AND FORMER WAR MINISTER CLASH \n\nThe shooting of Maitre Labori took all the life out of the session of the \ncourt-martial, August 14th. \n\nOn the opening of the court, Maitre Demange in a few words ofi&cially \ninformed Colonel Jouaust of the attack on Maitre Labori, and requested a \nsuspension of the sitting, to which Colonel Jouaust unhesitatingly agreed, \nadjoining the court until 7:15 o\'clock. \n\nDreyfus must undoubtedly have been profoundly moved by the attack \non his champion, who for aU he knew might be dead or dying, yet the \nprisoner maintained the same immovability as hitherto, and did not give \nthe slightest indication of his emotions. \n\nIn the course of the short suspension of the proceedings M. Jaures, \nthe Socialist leader, who was in court, remarked that the arrests made in \nParis for rioting the previous day had for their sole object to forestall a \nSt. Bartholomew\'s massacre of the Dreyfusards, and that the attempted \nmurder of M. Labori was one of the acts of the projected massacre. \n\nOthers in the audience engaged in violent altercations over the at- \ntempted murder. M. Mercier, editor of the Gaulois, expressed the opin- \nion that all the newspapers ought to regard themselves as responsible for \nthe outrage, whereupon Mme. Severine loudly protested, saying : \n\n" No ; it is you who ought to be held responsible for what has hap- \npened?" \n\nThe clamor finally became so violent that gendarmes were forced to \nseparate the combatants and take away the tickets of all those present. \n\nOn the resumption of the sitting. Colonel Jouaust referred to the out- \nrage, and declared he was personally deeply moved. \n\nMaitre Demange announced that, though his colleague\'s wound was \nnot so serious as at first supposed, it would be impossible for Maitre La- \nbori to participate in the proceedings. \n\n\n\nEX-PEESIDENT AND FOEMER WAR MINISTER CLASH 139 \n\nGeneral Mercier was then confronted with M. Casimir-Perier, the \nformer President of France. The latter declared that Mercier\'s story, told \non the witness-stand on August 12th, of the imminence of war between \nGermany and France in 1894, was grossly exaggerated, and complained of \nMercier\'s action in moving 60,000 troops to the frontier without consult- \ning him. \n\nWhen General Mercier was recalled in reply to the president of the \ncourt, he reiterated his belief that Major Count Esterhazy, in spite of \nthe latter\'s own declaration, was not the author of the bordereau, which \nthe witness claimed was written on tracing paper, and was found in an \nembassy. \n\nM. Casimir-Perier was then called to the witness stand, but the \nthoughts of every one in court were directed to the outrage on Maitre \nLabori, and the evidence was followed listlessly. Moreover, Maitre La- \nbori was not there to kindle the hidden fires in both men, and they, \nin addition, were weighed down by the tragedy which had just oc- \ncurred. \n\nAs it had been M. Labori\'s intention to take General Mercier in hand, \nM. Demange, associate counsel, was quite unprepared for the task; the \nfew questions the latter put were practically of little effect, and General \nMercier escaped cheaply. M. Demange also was deeply affected by the \nattempt to assassinate his colleague, and was quite unable to do himself \njustice. \n\nThe president of the court asked M. Casimir-Perier to explain the cir- \ncumstances of the confession Dreyfus is alleged to have made to Captain \nLebrun-Renault. M. Casimir-Perier persisted in his statement of August \n12th, that he had never received any confidences of this character from \nCaptain Lebrim-Eenault. He added that M. Dupuy, the then Premier, \nwas present when Captain Lebrun-Renault called at the Elysee, Paris. \n"Moreover," said M. Casimir-Perier, "here is a letter from M. Dupuy, \nwhich I ask may be read." \n\nThe letter asserted that Captain Lebrun-Renault, when questioned by \nM. Dupuy, replied that General Mercier had sent him to the President to \nreceive a dressing-down for his indiscreet disclosures to the Figaro. \n\nGeneral Mercier here interposed, saying : \n\n" Captain Lebrun-Renault spoke to mQ in regard to the confessions in \n\n\n\n140 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAI^D \n\nthe presence of General Gonse, who will testify thereto. It was then that \nI ordered him to go to the President of the Eepublic." \n\nEegarding General Mercier\'s declaration on August 12th, on the wit- \nness stand, M. Casimir-Perier said : \n\n" General Mercier had no right whatever to intervene in a diplomatic \nconversation. I would have prevented such interference. It was I alone \nwho conferred with the minister, and I declare that the impression I \nderived from that conversation was one of complete calm, otherwise the \nincident would not have been closed by the framing of a note. We had \nno telegram from Berlin that evening. If there had been any news in re- \ngard to the matter on the evening of the 6th, we should not have waited \nuntil the 8th to publish the note. There was not a despatch addressed to \na friendly power relative to the incident. The incident has been magni- \nfied. Besides, in the event of diplomatic complications, the president \nwould have communicated with the Minister of Foreign Affairs." \n\nGeneral Mercier replied that he went to the Elys^e Palace as Minister \nof War. He said General de Boisdeffre could testify in regard to the or- \nders received. \n\nM. Demange seized upon this declaration and insisted that General \nMercier repeat the statement that he had given orders to General de Bois- \ndeffre on the 6th, relative to mobilization. \n\nGeneral de BoisdefPre was actually out of Paris on January 6, 1895, \nfor on that day General Gonse wrote him to inform him of Lebrun- \nEenault\'s tale about Dreyfus\'s alleged confession. \n\nM. Casimir-Perier, resuming his testimony, said he did not desire to \nreply to certain of General Mercier\'s insinuations. \n\n"I do not wish to answer them," said the witness; "the circumstances \nare too sad and too tragic for me to desire to envenom the discussion. I \nam master of myself and of my conscience. I would only state that Gen- \neral Mercier has made every effort to mix me as deeply as possible in this \naffair. But I have remained aloof." \n\nThe former President then complained of the incorrect behavior of his \nsubordinate toward the chief of the state. "As an instance," he said, \n" General Mercier undertook to shorten the term of service of 60,000 men \nwithout consulting me, thus lacking in the respect he owed to the chief of \nthe state." \n\n\n\nEX-PRESIDENT AND FORMER WAR MINISTER CLASH 141 \n\nM. Casimir-Perier next protested against the assertions made by Gen- \neral Mercier in regard to the role adopted by the chief of the state in this \naffair, whereupon the general interjected the statement that he had spoken \nof the attitude assumed by M. Casimir-Perier, because he had sworn to \ntell the whole truth. \n\nM. Demange asked General Mercier if he had explained to the Cabinet \nhow he reconciled the relations of cause and effect, and the patriotic emo- \ntion aroused by the treason with the communication of the secret docu- \nments to the court-martial. \n\nThe general, in reply, repeated his statement of August 12th, as his \nhypothesis of the situation. \n\nCounsel asked General Mercier why the explanations of the secret \ndossier were not included in the dossier relating to the revision. \n\nThe general replied that he considered these explanations were given \nfor his personal use, and that was why he destroyed the document. \n\nAt this M. Demange expressed a sense of astonishment, and asked \nGeneral Mercier if he did not have reasons for suppressing the docu- \nment. \n\nThe witness repudiated the suggestion. \n\nDreyfus at this point rose from his seat and asked leave to explain in \nregard to the assertion that he had traced on a card the itinerary of a cer- \ntain journey of the General Staff. Both the itinerary and journey, he \nasserted, were purely fictitious. \n\nGeneral Billot, former Minister of War, was the next witness. He \nwas in uniform, sat with crossed legs, and gave his evidence in a conver- \nsational manner. Like everybody else, he added, he had some knowledge \nof the Dreyfus affair before taking the war portfolio. While feeling deeply \non the subject, he remained aloof from the matter until he returned to the \nCabinet. In the early days of his ministry, the witness continued, M. \nScheurer-Kestner (a former vice-president of the Senate) asked him whether \nhe ought not to investigate the Dreyfus affair. M. Scheurer-Kestner, the \ngeneral pointed out, had made similar representations to M. de Freycinet, \nand received the same reply from both, that neither of them was very \nconversant with the affair. \n\nGeneral Billot dwelt at length upon the action taken by M. Scheurer- \nKestner, to whom he said he recommended prudence. M. Scheurer-Kest- \n\n\n\n142 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nner finally communicated to General Billot his conviction of the innocence \nof Dreyfus, but the general found the evidence insufficient, and asked him \nto investigate the matter further. \n\nGeneral Billot then dealt with the role of Colonel Picquart, whom, he \nsaid, he holds in the highest esteem. "He is intelligent," said the wit- \nness, "and gave me valuable information about the organization of a \nneighboring army and its artillery. This information showed the neces- \nsity of continuing the reforms in our artillery commenced by that great \ninitiator, General Mercier." \n\n"I, who am neither an engineer nor an expert in handwriting," added \nGeneral Billot, "saw the grand work he accomplished in that direction." \n\nAfter this General Billot referred to Colonel Picquart\' s proposition to \nentrap Esterhazy, whom he suspected, but General Billot forbade this. \nHe added that Colonel Picquart always acted without authorization. \n\nThe former Minister of War next referred to the eminent service \nwhich Colonel Picquart rendered to the army, leading to his being entrusted \nwith a " confidential mission to the East and afterward to Tunis. " He \nenergetically protested against the allegation that he had desired to send \nColonel Picquart to a place from which he would never return. \n\nM. Demange then invited General Billot to explain the statements of \nMM. Barthou and Poincare, former Cabinet ministers, that the general \nwas once so doubtful of the guilt of Dreyfus that he did not sleep for sev- \neral nights. \n\nGeneral Billot acknowledged that the statements were true. \n\nThere was great sensation when M. Demange mentioned the opinion \nexpressed by M. Barthou that General Billot had been forewarned in re- \ngard to the forgery of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. The general acknowl- \nedged that the Henry forgery was among the factors arousing his doubts. \n\nM. Cavaignac, former Minister of War, then testified. He said he \nwas the first Cabinet minister to assume responsibility for the Dreyfus \naffair. He had closely followed the inquiry of the Court of Cassation, \nand, he continued, still desired to associate himself with the responsibility \nof those who, in 1894, protected the country and the army against treason. \n[Sensation.] \n\nContinuing, the witness said that among the principal points upon \nwhich he based his conviction was the confession to Captain Lebrun- \n\n\n\nEX-PRESIDENT AND EOEMER WAR MINISTER CLASH 143 \n\nRenault, in support of which contention he quoted a passage from an \nalleged letter of Dreyfus, which was in reality part of General Gonse\'s \nreport to the Minister of War on Colonel Du Paty de Clam\'s report of \nthe alleged confession. \n\nThe witness also said he found additional proofs of the prisoner\'s guilt \nin the technical character of the bordereau, and thought the bordereau \nalone established the fact that treason had emanated from the bureau of \nthe General Staff, and from an officer who was able to secure all the in- \nformation desired. \n\nDuring M. Cavaignac\'s arraignment Dreyfus was nervous and agitated. \n\nM. Cavaignac next discussed the denials of Dreyfus, and said his ex- \ncuse of lapse of memory was inadmissible. Dreyfus, he claimed, was \naware of the changes in the Bridge Corps belonging to the artillery, and \nalso of the details of the concentration. Why, then, the witness asked, \nhad he denied this knowledge? \n\nIt was impossible, according to M. Cavaignac, to believe that Ester- \nhazy was a traitor, even admitting that the bordereau was written by him. \nEsterhazy, he insisted, could only have acted as an intermediary or an \naccomplice. \n\nColonel Jouaust asked M. Cavaignac to explain the discovery of the \nHenry forgery, and the witness repeated the statements he had already \nmade on the subject. \n\n"The Henry forgery," replied M. Cavaignac, "as alleged, was in order \nto secure a revision of the case by the Court of Cassation, but was not even \nalluded to. This forgery, therefore, should remain outside the scope of \nthe questions submitted to this court-martial. This is my opinion." \n\nCounsel for the prisoner then questioned M. Cavaignac in regard to his \nstatement that General de Boisdeffre was absent from Paris on November \n6th, when General Mercier declares he was there. The witness replied \nthat General de Boisdeffre was certainly absent on the date. \n\nColonel Jouaust then told Dreyfus to rise, and asked him if he had \nany remarks to make upon the evidence. The prisoner replied : \n\n" I am astounded that the man who produced in the tribunal of the \nChamber the Henry forgery can come here and base his convictions of my \nculpability on matters which the Court of Cassation has already disposed \nof." [Great sensation.] \n\n\n\n144 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nDreyfus did not create a very favorable impression when he made this \nstatement, which was delivered in a declamatory fashion, with his hand on \nhis heart. \n\nThe speech of M. Cavaignac, however, certainly appeared to make an \nimpression on his hearers. \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, also a former Minister of War, was the next wit- \nness. He began by pointing out the obligation resting upon those direct- \ning espionage to do everything possible to save those serving them. He \nthen declared he still regarded the bordereau as being decisive proof of \nthe guilt of Dreyfus, and said it would be impossible for those who \nwere prosecuting Dreyfus to be acting from esprit de corps, as it would \nbe unjust to say they approved the " odious act just committed in the \nvicinity." \n\nGeneral Zurlinden then traversed the old ground, and declared that \nnothing, not even Esterhazy\'s confessions, had occurred to change his \nconvictions. \n\nThe reiteration by Greneral Zurlinden of his belief that Dreyfus wrote \nthe bordereau created a lively excitement. \n\nM. Demange suggested that if Colonel Fabre had not thought of ex- \namining the handwriting of the probationers the bordereau would have \nbeen eternally buried in the archives of the Ministry of War, "and," he \nremarked, " if this is the case, it must be evidenced there was nothing in \nthe bordereau which indicated Dreyfus. " \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, in a troubled voice, acknowledged this fact, and \ntried to explain. M. Demange, however, got General Zurlinden to admit \nthat it was not until after the condemnation that the study of the bor- \ndereau seemed to indicate that it was the work of a probationer. \n\nIn reply to further question. General Zurlinden said that in order to \nknow the whole truth in regard to the bordereau, they must have the four \nnotes therein mentioned. They must be secured. \nAt this point Dreyfus interjected : \n\n" I associate myself with those words. Colonel. I also desire the truth. \nI only ask for the truth." \n\nThese statements caused excitement in court. \n\nGeneral Chanoine, a former Minister of War, next testified. He \nbriefly affirmed his belief in the culpability of the prisoner. \n\n\n\nEX-PEESIDENT AND FORMER WAR MINISTER CLASH 145 \n\nThe appearance of M. Hanotaux, the former Minister of Foreign \nAffairs, who followed, reawakened the interest of the audience. \n\nM. Hanotaux declared he had nothing to add to his evidence given \nbefore the Court of Cassation. He said he never had cognizance, either as \na minister or as a private individual, of any secret dossier. \n\nThe former minister denied the allegation that he had told M. Monod \nhe believed Dreyfus was guilty. He was astounded at M. Monod\'s \nstatement, but the latter was evidently hazy in his mind regarding the \nmatter, as he had given three versions of the conversation. \n\nM. Demange inquired whether M. Hanotaux was aware of the uncer- \ntainties connected with the translation of the telegram, dated November \n2, 1894. \n\nThe former Foreign Minister replied that uncertainty was the rule in \nsuch cases. He was only aware of the one drawn up in the Foreign Office, \nwhich alone was communicated to the War Minister. \n\nThe depositions of General Zurlinden, General Chanoine, and M. Han- \notaux were listened to closely. The mass of evidence was directed against \nDreyfus. The lack of trenchant criticism, owing to the absence of the \ndefence\'s right arm, naturally left an impression unfavorable to the pris- \noner. \n\n10 \n\n\n\n146 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXXI* \n\nTHE PRISONER\'S SUFEERINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThere was no session of the court-martial on August 15th, that being \nAssumption Day. But the trial was resumed on August 16th, Major \nCarriere, the representative of the Government, having refused to agree to \nthe adjournment of the case until August 21st, as asked for by M. De- \nmange and Captain Dreyfus, owing to the murderous attack upon Maitre \nLabori. \n\nThe feature of the day\'s proceedings was the story of the sufferings of \nDreyfus on Devil\'s Island. \n\nM. Gu^rin, the former Minister of Justice, was the first witness. He \nonly repeated the evidence he had given before the Court of Cassation. \n\nEx-Minister Guerin, in reciting his evidence, said that at the end of \nOctober, after a Cabinet council, the Premier invited him to his room, \nwhere General Mercier joined them, and explained that for some time \npast documents had been missing from the Headquarters Staff, and that, \nin consequence of inquiries made, suspicion had attached to Dreyfus. \nGeneral Mercier added that he was convinced Dreyfus was the culprit. \nThe general said he founded his conviction on three facts : \n\nFirst, the bordereau, the author of which was undiscoverable until \nColonel Fabre, on returning from the manoeuvres, immediately after he \nsaw the document, exclaimed: \n\n"Why, it is Dreyfus\'s handwriting." \n\nSecondly, the nature of the documents enumerated in the bordereau, \nin conjunction with Dreyfus\'s employment in the different departments, \nproved exclusively, according to General Mercier, that Dreyfus alone had \ncognizance of all these papers, and he alone could have disclosed them. \n\nThirdly, the dictation test and Dreyfus\'s perturbation at the time. \nThis referred to the dictation given by Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus a few \nmoments before his arrest. \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONEE\'S SUFFERINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 147 \n\nGreneral Mercier, M. Gu^rin then said, in consequence of these con- \nvictions declared his intention to ask the Cabinet to authorize the prose- \ncution of Dreyfus. A special Cabinet meeting was held on November 1, \n1894, to consider the matter. The witness forgot whether M. Casimir- \nPerier or M. Dupuy presided. General Mercier handed the Cabinet noth- \ning but the bordereau. After the Minister of War had related his reasons \nfor his suspicions, the Cabinet unanimously authorized the prosecution of \nDreyfus. \n\nM. Hanotaux alone made some reserves or diplomatic objections, based \non the place where the document was found. But it was agreed that, in \nthe event of court-martialling Dreyfus, measures should be taken to pre- \nvent mention of the name of any power. \n\nFrom that day the witness had learned nothing whatever of the case, \npersonally, as it was in the hands of the military authorities. M. Gu^rin, \nat that time, had never heard of the secret documents, and none was ever \ncommunicated to the Cabinet. He only first knew during the Zola trial \nof the existence of the alleged secret documents, and only learned of the \nalleged confession of Dreyfus to Captain Lebrun-Renault from the news- \npapers. General Mercier never mentioned the confession to the Cabinet. \n\nColonel Jouaust then questioned the witness, saying: \n\n" M. Gobert, an expert, has declared you summoned him to your office \nto give you information about the Dreyfus affair. Do you remember the \noccurrences ? Did he not say, on entering, pointing to the clock : \n\n" \'Monsieur le Ministre de Justice, I fear lest at this hour a grave mis- \ntake is being committed \' ? \n\n"Is it not a fact that you did not reply, but, when M. Gobert was \nleaving, recommended him to observe extreme caution, as the Government \nwas desirous of keeping the treason secret, dreading particularly indiscre- \ntions upon the part of the press, and, above all, upon the part of the Libre \nParole, as the suspected officer was a Jew ? " \n\nM. Guerin replied : \n\n" I cannot affirm whether or not I received M. Gobert, but what I can \naffirm is that if he came I did not employ the language mentioned, and \nI made none of the statements he attributes to me." \n\nM. Lebon, the former Minister of the Colonies, then testified in jus- \ntification of his instructions to treat Dreyfus rigorously, declaring that the \n\n\n\n148 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nextreme stringency only dated from the time he thought an attempt would \nbe made to rescue the prisoner. \n\nM. Lebon, in testifying regarding his treatment of the prisoner, said \nthat when the Cabinet was asked to intervene in favor of a revision he \nthought the executive should not interfere with the judiciary. \n\n"On my soul and conscience," declared M. Lebon dramatically, "I \n\nA \n\nsay I regard the measures I took relative to the prisoner on the He du \nDiable as warranted, and if I had to repeat them I would not hesitate." \n\nHe admitted that on October 6, 1896, Dreyfus was put in irons and \nkept in them for two months. At night a lamp was lighted over his head \nthat the jailer might watch the expression of his face. Myriads of tropi- \ncal insects were thus attracted, which nearly drove the prisoner insane. \nWhen Dreyfus learned that he was placed in irons he wrote to the com- \nmandant of the lies du Salut penitentiary, in which he said, among other \nthings : \n\n" I would be grateful to you to let me know of what fault I have been \nguilty since I have been here. I thought I had conformed rigorously to \nall the rules. I carried out every order to the letter." \n\nM. Lebon then explained the reasons for the rigorous measures \nagainst Dreyfus as already set forth in an earlier chapter. He said a cer- \ntain telegram sent to French Guiana disappeared. It was traced out of \nFrance, but immediately it reached the English lines it disappeared, \nshowing, the witness said, that efforts were being made to enable the pris- \noner to evade the regulations. Rigorous, even painful, measures were \ntherefore taken to prevent his escape. M. Lebon therefore issued orders \nthat, if necessary, the prisoner was to be fired upon. \n\nIn October, 1896, a sham attempt was made by the officials of the \nGuiana police to rescue Dreyfus. When their boat reached the He du \nDiable a loud noise was made. Dreyfus awoke. His jailor immediately \nlevelled his revolver at the prisoner\'s head. Dreyfus turned his face to \nthe wall and lay very still. \n\nContinuing, M. Lebon said he also issued orders that only copies of \nthe letters addressed to the prisoners should be delivered to him, the orig- \ninals being retained. The witness was informed, August 19th, that an \nAmerican vessel passed the lies du Salut, and orders were then issued \nthat Dreyfus was to be shot on the slightest alarm. \n\n\n\nTHE PEISONER\'S SUFFEEINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 149 \n\nKefening to the Weyler forgery, M. Lebon said he frankly admitted \nthat he believed in its authenticity, as did Colonel Picquart, until long \nafter its production. M. Lebon next referred to the numerous rough \ndrafts the prisoner made of his letters before finally dispatching them. \n\nAt this point, M. Demange interrupted the witness and said : \n\n" I pass from a surprise to surprise. August 14th, it was a witness \nplaying the part of prosecutor. To-day, one witness defends himself by \nsaying his conscience is tranquil. He is welcome to a tranquil con- \nscience. But ask him if he finds it surprising that this man, alone out \nthere, on a lost island, should have poured out his soul on paper? I ask \nagain, why you allowed the forged Weyler letter, in which a handwriting \nwas indicated, to reach Dreyfus ? " \n\nTo this M. Lebon replied : \n\n" We could not give up the original. But, the idea never occurred to \nany agents of the Administration to subject Dreyfus to the savage and \natrocious treatment which has been spoken of." \n\nColonel Jouaust, addressing Dreyfus, asked : \n\n"Did you receive the letter just referred to? " \n\nDreyfus replied: \n\n"Yes, Colonel." \n\n" What impression did it make on you ? " \n\n"I understood nothing of what it contained," answered the prisoner. \n\nAt this juncture some time was occupied in reading a long report from \nthe Minister of the Colonies to the Minister of War, giving the various \nreports of the governor of French Guiana. Passages describing the dread \nthe prisoner expressed to the doctors when he feared he was losing his \nreason caused an immense impression. Tears were even seen to glisten in \nthe eyes of General Billot, the former Minister of War. \n\nAt the conclusion of the report, M. Lebon asked leave to explain. He \nsaid : \n\n" I do not dispute the accuracy of the report, but it is partial. Eefer- \nence has been most carefully made to the precarious health of the pris- \noner. But the doctor never made a communication to me on the subject. \nI do not hesitate to say that if he had done so I should have given orders \nto have the prisoner treated as all invalids should be treated. It is with \ndeliberate intent that I have been represented as an executioner. " \n\n\n\n150 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAlfD \n\nColonel Jouaust, turning to Dreyfus, then remarked : \n\n"Have you anything to say in regard to this deposition? " \n\nThen the prisoner made vehement reply that he was not there to \n\ncomplain, saying: \n\n" No, Colonel. I am here to defend my honor. I do not wish to \n\nspeak here of the atrocious sufferings, physical and moral, which, for five \n\nyears, I, a Frenchman and an innocent man, was subjected to on the lie \n\nduDiable." \n\nThese remarks of Dreyfus caused intense excitement in court. The \n\nprisoner uttered the words in a loud voice and with tremendous energy. \nM. Demange asked that the official report of the treatment of .Drey- \n\nA \n\nfus on the He du Diable should be read. The clerk of the court did so, \nand in a sympathetic tone, recounted the harrowing tale of Dreyfus\'s \nmental and physical sufferings and inhuman treatment, as already pic- \ntured in a previous chapter. \n\nDeep-drawn breaths of indignation came from the hearers as the read- \ning proceeded. Dreyfus at first watched the faces of the judges with his \nusual composure ; but gradually, as the story proceeded and incidents of \nhis awful existence were brought up before him, his eyes grew dim and \ntears glistened in them, and then slowly trickled down his cheeks. Drey- \nfus could stand it no longer, and, for the first time during his trial, gave \nway to such emotions and silently wept. The faces of those in the audi- \nence expressed sympathy with the prisoner\'s emotion, and even the cap- \ntain of gendarmes sitting beside Dreyfus turned and gave him a look of \nunconcealed compassion. \n\nGeneral Mercier, who, with M. Lebon, was seated in the front row of \nthe witnesses\' seats, listened to the reading of the report unmoved, while \nColonel Jouaust followed it with an air of bored tolerance. \n\nM. Lebon afterward returned to the stand and added a few more words \nin justification of his conduct, and then Colonel Jouaust ordered the next \nwitness to be brought in. All eyes were turned toward the door on the \nright of the stage, and a moment later the form of a woman, dressed in \ndeep mourning, appeared in the doorway, and, accompanied by a non-com- \nmissioned officer, advanced to the platform. It was the widow of Lieu- \ntenant-Colonel Henry, the French officer who committed suicide in prison \nafter confessing to forging certain documents in the case. \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER\'S SUFFERINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 151 \n\nWith pale face, and hand upraised before the crucifix, she took the oath \nto tell the truth. \n\nMadame Henry was of medium height, with a plain cast of features. \nShe at once put herself at ease, leaning forward with both hands resting on \nthe rail of the witness stand. In an attitude of complete self-possession \nshe gave her evidence, accompanying the words with frequent gestures. \n\nIn the course of her deposition, Madame Henry admitted the frequent \nvisits of Esterhazy to her husband, and declared her husband told her he \nhad forged one document " in order to save the honor of the country. " \n\nColonel Jouaust, in addressing Madame Henry, said : \n\n" We thought, Madame, that your life in common with your husband \nhas placed you in a position to give interesting information. I beg you \nto tell the court what you know. " \n\nMadame Henry deposed that toward the end of September, 1894, \nafter dinner one evening, her husband told her a very important paper \nhad been handed him. The witness added : \n\n"As he did not return, I retired about eleven o\'clock, and I asked him, \nwhen he returned, why he was later than usual. He undid a narrow, \ntransparent roll of paper, and said : \n\n"\'There is a serious matter here, which I have been requested to inves- \ntigate this evening.\' \n\n" Shortly afterward he re-entered the room, holding papers and a let- \nter, which he had just pieced together. He placed them aU in his hat, in \norder not to forget them in the morning. He left on horseback, as cus- \ntomary, the following morning, saying he had to see Colonel Sandherr as \nsoon as possible." \n\n" What was his impression on seeing the bordereau ? " asked Colonel \nJouaust. \n\nThe witness replied that he, Colonel Henry, did not know the author \nof it, but said perhaps Colonel Fabre or Colonel d\'Abbeville knew. \n\nContinuing, Madame Henry said: \n\n"When my husband returned from the Cherche-Midi Prison, after \ntaking Dreyfus there, I asked why he was on duty, and he answered : \n\n"\'I have just carried out the most painful task an officer can have. I \nhave taken to the Cherche-Midi an officer accused of the frightful crime \nof treason.\' Without naming Dreyfus, he added: \n\n\n\n152 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" \' I beg you not to speak of it for some time. He is an imf ortunate \n\nfellow.\' " \n\nBefore concluding her testimony, Madame Henry returned to the \nsubject of the forgery. She evidently thought she could exonerate \nher husband by saying that he believed he was justified, in the interests \nof his country, in inserting in the existing dossier new and convinc- \ning material, the proof of which had reached him verbally a few days \nbefore. \n\nIn answer to a question of Colonel Jouaust, Madame Henry declared \nshe did not know the name of the person who had given the information \nto her husband. \n\nGeneral Eoget, in undress uniform, followed. His evidence was a vit- \nriolic diatribe against Dreyfus from beginning to end. He traversed the \nold ground, giving his reasons for his conviction of the guilt of Dreyfus. \nHe declared there was no charge against Esterhazy, with the exception of \nthe resemblance of his handwriting to that of the bordereau. Moreover, \nthe witness added, there had been a new fact since the judgment of the \nCourt of Cassation, namely, Esterhazy \'s confession that he wrote the bor- \ndereau. But, he added, Esterhazy advanced and withdrew his confession \nintermittently. If Esterhazy had rendered services to the Intelligence \nDepartment there would have been traces of them in the books. But \nno money had been paid Esterhazy, though, even supposing he worked \nout of pure benevolence, he would have been paid. Yet there was no \ntrace of such payments. Esterhazy had first confessed that he wrote the \nbordereau by the orders of Colonel Sandherr, to a representative of the \nLondon Observer. The confession was published in that paper on Septem- \nber 25, 1898. Later he made a signed confession; which was published in \nthe Daily Chronicle, of London, and later still he confessed to Le Matin, \nin Paris. It was not the fact of the confession that the Court of Cassation \ndeemed a "new fact," but because Esterhazy possessed paper identical with \nthat on which the bordereau was written, and because his handwriting was \nidentical with that of the bordereau. \n\n"But," declared General Eoget, "I, who knew Colonel Sandherr, will \ndeclare that is false. Colonel Sandherr was absolutely incapable of such \nan order. I add that it is inadmissible, because Colonel Sandherr was the \nlast person to know of the existence of the bordereau, which was received \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER\'S SUFFERINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 153 \n\nin the ordinaiy way. This bordereau was handed to Colonel Henry, and \nwas brought by him to the Intelligence Department. It was shown to \nothers by Colonel Henry after he had pieced it together. Colonel Sand- \nherr only saw it later. \n\n" Esterhazy has also said the document was stolen from an embassy \nand brought by a porter. It is false to say the Intelligence Department \never had any relations with a porter of that embassy. It is possible Es- \nterhazy is preparing some surprises for us between now and the end of the \ntrial. They won\'t disturb me any more than other surprises." \n\nEeferring to the question of the complicity of Henry and Esterhazy, \nthe witness said : \n\n" If Henry had been the accomplice of Esterhazy, how can it be admit- \nted that he himself brought the bordereau, which might have caused him \nto be suspected, to the Intelligence Department? " \n\nGeneral Eoget while testifying constantly turned toward the prisoner \nto see the impression made by his deposition, which was virtually a \nspeech for the prosecution. The general discoursed lengthily on the \nfamous scene with Colonel Henry in the office of M. Bertulus, the exam- \ning magistrate, and said M. Bertulus asked Henry to inform the witness \nthat he, M. Bertulus, was a friend of the army, and begged the witness to \ncall and see him, when he would communicate the result of his investiga- \ntions into the "Blanche" and "Speranza" forgeries. "In reply," said \nGeneral Eoget, " I said : \' When you see M. Bertulus, you will thank him \nin my behalf. Tell him the investigation does not interest me in any \nway.\' I added that I was rather distrustful of this proposal, which I \npointed out was perhaps a trap." \n\nThe general next dealt with the seizure of papers at the house of Mme. \nPays, on which M. Bertulus largely founded his conviction of the guilt \nof Henry, owing to the mention in them of the name of a spy, Eichard \nCuers at Basle, where it was well known spies were in the habit of \nmeeting. \n\nThen the general tried to refute M. Bertulus\'s statements, declaring \nHenry brought three of these documents to the War Office, and that they \ndid not contain the mention of Basle or Cuers as stated by M. Bertulus. \nThe latter, however, had already shown before the whole Court of Cassa- \ntion that, while he was mistaken in saying the words appeared in those \n\n\n\n154 DKEYFUS: THE PRISOI^ER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ndocuments, they did appear in other papers seized at Mme. Pays\'s resi- \ndence. \n\nAt this point the general thought it desirable to make a declaration \nthat he did not desire it to be said that he questioned the good faith of \nsome of the witnesses who had been heard. He added : \n\n" I make this statement so that there shall be no misunderstanding \nand in order that my words be not misinterpreted. Nevertheless, their \ntestimony is open to criticism, even as our utterances are criticised." \n\nContinuing, the witness said : \n\n" M. Casimir-Perier deposed before the Court of Cassation that an am- \nbassador called to demand an ofl&cial denial of the statement that impor- \ntant documents were found at his embassy. The ambassador, however, \nknew it was a fact. But, admitting that he did not know it, there is \nnothing surprising in the occurrence, in view of the facility with which \nAttach^ \'A\' (I do not mention his name, as the minister has forbidden it) \nallowed compromising letters to lie around. I read one such letter which \nwas very compromising to a person whose name I cannot mention. Why, \ntherefore, should not the bordereau go astray ? " \n\nThe general insisted upon the truth of the statements that Military \nAttaches "A" and "B," under which letters he referred to Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen, of the German Embassy, and Major Panizzardi, of the \nItalian Embassy, at the French capital, at the time worked together almost \ndaily, and he quoted a passage from a letter exchanged between them as \nfollows : \n\n" M. Hanotaux, the sly fellow, is glad at the Embassy\'s denying. The \nEmbassy must deny." \n\nIn the same document, declared General Eoget, was a name written \ntwice, and the name, he asserted, was that of Dreyfus. The name of Es- \nterhazy, he added, was not found in any of the documents, none of which \ncould be ascribed to him, with the exception of the petit hleu, "which \nColonel Picquart discovered in such an extraordinary manner." \n\nA certain military attach^, the general said, later informed Colonel \nSandherr that there was some on-^, who imitated his handwriting perfectly. \nThe name of Dubois, the witness further said, was found in the correspon- \ndence of the military attaches. Dubois, the general explained, was a \n" unfortunate " who tried to sell the secret of the smokeless powder used \n\n\n\nTHE PEISONER\'S SUFFERINGS ON DEVIL\'S ISLAND 155 \n\nin the French army. "If," said Gleneral Eoget, "no other person can be \nfound to whom the initial \'D \' can apply, to whom does it then apply ? " \n\nAs he made this remark the witness faced about and looked fixedly at \nthe prisoner, who, however, merely shrugged his shoulders. \n\n"No," continued the general, "the explanations furnished on this point \nby M. Trarieux [former Minister of Justice] troubled me somewhat, but \nI do not insist." \n\nHere Greneral Eoget paused, the excitement under which he was labor- \ning being almost uncontrollable. In a thick, choking voice, he continued : \n\n" And yet in the presence of disinterested testimony like mine, you \nwill not allow preference to be shown to the evidence of persons who have \nbenefited by treason." \n\nAt this point the general broke down and tears streamed down his \ncheeks. \n\nMajor Hartmann, a French artillery expert, had exposed before the \nCourt of Cassation that Dreyfus could not have written the bordereau, be- \ncause there were blunders in the terms used, which Dreyfus, also an ex- \npert artillerist, could not possibly have made. \n\nGeneral Eoget then repeated the old evidence tending to prove that \nDreyfus alone was aware of the secrets of the new artillery guns, of the \nplans for the concentration of troops, and of the contents of the Firing \nManual. He then endeavored to show that Colonel Picquart had recourse \nto fraudulent methods, with the intent of incriminating some one other \nthan Dreyfus, and declared Picquart spent 100,000 francs with the object \nof organizing a campaign of surveillance " of an unfortunate officer who \nwas guiltless." This 100,000 francs, he added, was a reserve accumu- \nlated by Colonel Sandherr, by strict economy, from the funds at the dis- \nposal of the War Office. This reserve had entirely disappeared. \n\nIn response to gestures of contradiction from M. Demange, General \nEoget admitted the figures quoted were perhaps exaggerated. \n\nThe witness next accused Colonel Picquart of suppressing documents \ntending to compromise Dreyfus. \n\nAs the general was evidently greatly fatigued. Colonel Jouaust sug- \ngested that he continue his testimony the following day, August 17th. \nThe colonel then addressed the prisoner, asking him if he had anything to \nsay in reply to General Eoget. \n\n\n\n156 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe prisoner, who, during the time of General Eoget\'s fulmination \nagainst him, had several times made a movement as if to rise and retort, \nbut was waved down by Colonel Jouaust, then rose, and, in that voice \nwhich is not agreeable in ordinary times, but, when strangled with emo- \ntion as it was that day, had a thrilling effect on his hearers, he cried : \n\n" No, Colonel. It is frightful that, day after day, for hours, I should \nthus have my heart, my soul, and my very entrails torn without being \npermitted to reply. It is a terrible torture to impose upon an innocent \nand loyal soldier. It is a frightful thing ! Frightful ! Frightful ! " \n\nThe audience, profoundly stirred, began to applaud, but the applause \nwas quickly suppressed. \n\nThe court then adjourned \n\nAs the prisoner passed out in front of the seats assigned to the repre- \nsentatives of the press his face was pale but animated. He seemed to be \nin a state of great nervous excitement and in a furious temper. \n\nThe general impression left by the day\'s proceedings was unfavorable \nto Dreyfus, owing to the absence of such cross-examinations as M. Labori \nwould have submitted M. Lebon and M. Gu^rin to, and owing to the fact \nthat General Eoget\'s arguments received no reply. \n\n\n\nCOL. PICQUAKT AND M. BERTULUS SUPPORT DREYFUS 157 \n\n\n\nChapter XXXII. \n\nCOL. PIOJUART AND ]VL BERTULUS SUPPORT DREYFUS \n\nThe court-martial session of August 17th opened with brighter pros- \npects for the prisoner, as M. Demange, of counsel for the defence, evi- \ndently came primed with questions, and subjected General Eoget, who \nresumed his deposition on the opening of the court, dealing with the \ntheft of Esterhazy\'s letters from Mile. Pays, to a warm cross-examining \njfire. \n\nGeneral Eoget was imable to conceal his annoyance and anger when \nM. Demange scored. The ends of the witness\'s fingers twitched nervous- \nly, and he frequently turned for consolation toward Generals Billot and \nZurlinden, former Ministers of War, who were seated on the witnesses\' \nseats behind him. The general also threw glances of savage resentment at \nthe audience, when, as happened several times, suppressed titters went \nroimd the court-room when M. Demange cornered him. \n\nFinally Eoget became quite red in the face, and answered M. De- \nmange in a hollow voice, contrasting strangely with his confident tone of \nyesterday. \n\nGeneral Eoget, on resuming his testimony, criticised the surveillance \nestablished by Colonel Picquart over Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. This \nsurveillance, he said, lasted several months and included the interception \nof letters addressed to Esterhazy. There had also been searches of Henry\'s \nhouse during his absence. \n\nAll these measures, the witness asserted, were carried out without the \nauthorization of the Minister of War, who was not even informed of them. \nMoreover, he asserted, the investigations were carried on at the expense \nof the Secret Service Fund. The witness^ also objected to Colonel Pic- \nquart\'s methods of watching Mile. Pays. \n\nIn regard to Esterhazy, General Eoget admitted the former was a \ngambler and an immoral character. But, he asserted, "while I have \n\n\n\n158 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nacknowledged his little failings, I nevertheless maintain that he has been \nthe victim of abominable persecution." \n\nGeneral Eoget next spoke of the arrest at Belfort of Quenelli, a spy, \ndeclaring that Picquart " doctored " the allegations of spying against Que- \nnelli, in order to attract to himself the approval of his superiors. \n\nM. Demange asked Colonel Jouaust to request General Eoget to re- \npeat the explanations which he had given before the Court of Cassation in \nregard to the part played in the affair by Major Du Paty de Clam, where- \nupon the witness repeated the tale of Du Paty de Clam\'s steps to warn \nEsterhazy of the campaign said to be organizing against him. \n\nThe general said he believed the forged " Speranza " letters were either \nwritten by Du Paty de Clam or instigated by him. Witness said he had \nnot acted against Du Paty de Clam, because he saw nothing culpable in \nwhat he had done to save Esterhazy. \n\nWith reference to the "document liberateur," which was a document \nforged in order to secure the release of Esterhazy when he was court- \nmartialled. General Eoget said he only knew how it reached the Ministry \nof War, adding that its disappearance from that ministry was a mystery. \nBut, he said, doubtless Du Paty de Clam could explain the matter. This \n\ndocument was the " Cette canaille de D " letter. When, in the autumn \n\nof 1897, the General Staff was using every effort to shield Esterhazy, this \ndocument was secured from the archives and given to Esterhazy by Du \nPaty de Clam. Esterhazy made it the subject of a note to the Minister \nof War. He said it had been given to him by a veiled lady who had ex- \nplained to him that she had stolen it from Picquart, whose friend she had \nbeen. She knew of the plot to ruin Esterhazy, and was overcome with \npity for him. By the scheme of the "document liberateur," Du Paty de \nClam not only desired to implicate Picquart, but also to draw attention to \nthe " innocent " Esterhazy, who was being " persecuted by the syndicate \nof treason." General Billot was completely deceived. \n\nCounsel for the defence here wanted to know how, imder such circum- \nstances, Du Paty de Clam\'s intervention in behalf of Esterhazy could be \nexplained. But the witness could only attribute it to Du Paty de Clam\'s \n"moral conviction of Esterhazy \'s innocence." \n\n"What I would like to know," said M. Demange," is how an innocent \nman like Esterhazy was thought to need this kind of help? " [Laughter.] \n\n\n\nCOL. PICQUAKT AND M. BBRTULUS SUPPORT DREYFUS 159 \n\n"It is certain I should not have done it," said the witness, which \ncaused renewed laughter. \n\nDuring the course of his remarks, M. Demange referred to the docu- \nment known as the petit hleu and the erasures in it. The general admitted \nthe erasures might have been made with the view of giving the document \na suspicious appearance. But, he intimated, Picquart made the erasures \nand reinserted the name of Esterhazy after taking the photograph exhib- \nited before the Court of Cassation. \n\nCounsel insisted that the falsification occurred after the petit bleu left \nPicquart\'s hands, and demanded further explanations from the witness. \n\nThe general, however, said he was unable to testify as to who falsified \nthe document, or as to why it was done. But he did not think it was \ndone with the view of compromising Picquart. \n\n"How was it you knew," counsel asked General Eoget, "that 600,000 \nfrancs was offered to Esterhazy if he would confess to being the author of \nthe bordereau? " \n\n"I heard it," the witness replied, "from the Court of Inquiry which \ntried Esterhazy, and from Esterhazy himself." \n\n" Ah ! " exclaimed counsel, " it was Esterhazy who said it. Just so. " \n[Laughter.] \n\n"Why was his residence searched?" M. Demange then asked, and the \ngeneral answered: \n\n" Esterhazy, at one time, had the document containing the words \' Cette \ncanaille de D ,\' and might, therefore, have had others." \n\n"You admit, then," asked M. Demange, "that he might have had \nother interesting documents ? " \n\n"When one is conducting an inquiry," said the witness, "one must \nexpect anything and search accordingly. " \n\n"Admitting," counsel then said, "that Esterhazy was the agent of the \nDreyfus family, and that he had agreed to assume, as suggested, the pris- \noner\'s guilt, how do you explain the fact that Esterhazy upon several \noccasions wrote statements calculated to compromise the case of Dreyfus ? " \n\n"With Esterhazy," replied General Eoget, "one can never be sure of \nanything. [Laughter.] He is such an extraordinary fellow. I do not \nknow what he may be doing to-day, nor what he will do to-morrow." \n\nThese statements of the general convulsed the court with laughter and \n\n\n\n160 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nseemed to irritate the witness, who was growing nervous under the search- \ning examination of counsel. \n\nTurning to Dreyfus, General Eoget cried, in a loud voice : \n" I know very well that if I was accused of an act of treason which \nI had not committed, I should find arguments with which to defend my- \nself." \n\nThis assertion evoked murmurs, but the general shouted : \n" Why does he deny even the most obvious things ? " \nM. Demange shrugged his shoulders, and ejaculated, "Ah!" \nDreyfus, however, arose and emphatically denied point blank some \nof the general\'s evidence. He said he never traced on a map any plan of \nconcentration or mobilization, and never had any knowledge of the details \nof these movements, nor of the plan for the distribution of the various \nunits throughout the departments. \n\nThen came a witness who proved to be a splendid reinforcement for \nDreyfus. It was M. Bertulus, the examining magistrate who received the \nlate Lieutenant-Colonel Henry\'s confession of forgery. \n\nIn almost inaudible tones, owing to hoarseness, M. Bertulus gave his \ntestimony, which was a veritable speech for the defence. Coming from a \nman of the high legal reputation of M. Bertulus, this evidence raised the \nhopes of the Dreyfusards immensely, as it apparently made a deep impres- \nsion on the members of the court. \n\nThe magistrate had inquired into the charges made against Esterhazy \nby his cousin, Christian, and it was expected M. Bertulus would be con- \nfronted with General Eoget, who so tartly criticised the magistrate at the \nlast session. \n\nM. Bertulus described how Major Eavary asked his assistance in ex- \namining the secret dossier at the Cherche-Midi Prison, and how, after he \nhad learned the contents of the documents, he declared to Major Eavary \nthat there was a flaw in the dossier which would occasion the collapse of \nthe whole case. Here the witness explained that he meant the petit bleu. \nIt must be proved, he told the major, that the petit bleu was a forgery, \nand was the work of Colonel Picquart, and that as long as that was not \nproved the case could not hold. \n\nContinuLQg, M. Bertulus recapitulated the evidence he had given before \nthe Court of Cassation, his investigation into Dh Paty de Clam\'s connec- \n\n\n\n\nTII1>: lIK/riKN OF DREYFUS: LANDING FllOM THE "\xc2\xabFAX" AT QUIBEKON. \n\n\n\n\nON BOAKD THE "SFAX": THE CABIN OCCUPIED BY DREYFUS. \n\n\n\n\nON BOAKD THE "SEAX": THE GUARD AT THE DOOR OF DREYFUS\'S CABIN. \n\n\n\n\nLEADING ACTOKS IN THK DKAMA. \n\nEx-Ministcr of War U. Cavaisiiac. Ex-l\'resulent M. Casimir-P^rier. \n\nThe late President, \nGeneral de Ercyciiiet. ]N[. Eelix Pauro. General Gallifet. \n\n\n\n\nLEADING ACTOKS IN THE DRAMA. \n\nColonel Henry. M. Deroulede. \n\nMajor Esterhazy. \nGeneral Boisdeffre. - General Roget. \n\n\n\n\nJ.EADING ACTORS IN THE DEAMA. \n\nHerr Schwarzkoppen, Signor Paiiizzardi, \n\nAttache of the German Embassy. Attache of the Italian Embassy. \n\nM. Schenrer-Kestner, General Billot. \n\nEx- Vice President of the Senate. \n\nColonel Sandherr. Major Du Taty de Clam. \n\n\n\n\nPRESIDENT EMILE LOUBET. \n\n\n\n\nw \n\n\n\n\n:ii.ti\xc2\xabC*iisi..i,0*. \n\n\n\niMAlTKl\'] J.AIJOJa WITH MADAME LABOKI AND lilS ISKCKETAHY. \n\n\n\nCOL. PICQUART AND M. BERTULUS SUPPORT DREYFUS 161 \n\ntion with the " Speranza " and " Blanche " telegrams, and the favorable im- \npression he had acquired of Colonel Picquart\'s honesty during the course \nof the inquiry. \n\nM. Bertulus then related the notable interviews between himself and \nLieutenant-Colonel Henry, on July 18, 1898, shortly before he com- \nmitted suicide. This naturally was a painful recital for Madame Henry, \nthe widow, who was much distressed and wept silently as the dramatic \nscene when Bertulus and Henry proceeded to seal up the seized papers \nwas depicted. The magistrate repeated the whole story with emphasis, \nand it had a great effect upon the audience. \n\nAfter recapitulating his other evidence before the Court of Cassation, \nM. Bertulus energetically affirmed his belief in the innocence of Dreyfus. \nHe declared the bordereau was in three pieces, and not in little bits. He \nalso said that it did not reach the War Office by the ordinary channels. \n\nM. Bertulus said his belief in the innocence of Dreyfus was also based \non documents in the secret dossier which he had seen. But what, above \nall, perturbed the witness was the entire absence of a motive which could \nhave tempted Dreyfus to commit such a crime. "Without motive," em- \nphatically declared the experienced magistrate, " there was no crime. " \n\nThis testimony created a profoimd impression upon his hearers. \n\n"You have been told," said the magistrate, "that Dreyfus is guilty. \nFor myself, I believe, and believe profoundly, in his innocence. If I \ncome here to tell you so, you will understand that it is because my con- \nscience tells me that in so doing I am performing a duty, an absolute \nduty. The Court of Cassation has declared the bordereau to be the work \nof Esterhazy. Now, the Court of Cassation is the supreme authority in \nall matters of justice in France ! " \n\nMadame Henry then ascended the platform, and, standing besides M. \nBertulus, she said : \n\n"On July 18th, the day my husband called on M. Bertulus, the colo- \nnel, in the course of a conversation that evening, told me he had a friendly \nand charming reception. He described how the magistrate advanced to \nmeet him and held out his arms. I said to my husband: \'Are you sure \nof this man ? Are you sure he is sincere ? I am very much afraid that \nhis kiss was the kiss of a Judas.\'" \n\nThere was a great sensation in court at this statement. \n11 \n\n\n\n162 DEEYEUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n"I was not wrong," she continued, amid the breathless interest of the \ncourt; "this man is indeed the Judas I imagined." \n\nEeferring to the papers which arrived at the same time as the bor- \ndereau, Madame Henry said : \n\n" These papers were not all torn in a thousand pieces. I was able to \nnote that personally. Letters often came entire. M. Bertulus has main- \ntained that everything arrived in pieces. That is false." \n\nM. Bertulus said he did not desire to reply to Madame Henry, \nadding: \n\n" She is only a woman. " \n\n"I am not a woman," exclaimed Madame Henry, furiously; "I speak \nin the name of my husband." \n\n" How shall I reply to madame ? " asked M. Bertulus. " She is defend- \ning the name of a dead man and that of her child." \n\nThe magistrate then handed the court a letter which he had received \nthe day before, warning him that it was the intention of Madame Henry \nto create this scene and call M. Bertulus a Judas. \n\nAfter gazing steadfastly at M. Bertulus, who was greatly moved, \nMadame Henry descended from the platform and took a seat beside Gen- \neral Zurlinden, and M. Bertulus forthwith left the court. \n\nColonel Picquart was then called to the witness stand. He protested \nmost formally against all suspicion of having caused the disappearance of \nany document relating to Dreyfus. Documents, he added, had disap- \npeared, but he was not connected with their disappearance. He also re- \npelled with scorn the assertion that he had endeavored to put another \nofficer in the place of the real author of the bordereau. \n\n"It is true," the witness continued, "that the name of Captain Dorval \nbeing mentioned to me as a dangerous man, I had him watched ; and do \nyou know, gentlemen, by whom Dorval was denounced? By his own \ncousin," continued Picquart, "Major Du Paty de Clam." \n\nColonel Picquart then next proceeded to reply to the various attacks \nmade upon him. "These tactics," he said, "are evidently pursued with \nthe object of lessening the value of my testimony. " \n\nThe colonel next outlined his connection with Dreyfus at the Military \nCollege, and afterward at the Ministry of War, where, owing to the Anti- \nSemite prejudices of the General Staff, he first appointed Dreyfus to a \n\n\n\nCOL. PICQUAET AJ^J) M. BERTULUS SUPPORT DREYFUS 163 \n\ndepartment where probationers had no direct cognizance of secret docu- \nments. \n\nHe then described the consternation in the War Office when the trea- \nson was discovered, and the relief experienced when it was thought the \nguilty person had been discovered. It was then the witness discovered \nthe similarity between the handwriting of Dreyfus and that of the bor- \ndereau, and he had recourse to Du Paty de Clam, " who was supposed to \nhave geographical knowledge. " [Laughter.] \n\nThen the witness described what he characterized as the "irregular \nsteps " taken by General Mercier to accomplish the arrest of Dreyfus. \n\nEeferring to the dictation test, the witness earnestly and emphatically \naffirmed that he saw no signs of perturbation in the handwriting of Drey- \nfus on that occasion, and, moreover, shortly afterward Du Paty de Clam \nadmitted he had not found a fresh charge against Dreyfus. \n\n"Beyond the bordereau," added the witness, "there was nothing against \nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 absolutely nothing. " \n\nThe colonel next declared that in 1894 he did not know the contents \nof the secret dossier. But he believed, like all other officers, that it con- \ntained frightful proofs against the prisoner. But when he became ac- \nquainted with its contents he found that his earlier impressions were en- \ntirely wrong. \n\nThe witness also declared he was quite ignorant of the confessions \nDreyfus is alleged to have made to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. \n\nNext the colonel examined the bordereau and declared Dreyfus could \nnot have disclosed part of it. \n\nEegarding the Madagascar note, the witness disputed its value, and \nsaid he did not believe it was a confidential note. He added that if \nDreyfus, in his capacity of a probationer, had asked the witness for the \nnote, he would have handed it to him immediately. Therefore, he [Pic- \nquart] was unable to understand the sentence in the bordereau reading : \n"This document was very difficult to obtain." \n\nColonel Picquart declared he had never seen Dreyfus copy the small- \nest document in the War Office. In the opinion of the witness the de- \npartment where the bordereau was discovered ought to have been searched \nwhen the discovery was made. This, he explained, was the department \nin which Du Paty de Clam worked, and that was the department which \n\n\n\n164 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwas working on the plan of the concentration of the troops and the Mada- \ngascar expedition. He added : \n\n" It was in Major Du Paty de Clam\'s department that the search \nshould have been made, or rather in his private room, where he worked \nquite alone." [Sensation.] \n\nDu Paty de Clam, continued the witness, had been guilty of grave im- \nprudence in having, contrary to the regulations, had confidential docu- \nments copied by simple secretaries, non-commissioned officers, and even \nprivate soldiers, whereas the custom was that such work was done solely \nby officers. \n\nLater on the witness said he wondered if it was not to avoid the risk \nof punishment that Du Paty de Clam advanced the date of the reception \nof the bordereau at the Intelligence Department, so as to make it prior to \nthe date of his, Du Paty de Clam\'s, arrival in the Third Department. \n[Sensation.] \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS 165 \n\n\n\nChapter XXXIII. \n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS \n\nWhen the trial of Captain Dreyfus was resumed on August 18th, \nColonel Picquart continued his deposition, which was interrupted the \npreceding day by the adjournment of the court. The colonel gave his \ntestimony in the same loud, fearless tone of voice. He commenced by \ndeclaring that he thought it necessary immediately to reply to General \nEoget\'s veritable arraignment of him while the latter was on the stand. \n\nPicquart then proceeded to discuss the secret dossier as being the \nmainspring of the condemnation of Dreyfus. \n\nThe colonel practically occupied the whole of the sitting with a mas- \nterful presentation of his side of the case. He spoke for five hours, and \nhis voice at the end of that time began to show signs of fatigue. \n\nHis testimony was followed with the closest attention by the members \nof the court-martial and by the audience, and during the brief suspension \nof the court Generals Mercier, Eoget, Billot, and De Boisdeffre, and other \nwitnesses sauntered together up and down the courtyard of the Lycee or \ngathered in little groups, animatedly discussing Picquart\'s evidence, which, \nalthough it contained but few facts, was so cleverly placed before the \ntribunal and was spoken so effectively that it could not fail to repeat the \nimpression he had made the day before. \n\nDreyfus naturally drank in all the witness\'s words, which came as a \nbalm to the wounds inflicted upon him by Generals Mercier and Eoget; \nand the prisoner frequently and closely scanned the faces of the judges, as \nthough seeking to read their thoughts. \n\nBefore resuming his deposition. Colonel Picquart said : \n\n" For the moment I shall confine myself to the following explanation : \nThe Quenelli case occurred between May 30 and July 17, 1896, at \nwhich period, on account of a family bereavement, I was able to pay very \nlittle attention to my ofificial duties. In my absence, Colonel Henry acted \n\n\n\n166 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nfor me. Moreover, I devoted most of the month of July to a journey of \nthe Headquarters\' Staff, which also prevented me from attending to my \nordinary duties. I was, therefore, able to give only very intermittent at- \ntention to the Quenelli case. Besides this, Quenelli was a returned con- \nvict, who had contravened a decree of expulsion and had been caught red- \nhanded in another criminal act. He was, at first sight, a not particularly \ninteresting personage. \n\n" I protest absolutely against the allegation that I consented to the \ncommunication of secret documents to the members of the Dreyfus court- \nmartial without the prisoner\'s knowledge. I never ordered such commu- \nnication, and if it was done it was not with my cognizance. Having thus \nexplained certain matters I will continue my deposition." \n\nThen the colonel proceeded to discuss the phrase occurring in the \nbordereau, "I am going to the manoeuvres, " He said there was no ques- \ntion of probationers going to the manoeuvres in September. This, he \npointed out, would have curtailed their period of probation in an entirely \nunusual manner. It was for this reason that D\'Ormescheville, who drew \nup the acte d\' accusation, or indictment, against Dreyfus in 1894, changed \nthe date of the bordereau from September to April. When, however, it \nwas discovered that Dreyfus knew as early as March that he would not \nattend the manoeuvres, the correct date was resumed. Later this was \nfound untenable, and so, in their testimony before the Court of Cassation, \nGenerals Mercier, Gonse, and de Boisdeffre reassumed the date of the bor- \ndereau to have been April. \n\nAfter dealing with the testimony of the experts at the court-martial \nof 1894, Picquart proceeded to examine the secret dossier, a close analysis \nof which, he asserted, was particularly necessary, " owing to the weight \nthe document had with the members of the court-martial in 1894." \n\n"This dossier," continued the witness, "may be divided into two parts. \nThe first contains three documents : One, a document known as the \nd\' Avignon document, the terms of which are about as follows : \'Doubt; \nproof; service letters; situation dangerous for me with French officer; \ncannot personally conduct negotiations ; no information from an officer of \nthe line ; important only as coming from the Ministry ; already somewhere \nelse.\' " \n\nThis is a literal translation of a cipher despatch in German, which \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS 167 \n\nwas intercepted early in 1894. It was sent by Schwartzkoppen in reply \nto a message which had been intercepted December 29, 1893, and \nwhich contained the words: "The documents; no sign of the General \nStaff." \n\n" Service letters " in the reply is translated from the German original \n"patent," i.e., an officer\'s brevet. Both dispatches have been paraphrased \nby Picquart as follows : " The documents received. There is no evidence \nthat they come from the War Office." \n\nTo which the reply was: "You doubt? My proof is that my inform- \nant [Esterhazy] is an officer. I have seen his brevet. True, only a regi- \nmental officer; but I assure you he brings his information, every bit of \nit, from the Intelligence Bureau. I cannot communicate directly with \nHenry." \n\n"Two, the document containing the words, \'Cette canaille de D .\' \n\n"Three, a document which is nothing but the report of a journey to \nSwitzerland, and made in behalf of a foreign power. \n\n"The second part of the dossier," continued Picquart, "consisted partly \nof a supplementary review of the first. It contained the gist of seven or \n\neight documents, one of which, \'Cette canaille de D ,\' will serve for \n\nthe purposes of comparison. It also contained the correspondence of At- \ntaches \'A\' and \'B.\' " [These initials represent Colonel von Schwartz- \nkoppen, formerly German military attach^, and Major Panizzardi, the \nformer military attach^ of Italy, at the French capital. ] \n\nThe witness next explained why Major Du Paty de Clam\'s translation \nof the d\' Avignon document, which has been classed as idiotic, was open \nto doubt and why the document, if it had any meaning whatever, was as \napplicable to Esterhazy as to Dreyfus. Du Paty de Clam\'s translation or \nparaphrasing reads as follows: \n\n" You say the documents do not bear the mark of the General Staff. \nThere are doubts; proof is therefore necessary. I will ask for \'la lettre \nde service\' but, as it is dangerous for me personally to conduct the nego- \ntiations, I will take an intermediary and tell the officer to bring me what \nhe has. I must have absolute discretion, because the Intelligence Bureau \nis on the watch against us ; there is no good of having relations with a \nregimental officer. Documents are only of importance when they come \nfrom the Ministry; this is why I continue my relations." \n\n\n\n168 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONEE OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nEegarding the correspondence of the military attach^, the witness \ndemonstrated the insignificance of the information asked for. \n\nColonel Picquart then took up the " Cette canaille de D " docu- \nment. He called the attention of the court to the fact that it was ad- \ndressed by Schwartzkoppen to Panizzardi, and not vice versa, as long \nbelieved. \n\nAfter giving his reasons for believing Dreyfus was not the person re- \nferred to in that document, Picquart showed how Du Paty de Clam en- \ndeavored to ascribe the authorship of the document of Panizzardi with the \nview of establishing a connection which in reality did not exist between \nthe various documents in the indictment against Dreyfus. \n\nThe former Chief of the Intelligence Department concluded his exam- \nination of the first portion of the secret dossier by saying : \n\n" May I be allowed to express deep regret at the absence of Major Du \nPaty de Clam ? It seems to me indispensable that this ofi&cer, who wrote \nthe commentaries on the secret dossier, should be summoned to give evi- \ndence here. He would give us his reminiscences, and I would help him." \n[Laughter.] "But," added Picquart, "since I am dealing with this \nquestion of the commentaries of Major du Paty de Clam, permit me to \npoint to you, gentlemen, that this document was not the property of any \nparticular minister. It was classified as belonging to the Intelligence \nDepartment, and, as you see, it formed part of a well-defined dossier \xe2\x80\x94 a \ndossier which was shut up in one of the drawers of my desk and which \nwas abstracted from it. This commentary, therefore, is upon a secret \ndossier document which was improperly removed from my department." \n\nContinuing, the witness remarked: "Mention was made yesterday of \nthe disappearance of documents. That is the case in point." \n\nTurning to the second portion of the dossier, Picquart described a \nnumber of documents in it as forgeries, and said the police reports therein \ncontained nothing serious against Dreyfus. He explained that they em- \nbodied the theme mostly utilized by police spies in order to dupe the In- \ntelligence Department, and asserted that their information was mostly \nworthless or false, and prepared in order to make interesting reading. \n\n" In the inquiry made by M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire " (former presi- \ndent of the Civil Section of the Court of Cessation), continued Picquart, \n" you have an excellent example of the sort of people who can present in \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DEEYFUS 169. \n\nthe most specious guise what amounts absolutely to nothing. You can- \nnot imagine, gentlemen, what people, in order to get money, if only a \nmodest twenty-franc piece, have brought to the Intelligence Department \nin the shape of so-called \' information,\' which examination has proved to \nbe worthless." \n\nConcluding his examination of the secret dossier. Colonel Picquart ex- \nplained how he had acquired the conviction that the bordereau was writ- \nten by Esterhazy, and how he ascertained that the anti-Dreyfus proofs \nwere worthless. He began by detailing how he first learned of the exist- \nence of Esterhazy and his efforts to discover something about him. The \nwitness earnestly asserted that the first occasion on which he saw Ester- \nhazy\'s name was when he read the address of the ;petit Ueu. He said he \nwas not acquainted with Esterhazy, and never had Esterhazy watched. \nPrevious to this the utmost efforts had been made to prove the contrary, \nand to show that Picquart knew Esterhazy before the discovery of the petit \nhleu. \n\nWhat Picquart gathered about Esterhazy\'s character, he continued, cre- \nated the worst impression upon him, but he learned nothing to connect \nEsterhazy with any act of espionage. Therefore he did not mention his \nsuspicions. An agent, however, was ordered to watch Esterhazy, who \nhad completely compromised himself through his relations with an Eng- \nlish company, of which he had agreed to become a director. \n\n"That could net be permitted in the case of a French officer," said \nPicquart. "Moreover, Esterhazy gambled, led a life of debauchery, and \nlived with Mile. Pays." \n\nTurning to the leakage at Headquarters, the witness described the ne- \ngotiations of Major Lauth with the spy Eichard Cuers, at Basle, showing \nhow the spy promised to inform him about the leakage, and how he, Pic- \nquart, was induced to allow Lieutenant-Colonel Henry to accompany Major \nLauth to Basle. \n\nPicquart also described the vague replies of Henry when questioned \non the subject of Esterhazy before his departure, and the futility of the \nvisit to Basle, because of Cuers\'s refusal, when he saw Henry, to impart \nthe promised information. This incident caused the witness to wonder \nwhether, instead of trying to make Cuers speak, Henry and Lauth had not \ndone everything possible to impose silence upon him. \n\n\n\n170 DEEYFUS: THE PKISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n"I afl&rm," continued Picquart, "that General de Boisdeffre knew that \nthis question was to remain a secret between us, and that I was not to \nmention it except to the Minister of War. I knew Esterhazy was anx- \nious to enter the War Ofi&ce, and I did not regard his desire favorably. I \ncommunicated my impressions to my chiefs, who approved all my steps, \nand the application of Esterhazy was rejected. \n\n" His insistence, however, only increased my uneasiness regarding him, \nand I resolved to obtain a specimen of his handwriting. I was immedi- \nately struck with the similarity of his handwriting and that of the bor- \ndereau, and forthwith I had the letters of Esterhazy which were in my \npossession photographed, and showed the photographs to Major Du Paty \nde Clam and M. Bertillon between August 25th and September 5th." \n\nThe colonel emphasized this point, because M. Bertillon affirmed that \nhe saw the photographs in May, 1896, and made a note of them, whereas \nthe letters were not written on that date. The conflicting testimony of \nPicquart and Bertillon on this point had been used to discredit the for- \nmer\'s evidence. \n\nColonel Picquart also said Du Paty de Clam, on seeing the writing, \nforthwith declared it was that of Mathieu Dreyfus, the brother of Captain \nDreyfus. \n\nThe witness, continuing, said : \n\n" \' You know,\' Du Paty de Clam maintained, \' that the bordereau is \nthe joint work of Alfred and Mathieu Dreyfus.\' \n\n"M. Bertillon said: \' That is the writing of the bordereau.\' \n\n" M. Bertillon tried to discover where I had obtained the handwriting, \nbut the only information I imparted was that it was current and recent \nhandwriting. \n\n" M. Bertillon then suggested that it was a tracing, and ended by say- \ning that if it was current handwriting it could only have emanated from \nsome one whom the Jews had been exercising for a year in imitating the \nwriting of the bordereau. \n\n" At M. Bertillon\'s request I left the photographs with him. When \nhe returned them he said he adhered to his opinion and earnestly asked \nto see the original. When I saw beyond a doubt that the handwriting of \nthe bordereau was Esterhazy\'s, and seeing that the documents mentioned \ntherein might have been supplied by Esterhazy, that the words, \' I am \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS 171 \n\ngoing to the manoeuvres \' could perfectly well apply to Esterhazy, and that \nEsterhazy had secretaries at his disposal to copy a document so volumi- \nnous as the Firing Manual, I resolved to consult the secret dossier to see \nwhat part of the treachery might be ascribed to Dreyfus, and to assure \nmyself whether the dossier contained anything implicating Esterhazy. I \nfrankly admit I was stupefied on reading the secret dossier. I expected \nto find matters of gravity therein, and found, in short, nothing but a doc- \nument which might apply just as much to Esterhazy as to Dreyfus, an \nunimportant document mentioning d\' Avignon, and a document which it \n\nseemed absurd to apply to Dreyfus, namely, the \' Cette canaille de D \' \n\ndocument. \n\n" Lastly, I recognized a report appended in the handwriting of Guen- \nn^e, an agent, which appeared to be at least as worthless as the second \ndocument. \n\n" It was then evening. I had stayed late at the office in order to ex- \namine the documents thoroughly. I thought it over during the night, \nand the next day I explained the whole situation to General de Boisdeffre. \nI took to his office the secret dossier, the facsimile of the bordereau, the \npetit hleu, and the principal papers connected with my investigation of \nEsterhazy. \n\n" I wonder now if I had one or two interviews ? But I still see Gen- \neral\' de Boisdeffre, as he examined the secret dossier with me, stop before \nhe reached the end, and tell me to go into the country, give an account \nof the affair to General Gonse, and ask his advice. \n\n" When I informed General Gonse of all which had occurred, he re- \nmarked: *So a mistake has been made? \' \n\n" After my interview with General Gonse I did not work any longer on \nmy own initiative. I said nothing more until the return of General \nGonse, September 15th. At this time Esterhazy was at the great manoeu- \nvres." \n\nNext the witness dwelt on the rumors in September, 1896, of the proj- \nect of replacing Dreyfus by a man-of-straw, and the discovery of the forged \nWeyler letter, supposed to be connected with the same project. \n\nAt about the same time the campaign for and against Dreyfus was \nstarted by the newspapers. \n\nThe witness then turned to the newspaper attacks on Dreyfus, saying \n\n\n\n172 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthat the information regarding the bordereau contained in them convinced \nhim that they had been inspired by some one closely connected with the \nDreyfus affair. They could not, he added, be attributed to the Dreyfus \nfamily, while they contained expressions familiar to Du Paty de Clam, \nwhom it would be interesting to hear on the subject. \n\nThe witness next said he asked permission to inquire into the sources \nof the articles, but was forbidden to interfere in any way whatever. \n\nDescribing his interview with General Gonse, on September 15th, \nPicquart said : \n\n" When I asked General Gonse for permission to continue the investi- \ngation, insisting on the danger of allowing the Dreyfus family to proceed \nwith their investigation alone, the general replied that it was impossible, \nin his opinion and in the opinions of General de Boisdeffre and the Minis- \nter of War, to reopen the affair. When I pressed the point, in order to \nmake General Gonse understand that nothing could prevent its reopening \nif it could be believed Dreyfus was innocent, General Gonse replied : \n\n"\'If you say nothing, nobody will know.\' \n\n"\'General,\' I replied, firmly, \'what you tell me is abominable. I do \nnot know what I shall do. But I won\'t carry this secret with me.\' \n\n" I at once left the room," added the witness. " That is what occurred. \nI know my account is disputed, but I positively swear it," said Picquart, \nas he emphatically smote the bar in front of the witness box, and looked \nin the direction of the generals. \n\nThe colonel next described his intentions with regard to Esterhazy, \nwhich Generals Gonse and de Boisdeffre had forbidden him to carry out. \nHe attached particular importance to this point, as it contained a clue to \nsubsequent occurrences. Later, the witness said, that while Du Paty de \nClam evidently acted wrongly in disguising himself during the investiga- \ntions with a false beard and blue spectacles, perhaps he was authorized to \ndo so. \n\nColonel Picquart also showed how, through an article in the Eclair of \nSeptember 14, 1896, he was satisfied Esterhazy had been warned of the \nsuspicions against him. \n\nIn order to make the proofs complete, the witness continued his inves- \ntigations with the utmost discretion. In his opinion, the only event of \nimportance in the Dreyfus affair since the discovery of the bordereau was \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS 173 \n\nthe Henry forgery, perpetrated on October 31st, 1896. He added that it \nmust have been handed immediately to General Gonse. \n\nShortly before Henry perpetrated the forgery, the agent Guenee, Henry\'s \nright-hand man, prepared a report declaring that M. Castelin (Eepublican \nEevisionist, Deputy for Laon, division of Aisne) was about to play the \nhand of the Dreyfus family by unmasking, in the Chamber of Deputies, \nthe prisoner\'s accomplices, thus having the affair reopened. \n\nThen, turning to the distant mission upon which he was dispatched, \nPicquart described the irritation he felt when he saw he was being removed \nbecause he was no longer wanted as head of the Intelligence Department. \nHe explained that if this disgrace had been frankly avowed it would hav^ \nbeen much less painful to him. The colonel also said that during his \nabsence his correspondence was tampered with. \n\nDealing with his mission to Tunis, which Picquart said ought to have \nbeen intrusted to a commissary of police, the witness declared it was then \nthat Henry, abandoning his underhand intrigues, began a campaign of \nopen persecution. Henry wrote to the witness, accusing him of commu- \nnicating information to the press, with disclosing the contents of secret \ndocuments, and with attempting to suborn officers in connection with the \npetit hleu. \n\nIt was then Picquart learned of the existence of the forged secret doc- \numents directed against himself, and foresaw his own ruin if the Dreyfus \naffair was reopened ; and, to safeguard himself, he intrusted to a lawyer \nfriend, M. Leblois, a certain letter from General Gonse, at the same time \nacquainting the lawyer with what he knew of Esterhazy, and instructing \nthe lawyer how he should intervene, " if the occasion demanded it. " This \nlawyer communicated with M. Scheurer-Kestner, then one of the Vice- \nPresidents of the Senate, and the representations of the latter to Premier \nM^line\'s Government followed. \n\nWhen Picquart\'s furlough was due. General Leclerc, commanding in \nTunis, was ordered to send Picquart to the frontier of Tripoli. Leclerc \ncommented to the witness on the abnormal order, and Picquart confided \nto the general the probable reasons for it, and his belief in the innocence \nof Dreyfus. General Leclerc thereupon ordered Picquart not to go beyond \nGabes. \n\nPicquart created a sensation by incidentally remarking that the judges \n\n\n\n/ \ny \n\n\n\n174 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nin 1894 were shamefully deceived in having the document containing the \nwords, " Cette canaille de D " communicated to them. \n\nWitness then bitterly recited the details of the various machinations \nwith the view of incriminating him, instigated by Henry, Esterhazy, and \nDu Paty de Qam. \n\n"I have almost finished my task," added Picquart, "but I ask permis- \nsion to refer to the way the bordereau came to the War Office. I have \ndoubts in regard to the person who brought the bordereau. Two quite \ndifferent persons could certainly have delivered the bordereau in 1894. \nBut, if an intelligent person had delivered it, he would certainly have in- \nsisted on the value of its contents." \n\nIn reply to questions of General Roget, Picquart admitted sending doc- \numents to Belfort for the use of the Quenelli case, " But," Picquart added, \n"they were handed to the Public Prosecutor." \n\nGeneral Koget\'s questions were evidently with the view of eliciting \nthe confession from Colonel Picquart that, in the Quenelli case, he com- \nmunicated to the judges documents unknown to the defence, as he now \naccuses the General Staff of doing in the Dreyfus case. \n\nGeneral Mercier promptly replaced General Roget. \n\n"Picquart," Mercier said, "has stated that I ordered him to convey \ndocuments to Colonel Maurel-Pries. That is false. I never handed any \npacket to Colonel Picquart for Colonel Maurel-Pries. I never mentioned \nsecret documents to him. " \n\nIn reply Colonel Picquart said : \n\n" I remember perfectly that General Mercier handed me a packet for \nColonel Maurel-Pries. " \n\nGeneral Mercier next denied Colonel Picquart\'s statement relative to \nthe meeting with General Gonse during the afternoon of January 6, 1895, \nwhen the latter was greatly excited at the prospect of war. \n\nColonel Picquart replied that he adhered to everything he had said. \nGeneral Gonse, the witness explained, was excited because he knew of the \naction of an ambassador toward M. Casimir-Perier, then President of the \nRepublic. \n\nGeneral Mercier next referred to Picquart\'s statement that the D\'Avig- \nnon document was communicated to the court-martial of 1894. He said: \n\n" I deny it positively. The only documents communicated were the \n\n\n\nTHE PLOTS AGAINST DREYFUS 175 \n\nPanizzardi telegram, Du Paty de Clam\'s commentary, the note of the Ital- \nian attach^ in regard to French railroads, and the report of Guen^e." \n\nPicquart here pointed out that he had only expressed his belief on this \nsubject. \n\nMaitre Demange\'s cross-examination compelled General Mercier some- \nwhat reluctantly to enumerate the secret documents submitted to the first \ncourt-martial. Among them was the " Cette canaille de D " letter. \n\nWhen asked why the commentary of Guen^e was not attached to the \ndocument, Mercier replied : \n\n" It was supplied for my personal use. " \n\n"Then," said Maitre Demange triumphantly, "you could not have \nmeant Dreyfus, but did mean Dubois." \n\nM. Demange asked General Mercier why it did not occur to him to \nappend to the comments information of the existence of a man named \nDubois, who was suspected of having communicated information to foreign \npowers. \n\nGeneral Mercier replied . \n\n" Because we had discovered that he could not have been the author \nof the documents mentioned in the comments." \n\n"Ah," said Maitre Demange, "because you considered that Dubois \ncould not be the author, after study of the dossier, of the divulgations, \nconsequently you did not reveal the fact that there was a person called \nD who might be meant? " \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 Quite so. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n176 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXXIV. \n\n\'\'THAT IS A MANIFEST LIE,^ SAID DREYFUS \n\nThe stage of the Lyc^e at Eennes was occupied, successively, on Au- \ngust 19th, by three enemies of Dreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Major Cuignet, General de Bois- \ndeffre, and General Gonse. From 6:30 until 11 a.m. they devoted them- \nselves mainly to reiterating what they had said in evidence against the \nprisoner, who followed them with characteristic composure. \n\nBut when the moment came for him to reply, the prisoner delivered \none of those brief utterances of indignation which have had such a power- \nful effect upon his hearers. \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre, one of the witnesses, is tall, and, like every gen- \neral who has appeared in court except General Mercier, he boasted of a \nvery conspicuous bald patch, the heads of the other generals being adorned \nby little more than a rim of gray hair. \n\nDe Boisdeffre spoke in a blunt manner and in somewhat gruff tones, \nbut with a certain air of sincerity which had its effect on the judges. \n\nThe general was treated with obvious deference by the members of the \ncourt-martial, but he did not appear to relish the novelty of being ques- \ntioned by a junior officer, one of the judges, who wished for a few harmless \nexplanations. \n\nMajor Cuignet, charged by Cavaignac, when Minister of War, about \na year ago, to examine the secret dossier, was the first witness called. \n\n"Before beginning an account of the special investigations into the \ncase which I was ordered to make by Ministers of War, from M. Cavai- \ngnac to M. de Freycinet," said the witness, "I wish to mention a personal \nfact which, in conjunction with the evidence already heard, will consti- \ntute fresh proof of the prisoner\'s indiscreet behavior when employed on \nthe Headquarters Staff. \n\n" I was on the staff when Dreyfus was a probationer, during the latter \nhalf of 1893. Among other duties, I was connected with the railroad \n\n\n\n"THAT IS A MANIFEST LIE," SAID DREYFUS 177 \n\nservice and the mining of railroads, with the view of interrupting trafl&c \nin case of need. It is hardly necessary to point out the secret character \nof such matters. Dreyfus was a probationer on the eastern railroads, and \nhad been ordered specially to study the mining of them. He possessed \ninformation relating solely to them. One day Dreyfus asked me to give \nhim the general scheme of mining which I possessed, giving as a reason \nfor his request that he was anxious to increase his knowledge, and that \nit was necessary for him to know the general scheme in order properly to \ncarry out the work entrusted to him. I replied that I did not see the \nnecessity of giving him the scheme, and that, in any case, he had better \napply to his own chief. Major Bertin. Dreyfus pretended Bertin would \nnot impart any information. Day after day he pestered me, so that finally, \nhaving no reason to distrust him, I began giving him explanations. \nDreyfus displayed the keenest interest and took copious notes. When \nlater his house was searched these notes were not discoverable. I do not \nknow what became of them. But it is difficult to believe they were de- \nstroyed, considering the importance he seemed to attach to the information \nand the persistence shown in procuring it." \n\nAfter making the above declaration, which he apparently considered to \nbe weighty evidence of the treachery of Dreyfus, Major Cuignet proceeded \nto recount in detail the task assigned to him in May, 1898, of classifying \nthe documents in the Dreyfus, Esterhazy, and Picquart cases. He then said : \n\n" My conviction of the guilt of Dreyfus is based on three grounds : \nFirst, his confession to Captain Lebrun-Eenault ; second, the technical \nnature of the contents of the bordereau ; third, the results of the examina- \ntion of the secret dossier. \n\n" I will add to these three points the evidence of the expert Bertillon, \n[laughter] and, as indirect proof, the means employed by the Dreyfus \nfamily to secure the prisoner\'s rehabilitation. I protest that a campaign \nhas been undertaken against justice, truth, and our country." \n\nThe major\'s outburst of heroics evoked cynical smiles and indications \nof dissent, coupled with marks of assent from the assembled generals. \n\nKegarding the confessions said to have been made to Captain Lebrun- \nEenault, witness said he still believed they were authentic, adding : \n\n" If people do not believe the confessions to Captain Lebrun-Eenault, \n\nthey will believe no human testimony." \n12 \n\n\n\n178 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nContinuing, the witness reasserted that the bordereau was written by \nDreyfus at the end of August, and, incidentally, the major protested \nagainst Colonel Picquart\'s insinuations against Du Paty de Clam. He \nnext returned to the secret dossier of the War Office, from which, he de- \nclared, the court was sure to draw important deductions. The witness \nthen invited the court\'s special attention to this dossier, in which, he \nsaid, would be found ample proof of the prisoner\'s guilt. \n\nAt this stage of the proceedings Dreyfus rose and interrupted the wit- \nness, shouting: \n\n" That is a manifest lie ! " \n\nAftgr this the witness recited in detail his reasons for the belief that \nthe agent supplying the information was a French staff officer. \n\nAnother document of the dossier, according to Major Cuignet, showed \nbeyond dispute that the bordereau actually passed through the hands of \nColonel Schwartzkoppen. This, to the witness, established the authenticity \nof the bordereau, an examination of which, he pointed out, proved that \nSchwartzkoppen and Panizzardi had the closest relations in all matters of \nespionage. \n\nReferring next to the dispatch of Colonel Schneider, former Austrian \nmilitary attach^ at Paris, denouncing as a forgery a letter purporting to \nhave been written by the attach^, in which he was represented as refer- \nring to efforts being made by Schwartzkoppen and Panizzardi to conceal \ntheir relations with Dreyfus, the witness maintained that General Mercier\'s \nstatements on the subject were correct, and that the authenticity of the \nletter had been proved. \n\nThe major dwelt admiringly on the conclusions of M. Bertillon that \nEsterhazy had learned to imitate the handwriting of the bordereau after \nits publication in the Matin. \n\nAt the request of M. Demange, the major\'s deposition before the Court \nof Cassation relating to Henry\'s motives and Du Paty de Clam\'s share in \nthe preparation of the forgery was read. It showed that Cuignet emphat- \nically declared before the Court of Cassation that he was convinced an \ninvestigation would easily show that Du Paty de Clam was the principal \nauthor of the Henry forgery. \n\n"Do you adhere," asked counsel, "to all you said before the full Court \nof Cassation ? " \n\n\n\n"THAT IS A MANIFEST LIE," SAID DREYFUS 179 \n\nThis question greatly confused the witness, who attempted to explain \nby saying that it was not for him to judge Du Paty de Clam, etc. \n\nM. Demange pointed out that, in spite of the many arguments Major \nCuignet had advanced against Du Paty de Clam, the military judge, Ta- \nvernier, threw out the case. \n\n"Now," added M. Demange, "Major Cuignet has advanced as much \nagainst Dreyfus. The court will be able to appreciate the value of his \narguments." \n\nWhen Dreyfus was asked if he wished to reply to this witness, he \ndeclared he had never asked Major Cuignet for documents except by the \ndesire of his chief. Major Bertin. \n\n"All the details which Major Cuignet has given on this subject," said \nthe prisoner, "sprang out of his own imagination, and are due to the same \nstate of mind which ever prompts unreasoning bitterness against an inno- \ncent man." \n\nAmid a buzz of excitement, the name of Major Du Paty de Clam was \ncalled out, whereupon Major Carriere said Du Paty de Clam had been \nofficially informed that his presence was necessary to the court-martial, \nand it was hoped he would be able to come as soon as possible ; but the \nGovernment Commissary had heard nothing from him since this notifica- \ntion was sent. \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre, former Chief of the General Staff of the French \nArmy, then advanced to the witness-box and took the customary oath to \ntell the truth. The general remarked that, in view of the exhaustive evi- \ndence already given, he would try to be brief. He hurriedly reviewed \nthe leakage in the Ministry of War, the discovery of the bordereau, the \narrest and trial of Dreyfus, and the latter\'s alleged confessions, before the \nceremony of degradation, to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. The witness said \nhe believed the confessions were genuine. He next referred to Colonel \nPicquart\'s appearance in the Intelligence Department, although the wit- \nness hesitated to appoint him because he thought Picquart too self-confi- \ndent and not sufficiently deferential toward his chiefs. \n\n"It has been said," continued General de Boisdeffre, "that a secret \npackage of papers was shown the judges of the court-martial of 1894. I \npositively assert that, so far as I am concerned, I never ordered Colonel \nPicquart to convey any envelope to Colonel Maurel-Pries. I may add that \n\n\n\n180 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nColonel Picquart never doubted the guilt of Dreyfus, and never even ex- \npressed doubts of his guilt when he took over the duties of Chief of the \nIntelligence Department. The first instructions I gave him were to fol- \nlow up the Dreyfus affair, and it is well known what was the result of \nthese instructions." \n\nThe witness discredited Colonel Picquart\' s statement that the latter \nasked him not to mention the investigation to General Gonse. \n\n"General Gonse," said de Boisdeffre, "is a friend of thirty years\' \nstanding. I have always had the greatest confidence in him, and should \ncertainly not have entertained a request to leave him in ignorance of what \nwas occurring." \n\nThen the witness briefly referred to the trial and acquittal of Esterhazy \nand the latter\'s threats to proclaim himself a tool of the General Staff, after \nwhich the general alluded to the Henry forgery and M. Cavaignac\'s \ninterrogations of Henry. \n\n"You know the result," said he, apparently much moved. "I will not \ntell you what I suffered at that moment. As soon as everything was \nended I tendered my resignation, but was asked to withdraw it. I was \ntold every one could make a mistake. But I replied that while every one \nwas liable to err, every one had not the misfortune, as I had, to assert to \na jury that a document was genuine, when in reality it was forged ; that \nevery one ought to stand by one\'s word, and that when a man happened \nto experience such a misfortune there was nothing left for him but to go \naway, and from that moment I have held aloof." \n\nEeplying to the court. General de Boisdeffre admitted that the leak- \nage at Military Headquarters continued. After the condemnation of Drey- \nfus, he added, it ceased for a year, but in 1895 a paper was discovered \nproving the communication to foreigners of a document relating to the \ndistribution of the artillery, and showing that a foreign government was \nperfectly acquainted with the changes made. \n\nGeneral Gonse, who was Under Chief of the General Staff, was next \ncalled to the witness-stand. He explained the motives which influenced \nhis actions during the past few years, and said he believed he was " ani- \nmated by the loftiest aims, namely, the protection of the army against the \ncriminal attacks made on it from all sides." \n\nIn this connection General Gonse dwelt upon the danger to France of \n\n\n\n"THAT IS A MANIFEST LIE," SAID DREYFUS 181 \n\nthe "system of espionage so cleverly organized against her by foreigners," \nand said that, in spite of Esterhazy\'s statement, it was impossible for him \nto have written the bordereau, and still more impossible for him to have \nsecured the information therein contained. He added that no traces of \nindiscretion were discovered during all the proceedings against Esterhazy. \n\nContinuing, the witness deplored the fact that the court-martial of \n1894 was held behind closed doors, adding: \n\n" I regard it as a misfortune, as a great misfortune. The witnesses \ncertainly said much more at the secret trial than they would have done at \na public trial, and the judges had a better opportunity of forming an opin- \nion, even though the public might retain doubts. I deplore it keenly. " \n\nGeneral Gonse then denied that Esterhazy had received money from the \nIntelligence Department, and describing the "strange behavior of Drey- \nfus," and his "frequent acts of indiscretion," the witness begged the court \nto summon the secretary of the Minister of War, M. Ferret, who surprised \nthe prisoner prying into the offices at a time when there was no business \ngoing on there. \n\nThe general defended Guen^e, the spy, and referred to another spy as \nan "honorable man," whose name he could not give, as having furnished \nMilitary Headquarters with valuable information. \n\nThe general then proceeded to defend Du Paty de Clam from the in- \nsinuations of Colonel Picquart, and corroborated General Mercier\'s evi- \ndence in regard to the alleged confessions made to Captain Lebrun-Renault. \n\nEeplying to M. Demange, the witness admitted he had ordered Colonel \nPicquart not to concern himself with the handwriting of the bordereau \nwhen he commenced his investigations of Esterhazy. \n\n"Then," asked M. Demange, sharply, "when you saw his handwritings \nwere identical with the writing of the bordereau, did that make no im- \npression on you ? " \n\n"Evidently," replied the witness, "the two handwritings had a great \nresemblance." \n\nWhen Dreyfus was asked the regular question he said : \n\n" I will reply directly to the secretary of the Minister of War, who \nsaid he saw me in the offices after service hours. As regards General \nGonse, I am surprised that the general officer repeats dinner- table gossip. \nThere is known to be insurmountable difficulty in introducing any one \n\n\n\n182 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ninto the Ministry of War, and it is absolutely impossible for an officer to \nbring any one into the Ministry." \n\nTo this the general replied : \n\n" No doubt it is difficult, but it is not impossible. The Ministry can \nbe entered easily enough at certain hours. Dreyfus was in a position to \nknow that." [Sensation.] \n\nThe Prisoner \xe2\x80\x94 I will reply to Secretary Ferret, who has told a lie. \nWhat I have to say to General Gonse is that every time a friend came \nto see me at the Ministry, even when a French officer, I was obliged to \ndescend to the floor below, and even members of the Chamber of Deputies \nwho called on me could not enter the Ministry. It was consequently ab- \nsolutely impossible under ordinary circumstances for a subaltern to bring \nany one into the Ministry. \n\nGeneral Gonse declared that permits could easily be obtained. \n\nAt this point Colonel Picquart re-entered the witness box in order to \nreply to allegations as to the way he performed his duties. He denied a \nnumber of General Gonse\'s assertions regarding the arrests which the wit- \nness ordered. Picquart also described the extraordinary methods of inves- \ntigation employed in the Intelligence Department by his predecessors. \n\n\n\nDREYFUS ANSWERS HIS ACCUSERS 183 \n\n\n\nChapter XXXV. \n\nDREYFUS ANSWERS HIS ACCUSERS \n\nThe third week of the second trial by court-niartial of Captain Drey- \nfus began on August 21st and developed sensational features. \n\nThree points stood out prominently in the day\'s proceedings. They \nwere Colonel Jouaust\'s display of partiality, the new attitude taken by \nDreyfus, and the contemptible conduct of the last witness, Junck. \n\nGeneral Fabre, former Chief of the Fourth Bureau of the General \nStaff, was the first witness. \n\nHe said that in his official capacity he compared the handwriting of \nthe bordereau with the writing of various officers in his bureau, including \nthe handwriting of a probationer who had been in the bureau during the \nprevious year and who had not favorably impressed his comrades. This \nprobationer, Dreyfus, who was regarded as untrustworthy and insincere in \nhis pretensions, was, according to the witness, equally disliked by his \ncomrades and superiors. He was, Fabre added, constantly endeavoring \nby all sorts of means to learn the secrets of the plan of concentration of \nthe Eastern Railway system, and in his anxiety to secure information neg- \nlected his duties. His official duties, the witness also said, placed it in \nDreyfus\'s power to disclose the documents referred to in the bordereau. \nThe witness could emphatically deny all Dreyfus had said on this sub- \nject. When Major Bertin showed the witness the bordereau the latter \nwas struck with the resemblance of the caligraphy. Dreyfus was the \nonly officer who made a bad impression in his bureau, and the opinions \nof the Chief of Staff and heads of other departments confirmed the wit- \nness\'s belief. \n\nGeneral Fabre, in conclusion, declared he was still as firmly con- \nvinced as in 1894 that the prisoner was the author of the bordereau. \n\nAfter M. Demange had pointed out the discrepancies in Fabre\'s pres- \nent statements and those he voiced in 1894, Colonel Jouaust invited \nDreyfus to reply. \n\n\n\n184 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe prisoner said General Fabre quite correctly described the work on \nwhich he was engaged when a probationer, especially emphasizing that \nhe had to keep the dossier relating to the concentration centres on the \nEastern Eailway system posted up. This was not a fictitious task. The \nprisoner\'s reply was made in calm, measured tones, and his frankness \nseemed to impress the judges favorably. \n\nColonel d\'Abeville, former Deputy Chief of the Fourth Bureau, related \nhow Fabre had showed him a photograph of an anonymous note in which \nthe writer intimated to his correspondent, "evidently foreign to the army," \nthat he had confidential documents to communicate. The witness told \nFabre that the documents mentioned showed the writer could only be an \nartillery officer, belonging to the General Staff, who participated in the \nexpedition of the Headquarters Staff in June and July, 1894. The posi- \ntion of Dreyfus corresponded with these conditions, and, " to their great \nsurprise," a striking resemblance was apparent in the writings of Dreyfus \nand the anonymous letter. \n\nThe witness further declared that only a probationer could possess the \ninformation mentioned in the bordereau. It was not only because of the \nresemblance of the handwriting that suspicions were directed at Dreyfus, \nbut because he was in a position to be acquainted with the documents \nenumerated. \n\nM. Demange wished to know why Colonel d\'Abeville said in 1894 \nthat he thought it necessary to investigate the officers who participated \nin the expedition of the General Staff that year in order to discover the \nauthor of the bordereau. \n\nTo this question witness replied that he was induced to do so by the \nexpression in the bordereau, "I am going to the manoeuvres," for he con- \nsidered the expedition of the General Staff equivalent to the manoeuvres, \nalthough troops were not actually present. \n\nGreater interest in the proceeding was manifested when the name of \nthe next witness was announced, former Chief of the Detective Depart- \nment Cochefert, who was present when Dreyfus underwent the dictation \ntest in Du Paty de Clam\'s office. \n\nM. Cochefert declared he knew absolutely nothing of the Dreyfus case \nwhen the Minister of War, General Mercier, summoned him to a confer- \nence on the subject of the bordereau and the suspicions in regard to Drey- \n\n\n\nDEEYFUS ANSWERS HIS ACCUSERS 185 \n\nfus. General Mercier, Cochefert continued, asked the witness\'s advice as \nto the procedure which ought to be followed, and introduced him to Du \nPaty de Clam. Subsequently, after M. Bertillon\'s report, the arrest of \nDreyfus was decided upon. \n\nThen the witness proceeded to describe the arrest and the famous \nscene of the dictation test, saying that from the first remark dropped by \nDu Paty de Clam the prisoner displayed evident uneasiness. Then, con- \ntinued the ex-Chief of Detectives, Du Paty de Clam, placing his hand on \nthe prisoner\'s shoulder, said: \n\n" Captain Dreyfus, in the name of the Minister of War, I arrest you ! " \n\nAt the time of the examination of Dreyfus the witness gained the im- \npression that he might be guilty, and so reported when the Minister of \nWar asked his opinion. \n\nDuring this formal examination, Cochefert added, Dreyfus declared \nhis innocence very violently, and declared that he did not know what \nthey wanted or of what he was accused. \n\nM. Gribelin, the principal archivist of the Headquarters Staff, was the \nnext witness. He testified with great volubility, and expressed the opin- \nion that when Dreyfus was arrested in 1894, he was enacting a role by \nsystematically denying all the charges against him, even the most obvious \nand least important things, and in declaring himself ignorant of matters \nwhich should have been known to every officer of the General Staff. \n\nThe witness said he had cognizance of Dreyfus\'s relations with women. \nIn support of this assertion he mentioned an alleged voluntary statement \nmade by Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of the prisoner, in the witness\'s pres- \nence, that he had been obliged to pull his brother from the clutches of a \nwoman living near the Champs Elys^es. \n\nIn regard to the dictation test, the witness recalled Dreyfus\'s reply to \nDu Paty de Clam when the latter pointed out that his hands were shak- \ning, namely : " My fingers are cold. " \n\nEeplying to M. Demange, M. Gribelin admitted having mixed up Du \nPaty de Clam\'s and Henry\'s intrigues in favor of Esterhazy. This admis- \nsion created a sensation. \n\nIt was by order of Colonel Henry, the witness added, that he, Gribe- \nlin, put on spectacles and went to the Eue de Douai to hand Esterhazy a \nletter, to which the latter was to reply "yes " or "no." It was also Henry \n\n\n\n186 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwho ordered witness to accompany Du Paty de Clam to Mont Souris Park \nat the time Du Paty de Clam masqueraded under a false beard. \n\nThe witness thought it would have been much simpler to have sum- \nmoned Esterhazy to the Ministry of War, especially as it was known \nMathieu Dreyfus was about to denounce him publicly. \n\nM. Demange remarked that the denunciation of Mathieu Dreyfus \ncould not well have been foreseen when these " romantic interviews \'\' with \nEsterhazy were occurring, considering Mathieu himself had not then con- \ntemplated a denunciation. \n\nM. Gribelin replied that at any rate it was known measures were in \nprogress against Esterhazy, \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Why, then, since it was a question of saving him, were \nfalse beards and blue spectacles resorted to? \n\nM. Gribelin \xe2\x80\x94 You had better ask Du Paty de Clam when he comes \nhere. [Laughter.] Do not imagine it amused me. [Eenewed laughter.] \n\nColonel Picquart, after protesting against the manner in which his \ncorrespondence was tampered with, denied that he had given M. Leblois \nthe slightest information regarding the secret dossier, and said the only \ndocument of the dossier revealed, and that was not by himself, was the \n" Cette canaille de D " document, which had been utilized by the ene- \nmies of Dreyfus, There was also the "liberateur" document, which was \ndelivered to Esterhazy, " who used it to levy the most shameful blackmail \non the Government," \n\nMajor Lauth followed. He said that when the bordereau reached the \nIntelligence Department Henry was absolutely the only officer who knew \nthe agent who furnished it, and was the only officer known to the agent, \nHenry, he explained, had appointments with the foreign spy in question \nonly in the evenings at eight or nine o\'clock, at various places, so it was \nimposible for Henry to hand the papers received to Colonel Sandherr the \nsame evening. Therefore, he took them home and brought them to the \noffice in the morning. Very often these appointments were kept on Sat- \nurday, and Major Lauth believed the packet containing the bordereau was \nhanded to Henry on Saturday, September 22d, and was taken to the office \non September 24th. \n\n"One morning," said Lauth, "it may have been September 24th or \nanother date, though it cannot matter much, I arrived at the office and \n\n\n\nDEEYFUS ANSWERS HIS ACCUSERS 187 \n\nwas about to enter the room in which I usually work, when Colonel \nHenry, who was walking in the corridor, called to me and took me into \nhis room. Captain Mathen arrived simultaneously. We had scarcely en- \ntered when Colonel Henry showed the packet received, and, exhibiting \nsome pieces he had pasted together, said : \n\n" \' It is frightful. Just see what I have found in this packet.\' \n\n" We walked to a window, and all three began to read the contents of \na paper, which was none other than the bordereau. We discussed who \ncould be the author. \n\n" I must add that M. Gribelin entered the room and was informed re- \ngarding the document. At the same time the bordereau was only shown \nto Colonel Sandherr half or three-quarters of an hour later, when he ar- \nrived." \n\nNext, discussing the petit Ueu, Major Lauth said it reached Colonel \nPicquart inclosed in a packet, early in March. Incidentally the witness \nmentioned the mission to Nancy on which Henry went, and said that \nwhile he was absent his wife came to the Intelligence Department to ask \nfor his whereabouts, as she knew nothing of his departure. \n\n"It was the same with all the officers of the department," said Lauth. \n" Our families never knew where we were going when we were sent on \na mission, and it was through the department that they corresponded \nwith us. That proves that things were not conducted in the Fourth \nBureau as alleged by Colonel Picquart, and the officers were not so negli- \ngent and careless as he has asserted. \n\n"I declare," said Lauth, "that if, by inspiring or writing it I had a \nshare in any way whatever in the perpetration of the Henry forgery, I \nshould have avowed it the day Henry committed suicide. I am not even \nnow afraid of the razor, nor the rope of Lemercier-Picard, nor even of a \nbroken-glass omelette. " \n\nAt the instance of M. Demange, Colonel Picquart again described the \nalterations of the jpetit Ueu, and declared that the last time he saw it, the \nday before he started on his mission, the petit Ueu was still in the same \ncondition as when Major Lauth handed it to him in November, 1897. \nWhen Picquart saw it in the possession of General Pellieux, former Min- \nister of War, it seemed to him (Picquart) that the handwriting had been \nsomewhat modified, and at the Tavernier inquiry he noticed that altera- \n\n\n\n188 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ntions of quite a serious character had been made. Ruled lines had been \nerased. Moreover, experiments showed the address had been written in \nink made of gall-nuts, while a superimposed word was written in ink \nmade of logwood. \n\nReplying to the president of the court, Major Lauth said that when \nhe photographed the ]petit hleu he did not notice any sign of erasure. \n\nColonel Picquart said the plate taken by Major Lauth bore no traces \nof erasure. The photograph alone had been tampered with. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Was there an expert examination? \n\nColonel Picquart \xe2\x80\x94 Yes. It was a searching inquiry. Besides, the \ndossier in the Tavernier inquiry can be referred to. \n\nCaptain Junck followed. He said he was a probationer simultaneously \nwith Dreyfus, but in another department of the War Office. He saw the \nprisoner a great deal, and detailed conversations in which, he alleged, \nDreyfus spoke of great sums he had lost in gambling and how much he \nhad spent on women. \n\n"One day," the witness proceeded, "when we were visiting the Con- \ncours Hippique, we met three women who bowed to us, Dreyfus re- \nturned the greeting, and I said to him : \' Well, for a married man, you \nhave nice acquaintances.\' He replied that they were old friends of his \nbachelorhood, and, pointing to one of them, said her name was Valtesse, \nand that she had a house on the Champs Elys^es, where she gave nice \nparties, where pretty women were to be met, and where there was much \ngambling. Dreyfus also boasted of his large means, and spoke with great \nrelish of his comfortable house and travels." \n\nThe witness, continuing, said Dreyfus was well acquainted with the \nscheme for the concentration of troops, and could trace it on any map, as \nmost of the other probationers could. \n\nThe witness then detailed the work of the different bureaus, and pro- \nceeded to demonstrate that the probationers were cognizant of the plans \nfor the transportation and concentration of the troops, and how Dreyfus \nwas ordered to draw up a report on the German artillery, comparing it \nwith the French artillery, and having access to all the necessary docu- \nments. \n\nIn regard to the Madagascar note, Dreyfus, Junck claimed, told the \nwitness that his cousin had procured him interesting information. \n\n\n\nDEEYFUS ANSWERS HIS ACCUSERS 189 \n\nCaptain Junck then spoke of the efforts of Dreyfus to secure the Fir- \ning Manual, and discussed the theory that Henry might have divulged \nthe documents in the bordereau. Such a supposition, the captain de- \nclared, was utterly impossible. \n\nLater, the witness corroborated the statement that Colonel Picquart \nproposed post-marking the petit bleu with the view of proving its genuine- \nness. \n\nDreyfus, after being asked the usual question, replied : \n\n" I will not speak to the witness of private confidences he has made \nto me. If Captain Junck\'s ideas of honor allow him to divulge private \nconversation, mine do not. I have clean hands, and I will keep them \nclean. But there are a number of facts to which I will refer. I will \nspeak first in regard to all the losses it is said I sustained at the club at \nMans. I declare I was never a member of the Civil Club at Mans, never \nvisited it, and, consequently, never gambled there. I am convinced that \nthe members of the club are very respectable, and ask you simply to have \nan inquiry made, in order to know if I am speaking the truth. \n\n\'" In regard to the lectures in the offices of the Headquarters Staff, at \nwhich it is asserted I was present, they occurred in December, 1893. I \nwas absent at that time, and consequently did not attend the lectures." \n\nThe prisoner then proceeded to show that in July, 1894, the proba- \ntioners were informed by an official circular that they were to pass a \nperiod of probation in the army, the first-yearers in August and Septem- \nber, the second-yearers in October, November, and December, therefore, \nat a period when there were no manoeuvres. \n\nEegarding the officers directing the dispatch of troops at various \npoints, Dreyfus dwelt upon the fact that he, at that time, was on a mis- \nsion and was not at the mance\'uvres at all. \n\n"We must be precise," Dreyfus added, "and not play upon words. In \nAugust, 1894, the second-year probationers knew definitely that they \nwere to go to various regiments in October, November, and December, and \nthat consequently they would not attend the manoeuvres." \n\n\n\n190 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXXVL \n\nLABOR! RESUMES THE DEFENCE OF DREYFUS \n\n,/ MaItee Labori, leading counsel for the defence, who was murderously \nassaulted on August 14th, was able to resume the defence of Captain Drey- \nfus when the trial was resumed on August 2 2d. \n\nThe arrival of M. Labori at the Lyc^e was the signal for scenes of \nextraordinary enthusiasm. At 6:15 a.m. three carriages, preceded by a \nnumber of bicyles, drove up. The first carriage contained M. Labori and \nhis wife and physicians. The others contained friends of the lawyer and \nsome police inspectors. The crowd about the Lyc^e Building rushed up \nto M. Labori\'s carriage, and a number of persons eagerly thrust their \nhands through the windows to greet the distinguished lawyer. \n\nWhen M. Labori descended, he was surrounded by friends, and a hun- \ndred hands pressed his, while he was assailed with all sorts of questions, \nto which he smilingly replied : \n\n" I am getting on well, my friends, thank you, thank you. " \n\nAs M. Labori, still accompanied by Madame Labori and a physician, \nentered the court-room the audience greeted him by standing up, and there \nwas a general roar of applause, accompanied by the clapping of hands, \nwhich was distinctly heard in the streets. \n\nTears filled the eyes of the wounded man, who was evidently deeply \naffected by the warm welcome accorded him. Among those who greeted \nM. Labori were Generals Billot and Mercier, who courteously inquired as \nto his condition. The lawyer looked very well, considering his recent \nexperience. He walked quite briskly, but held his left arm close to his \nside, in order not to disturb the wound. He was conducted to a light, \nwell-cushioned armchair, instead of one of the ordinary cane-bottom \nchairs, behind the table set apart for the lawyers. \n\nMadame Labori, who entered the court-room ahead of her husband, \n\n\n\nLABORI EESUMES THE DEFENCE OF DREYFUS 191 \n\nalso received a hearty greeting. As she took a seat in court she was sur- \nrounded by friends, who overwhelmed her with congratulations on her \nhusband\'s recovery, to which she smilingly responded. \n\nDreyfus entered the court-room soon afterward, and, after saluting the \njudges in the usual manner, he turned to M. Labori with outstretched \nhand, and a smile of keen pleasure lighted up his pale and usually impas- \nsive features. The lawyer took the prisoner\'s hand and shook it warmly, \nwhereupon Dreyfus gave him another look of gratitude and took his seat \nin front of the counsel\'s table with his back toward them. \n\nColonel Jouaust next read from a paper an address to M. Labori, the \ntone of the president being quite sympathetic. The lawyer made an im- \npassioned reply. He was deeply affected and his voice was clear, though \nnot so strong as before the outrage. He was very nervous and excited, \nand swayed to and fro as he delivered his reply, which profoundly im- \npressed his hearers. \n\nThe first witness was M. Grenier, the former prefect of Belfort. His \ntestimony was favorable to Dreyfus, inasmuch as his deposition was dis- \ntinctly hostile to Esterhazy. \n\nMajor Eollin of the Intelligence Department was asked during the \ncourse of his testimony by M. Labori how a certain document, of a later \ndate than Mercier\'s ministry, came into General Mercier\'s possession. \nEollin said it was not his business to explain, but counsel insisted, asking \nwhose business it was. \n\nFinally M. Labori asked Colonel Jouaust to request General Mercier \nto explain. \n\nThe general arose and said he declined to answer. \n\nM. Labori insisted emphatically, but Mercier still refused to answer, \nand Major Carriere, the Government Commissary, supported him, on the \nground that the examination was entering upon a matter which ought \nnot, in the interests of the country, to be discussed publicly. \n\nM. Labori then declared in a loud voice that he would reserve to him- \nself the right to take the necessary measure to obtain the desired informa- \ntion. \n\nThe next point was made by Dreyfus in his reply to Major Eollin. \nThe latter had remarked that all the prisoner\'s papers were seized when \nhis rooms were searched in 1894, and Colonel Jouaust said that certain \n\n\n\n192 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\npages from his text-book, "The School of War," were found missing. \nTo this the prisoner retorted : \n\n"Not in 1894, Colonel!" \n\nThis caused some sensation, as the obvious interpretation was that the \npages were torn out at the War Office, and that then the fact was used \nagainst him as an insinuation that he had communicated the missing \npages to foreign agents. \n\nM. Ferret, who was alleged to have caught Dreyfus prying into the \nwork of some of his fellow-officers during their absence, then testified that \ntoward the end of 1893, on returning from his luncheon, at an hour the \nofficers were usually out, he found Dreyfus in the Fourth Bureau, stand- \ning with a stranger, a civilian, at the table, consulting a document which \nseemed to the witness to be connected with the transportation of troops. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Why did you not give this evidence in 1894? \n\nWitness said he regretted he had overlooked it. \n\nThe prisoner protested against such statements, which, he said, were \nnothing but "vile insinuations," concocted by a former Minister of War \n(General Mercier). [Great sensation.] \n\n"I never went into my office," continued Dreyfus, "at any other time \nthan the hours of duty. I declare it was impossible, or at least most \ndifficult, for a civilian to enter the offices of the Ministry of War." \n\nDreyfus added that while his wife was at Houlgate, Normandy, in \nAugust or September, 1894, he happened to go to his office at noon, \nthough the usual hour was two o\'clock. \n\nColonel Jouaust questioned Dreyfus relative to his hours of duties and \nthe difficulty of introducing a stranger into the offices, after which Gen- \neral Gonse asked for permission to speak in order to complete his evi- \ndence. He said he received a letter on August 21st from M. Le Cha- \nteller. Chief Engineer of the Department of Eoads and Bridges, and the \ngeneral read a letter in which Le Chateller said : \n\n" During six or seven years I had a permit for the Ministry of War, \nand went there at least a hundred times. I did not have to show my \npermit more than ten times. On another occasion I was accompanied by \na friend, who entered without any other formality than opening the gate \nand saluting the sentry." [Laughter.] \n\nGeneral Gonse read another letter of similar purport, and Dreyfus said : \n\n\n\nLABORI RESUMES THE DEFENCE OF DREYFUS 193 \n\n" That rule was strict. The letters only prove that certain persons did \nnot observe it." \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 It also proves that since the Ministry of War was so \neasily entered, others besides officers could easily procure information. \n[Murmurs of dissent.] \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Bertin, who was the head of Dreyfus\'s office in 1894, \nwas the next witness, and showed himself to be a most virulent enemy of \nthe prisoner. He had evidently learned his testimony by heart, and de- \nclared it in a strident, aggressive tone, which grated upon the ears of the \naudience. Some of his remarks, particularly his declaration that he was \nconvinced of Dreyfus\'s guilt by M. Bertillon\'s chart and his introduction \nof Esterhazy\'s statements against Dreyfus, elicited general smiles in court. \n\nThe witness testified to the prisoner\'s great zeal at first, and said that \nlater this was replaced by great carelessness in matters of detail. \n\n"In the face of this," said Bertin, "I gradually ceased to consider him \nan assistant. He left an enormous amount of uncompleted work. Thus, \nafter devoting much time to initiating him into the secrets of the concen- \ntration of troops on the Eastern Eailway system in time of war, I did not \nreceive any service in exchange." \n\nWitness added that the reports he gave Dreyfus when he left were \nsuch that he could never enter the Eailroad Department. Proceeding, the \nwitness reiterated that Dreyfus was in a position to acquaint himself with \nthe questions of the Eastern Eailroad\'s mobilization, and described a con- \nversation which he had with Dreyfus in 1893, which, in the opinion of \nthe witness, threw a curious light on Dreyfus\'s idea of the Fatherland. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Bertin also spoke of the comparisons of the hand- \nwritings, and then, turning to the prisoner\'s attitude at the court-martial \nof 1894, he said it painfully impressed him, and he was convinced of the \nguilt of Dreyfus by the evidence of M. Bertillon. \n\nEeferring to his interviews with M. Scheurer-Kestner, formerly a vice- \npresident of the senate, " whom I always regarded as an honorable man, \nobeying the dictates of his conscience," Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin contro- \nverted part of Colonel Picquart\'s evidence on the subject, and at the con- \nclusion of his deposition the witness declared he never ordered Dreyfus to \nprocure information concerning the entire network of railroads, "which the \n\nprisoner sought to acquire from Captain Cuignet." \n13 \n\n\n\n194 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nReplying to questions on the subject of the alleged untimely visit of \nDreyfus to his ofl&ce, witness said that the plans were kept in his office, \nand that Dreyfus knew the word necessary to open the press containing \nthem. \n\nAt this juncture the clerk of the court read a letter from M. Scheurer- \nKestner excusing himself from being unable to attend the session of the \ncourt. The letter referred to the steps taken by Mathieu Dreyfus to secure \nthe rehabilitation of his brother, and described the writer\'s investigations \nand how it was only when Esterhazy\'s handwriting was shown him that \nhis hesitation ended. The letter also described the moments of anguish \nthe writer experienced during the course of the campaign, and dwelt on \nthe opinion expressed in the judgment of the Court of Cassation and the \nconfessions of Esterhazy that he was the writer of the bordereau. \n\nIn conclusion the letter said : \n\n" You will permit an old Alsatian, Monsieur le President, to express \nthe sentiment that the hour of justice will soon strike in the interest of \nthe army, of justice, and of the country." [Great sensation.] \n\nM. Demange reminded Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin of a remark he made \nto M. Ferdinand Scheurer-Kestner, namely : \n\n"There are only five of us who know this terrible secret. One out of \nthe five must betray it before you can know anything." \n\nCounsel asked if the secret was not that Dreyfus was innocent? \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Bertin \xe2\x80\x94 Oh, no, no ! \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 According to the terms of the conversation ? \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Bertin (energetically) \xe2\x80\x94 No, no; and I\'ll tell you \nwhy. I have never concealed two things from any members of the \nScheurer-Kestner family: Firstly, that M. Scheurer-Kestner would be \ndoing a great service if his efforts resulted in establishing the innocence \nof a French officer. Secondly, that I was convinced of the guilt of Drey- \nfus. [Sensation.] \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Did you not once make the following remark : " \' This \nJew was a thrust at Headquarters, and we had to get rid of him \' ? " \n\nLieutenant- Colonel Bertin \xe2\x80\x94 No, never. I absolutely deny it. When \nI was in the War Office the Jewish question was never raised. Dreyfus \nwas regarded as a comrade. I confided all my secrets to him and gave \nhim the password of my locker. \n\n\n\nLABOEI EESUMES THE DEFENCE OF DREYFUS 195 \n\nBertin\'s testimony was concluded with a sharp passage-at-arms be- \ntween him and M. Labori. The latter declared that Bertin himself, by \nremarks which he had made upon a certain occasion, convinced the law- \nyer of the innocence of Dreyfus. Counsel then recalled other words used \nby Bertin to the effect that M. Demange was counsel for the German \nembassy because he had defended others accused of espionage. \n\nThe witness admitted the correctness of M. Labori\'s quotation, where- \nupon M. Demange jumped up and protested against Lieutenant-Colonel \nBertin\'s statement. Sharp words were exchanged, until Colonel Jouaust \nintervened and refused to allow any further discussion of a matter outside \nof the case. \n\nSeveral minor witnesses followed. \n\nMajor Gendron was called to testify regarding an Austrian woman, \nMme. Dely. He said he had taken tea at her house on a single occasion, \nand that he thereafter confined himself to exchanging a few polite words \nwith her when they met, though the gallant officer asserted that the lady \nurged his revisiting her home. He thought that neither the age nor the \nbeauty of the lady accounted for her stylish mode of dressing, nor for the \nmystery of her existence, nor for the presence of her child. All this, it \nappears, told the witness that he was dealing with an adventuress. He \nheard that she had fine acquaintances, including Dreyfus, and, in view of \nthe fact that in such companionship Dreyfus was liable to commit some \nlight, imprudent action, witness informed Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin of his \nfears. \n\nMajor Bosse, Captain Boulanger, Colonel Jeannel, and Major Maistre \nall testified. In the main their evidence was uninteresting. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Jeannel repeated evidence which he had given be- \nfore the Court of Cassation. He was very hard on Dreyfus, but while \ntestifying he scarcely once looked the prisoner in the face. \n\nColonel Jeannel during his cross-examination threw some light upon \nthe question of the Firing Manual, which, he said, he lent Dreyfus in \n1894. \n\nM. Demange wanted to know the exact date, and Colonel Jeannel said \nhe believed it was in July, adding "in 1894." That would have been a \npoint calculated to weaken the proof against Dreyfus, counsel pointing \nout that Colonel Jeannel was not examined in 1894, and asking the cause \n\n\n\n196 DEEYPUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nof this irregularity. The date of the bordereau was given as April of that \nyear, namely, before Colonel Jeannel lent the Firing Manual. \n\nThe prisoner said that in 1894 he insisted at both the preliminary \nexamination and at the court-martial that Colonel Jeannel should be \nexamined. \n\n"I obtained no satisfaction," Dreyfus added. "I was, however, sure \nof my facts. Colonel Jeannel\'s memory must be playing him false. Per- \nhaps the confusion arises from the fact that I asked him to lend me the \nGerman Firing Manual." \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Do you remember that, Colonel Jeannel? \n\nColonel Jeannel \xe2\x80\x94 No. \' \n\nAt this point M. Labori expressed surprise that it was not thought \nnecessary in 1894 to examine a witness who now (August 2 2d), "out of \npure caprice and for the convenience of the prosecution" had become an \nexcellent witness. The court, counsel added, would deduce its own \nopinion. \n\nThe last witness of the day. Captain Maistre, read a letter from an offi- \ncer, now at Nantes, affirming that while he was on the General Staff as a \nprobationer, at the same time as Dreyfus, the latter told the officer of his \nvisit to Alsace-Lorraine, and recounted how he had followed the German \narmy manoeuvres on foot and on horseback. \n\nThis was intended to show Dreyfus was not telling the truth when he \ndenied having been present at any time at the manoeuvres in Alsace-Lor- \nraine. \n\nAnother part of Captain Maistre\'s evidence proved to be in favor of \nDreyfus. In contradiction of other witnesses who declared Dreyfus fre- \nquently stayed at the office prying into other officers\' duties. Captain \nMaistre declared that Dreyfus was disinclined to work, and often left the \noffice before the regular time. \n\nThe prisoner, in the tone of calm moderation which again distin- \nguished his utterances, replied to Captain Maistre\'s allegations, and added, \nwith reference to M. Beaurepaire\'s accusations, that the latter\'s immoral- \nity would ere long be demonstrated before the court-martial. The court \nthen rose for the day. \n\nMaitre Labori was immediately surrounded by friends, nearly every \none in court wishing to shake hands with him. He was cheerful and \n\n\n\nLABOEI EESUMES THE DEFENCE OF DREYFUS 197 \n\nsmiling, and had a few well-chosen words for every one. Madame Labori \nshared in the admiration expressed for her husband. The brilliant lawyer \nreturned home in a carriage as he had come, with an escort of two mounted \ngendarmes. Policemen, gendarmes, and detectives were also distributed \nalong the road, as a precaution against a fresh outrage. \n\nApart from the salutations of his personal friends, there was no demon- \nstration while M. Labori was either going to or coming from the Lyc^e. \n\n\n\n198 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXXVH. \n\nGENERAL GONSE CORNERED BY M. LABORI \n\nMaitre Laboei, leading counsel for the defence, and Madame Labori \nwere present in court when the trial of Dreyfus was resumed on August \n23d. The session was comparatively uneventful. The depositions were \nnot productive of any really thrilling incidents. Much of the time was \noccupied in reading the testimony of Esterhazy and Mile. Pays before the \nCourt of Cassation, during which many of the audience left the court. \n\nM. Labori again distinguished himself in laying bare the weak points \nof the evidence. He was less fierce, however, than yesterday, though \nquite aggressive enough to arouse the latent hostility of the judges, which \nshowed itself in various little ways. \n\nDuring some of the depositions M. Labori appeared very nervous. He \nwas unable to remain still an instant, twitching his fingers and shaking \npapers in his hands. He was almost too impatient to wait till the wit- \nnesses concluded their testimony. \n\nThe only dangerous opponent of Dreyfus was General Gonse, who \nmounted the stage with a quick step and apparently light heart. But \nhe left it badly mauled by M. Labori. \n\nGeneral Gonse began by declaring he came to defend his honor against \nthose " drivelling " against him. But when his cross-examination was fin- \nished he returned to his seat with his honor worse off than before, for M. \nLabori had driven him into a corner on the attempts of the General Staff \nto shield Esterhazy, and had shown that the General Staff, for which \nGonse was responsible, had engineered Esterhazy\'s escape from the hands \nof justice. \n\nComptroller Eay, the first witness called, gave his impressions of \nDreyfus, which harmonized with those of the generals who have already \ntestified. But, the witness was unable to give a single specific fact to \nsubstantiate his impressions. \n\n\n\nGENERAL GONSE CORNERED BY M. LABORI 199 \n\nMajor Drevieli testified to a long string of similar insinuations. He \nreferred to Dreyfus\'s alleged boastfulness of his money and the prisoner\'s \nirregular attendance at his office. \n\nAfter Dreyfus had rebutted one or two of this witness\'s statements, \nMajor Du Chatelet was called. He described the alleged confidences of \nDreyfus in regard to women and gambling. \n\nMaitre Demange expressed surprise at the fact that the witness had \nnot mentioned this at the court-martial of 1894, to which Major Du \nChatelet replied : \n\n" What ! Here was a man accused of one of the most heinous crimes, \nand you think I ought to have retailed his confidences in regard to women \nand gambling. Nonsense ! " \n\nDreyfus briefly corrected some of Du Chatelet\'s statements, and then \nM. Dubreuil, who described himself as a private gentleman, took the \nstand. He testified as to how he was introduced to Dreyfus by a certain \nM. Bodson, at whose house the witness afterward dined in company with \nDreyfus and a German attach^, whose name he did not remember. \n\nContinuing, M. Dubreuil said he was greatly astonished at the " suspi- \ncious familiarity" between the attach^ and Dreyfus, and that, perceiving \nthey disapproved of his presence, M. Dubreuil ceased his visits to M. \nBodson. When the latter asked the reason of this, saying, according to \nthe witness, that Dreyfus was the friend and even the lover of his wife, \nand asking witness\'s advice as to how to get rid of her, witness asked M. \nBodson if he had proofs, and Bodson is said to have replied : \n\n" Proofs ! Yes, I have even proofs enough to drive Dreyfus out of the \nFrench army." \n\nWitness, however, was unable to learn what M. Bodson referred to. \n\nWhen he was pressed to describe more clearly the alleged German \nattach^, M. Dubreuil replied that he did not know his name, but was told \nhe was attached to the German Embassy. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Was he a military or civil attach^? \n\nM, Dubreuil \xe2\x80\x94 I do not remember. I do not know. Let Maitre La- \nbori put himself in my place [laughter], and he will see the difficulty of \nremembering the name of a stranger he met thirteen years ago. \n\nDreyfus protested excitedly against the evidence of M. Dubreuil, who \nis a Parisian friend of M. de Beaurepaire ; but Colonel Jouaust exhorted \n\n\n\n200 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nhim to be calm, promising the prisoner a chance to reply. This arrived \nshortly afterward, and Dreyfus thundered out: \n\n"I won\'t speak here of M. or Madame Bodson, except to say that my \nrelations with Madame Bodson ceased in 1886 or 1887, since when I have \nnever seen her. I wish simply to assert that the witness is lying. I \nnever dined at M. Bodson\'s with any civil or military attach^. The mat- \nter must be cleared up. People must produce definite facts here, and not \nmere tittle-tattle. The name of the person with whom I am alleged to \nhave dined must be ascertained. It must be known here who is lying \nand who is speaking the truth. " \n\nMajor Le Kond, a professor of the Military School, described his rela- \ntions with Esterhazy and Picquart, telling how Esterhazy attended the \nartillery manoeuvres of 1894 and 1896, and touching upon Picquart\' s sub- \nsequent inquiry as to whether in 1894 Esterhazy could have obtained \nsecret documents relating to new inventions, to which the witness replied \nin the negative. \n\nThe major added that during this interview Picquart said he spoke in \nbehalf of the Minister of War. The witness added : \n\n" Colonel Picquart\' s manner in speaking of Esterhazy left me so little \ndoubt that proofs of Esterhazy\'s guilt existed that I asked if he had been \narrested or was about to be taken into custody. Colonel Picquart replied \nthat he had not yet obtained positive proof, but had the gravest presump- \ntions. " \n\nMajor Le Rond also said that when Colonel Picquart questioned him \nin 1896 as to the possibility of Esterhazy\'s possessing knowledge of artil- \nlery matters, the witness replied that Esterhazy seemed anxious to learn \nsomething about artillery, but his questions, while displaying intelligence \nand alertness of mind, showed comparatively little acquaintance on the \nsubject. Esterhazy, he added, could only have consulted the Firing Man- \nual through the witness, and had he done so his action, though not irreg- \nular, would have remained in the major\'s memory. \n\nHere Colonel Picquart jumped up and denied that he mentioned es- \npionage to Major Le Eond, or that he spoke in behalf of the Minister of \nWar. But the major adhered to his statements, and asserted that Pic- \nquart\'s memory was playing him false. \n\nAt this juncture Colonel Jouaust announced that it was Esterhazy\'s \n\n\n\nGENERAL GONSE CORNERED BY M. LABORI 201 \n\nturn to speak, but that, as he was not present, the evidence which he gave \nbefore the Court of Cassation would be read. \n\nThe clerk of the court accordingly read Esterhazy\'s deposition. \n\nThe chief aim of Esterhazy, in his testimony before the Court of Cas- \nsation, delivered January 24, 1899, was to show that in 1897-98 he was \nprotected by Du Paty de Clam, Henry, and their subordinates, acting un- \nder orders from Generals de Boisdeffre, Gonse, and de Pellieux. He re- \nfused to make any declaration in regard to the bordereau, in language which \nwas interpreted against him by the Court of Cassation in its judgment re- \ngarding a revision of the Dreyfus case. \n\nM. Labori asked that three letters addressed by Esterhazy to the Pres- \nident of the Republic should be read. \n\nThe following are passages from those letters. In the first letter he \nsaid: \n\n"My house is illustrious enough in the annals of Erench history and \nin those of the great European causes, for the Government of my country \nto take care not to allow my name to be dragged in the mud. I address \nmyself, therefore, to the supreme head of the army and to the President of \nthe Republic, and I ask him to put an end to the scandal, as he can and \nought to do. \n\n" If I should have the sorrow not to be listened to by the supreme \nhead of my country, my precautions are taken for my appeal to reach the \nears of my heraldic chief, to the sovereign of the Esterhazy family, the \nEmperor of Germany. He is a soldier, and will know how to set the \nhonor of a soldier, even an enemy, above the mean equivocal intrigues of \npolitics. He will dare to speak out loud and strong to defend the honor \nof ten generations of soldiers. It is for you, as President of the Republic, \nto judge if you should force me to carry the question into that region. \nAn Esterhazy fears not anything or anybody, if not God." \n\nIn his second letter Esterhazy said : \n\n" I am at bay and compelled to use all means in my power. A gen- \nerous woman, who warned me of the horrible plot woven against me by \nfriends of Dreyfus, with the assistance of Colonel Picquart, has since been \nable to procure for me among other documents the photograph of a paper \nwhich she succeeded in getting out of that officer. \n\n" This paper, stolen in a foreign legation by Colonel Picquart, is most \n\n\n\n202 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ncompromising for certain diplomatic personages. If I neither obtain sup- \nport nor justice, and if my name come to be pronounced, this photograph, \nwhich is to-day quite safe abroad, will be immediately published." \n\nIn the third letter he said: \n\n" This document is protection for me, since it proves the scoundrelism \nof Dreyfus, and is a danger for my country, because its publication, with \nthe facsimile of writing, will force France to humiliate herself or to de- \nclare war. You, who are above empty quarrels in which my honor is at \nstake, do not leave me under the obligation of choosing between two alter- \nnatives equally horrible. Compel the Pontius Pilate of politics to make \na clear, precise declaration instead of manoeuvring to retain the voice of \nfriends of Barabbas. \n\n" All letters that I have written will shortly reach the hands of one \nof my relatives, who has had the honor this summer to receive two em- \nperors. What will the whole world think when it learns of the cowardly, \ncold cruelty with which I have been allowed to struggle in my agony \nwithout help, without advice? My blood will be upon your heads." \n\nGeneral Gonse said he desired to reply to Esterhazy\'s statements. \nDuring the course of his observations, the general said Esterhazy\'s allega- \ntion that he was the right-hand man of the General Staff was absolutely \nfalse. \n\nThe general then proceeded to refer to his avoidance of Esterhazy dur- \ning the Zola trial. \n\n"I considered him to be a compromising person," said the witness, \n" and I was not wrong. If Esterhazy was permitted to go free at the time \nof the judicial inquiry, it was by order of General Saussier, who would \nnot accept the advice of the General Staff nor of the officers under him, \nhowever high their rank. It was Major Du Paty de Clam alone who \ncompromised the entire Headquarters Staff by his imprudence. [Sensa- \ntion.] \n\n" If I now say so for the first time it is because the case against Du \nPaty de Clam had been dismissed. I could not have spoken earlier with- \nout seeming to accuse a prisoner." \n\nThe general then attempted to explain the intervention of the Head- \nquarters Staff in the choice of Esterhazy\'s witnesses at the time of his \nprosecution by Colonel Picquart, and said he, the witness, was convinced \n\n\n\nGEN^ERAL GONSE CORNERED BY M. LABORI 203 \n\nDu Paty de Clam was only connected with the late Lieutenant-Colonel \nHenry and not with Esterhazy. \n\nM. Labori said he desired to show if Greneral Gonse did not consider \nhimself in some measure responsible for the proceedings of Du Paty de \nClam. \n\nThe general replied in the negative, and added that he was conscious \nthat he had always done his duty. The witness admitted, however, that \nDu Paty de Clam was not altogether innocent of a share in the appearance \nof the " Dixi " article, which appeared in the Libre Parole, and gave the \npublic the first information regarding the character of the secret dossier \nand the intrigues against Colonel Picquart. \n\nWhen General Gonse was asked what he thought of Du Paty de \nClam\'s interviews with Maitre Tezenas, Esterhazy\'s counsel, he replied : \n\n" Esterhazy was a sort of special prisoner. He retained his liberty, \nnot because he was under the protection of the General Staff, but because \nGeneral Saussier so ordered." \n\nThereupon M. Labori remarked that General Saussier acted in this \nmatter because he had been deceived by the Headquarters Staff in regard \nto Esterhazy, adding : \n\n"That is a point which it is very important to emphasize." \n\nThe general admitted that were two interviews between Du Paty de \nClam and M. Tezenas, after which, witness said, he ordered them to stop. \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre at this point took the occasion to re-defend \nhimself. \n\n"I ask leave," he said, "only to tell the court that I give the most \nabsolute contradiction to Esterhazy\'s evidence." \n\nThen turning to the counsel for defence, the general added : \n\n" K I were not here as a witness I would ask permission to say, in re- \ngard to these falsehoods, that I despise them and repel them with the \nscorn they deserve." \n\nGeneral Lebelin de Dionne, governor of the Military College, then tes- \ntified to Dreyfus\'s character at college. The prisoner, he said, displayed \ngreat intelligence, but had a deplorable temper. He recalled a remark of \nDreyfus that the people of Alsace-Lorraine would be much happier under \nGerman rule than under the rule of France. \n\nThe prisoner, referring to the recriminations mentioned by General \n\n\n\n204 DREYEUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nLebelin de Dionne, explained that during his first year at the Military \nCollege he attained very high marks, that the second year he almost held \nhis place, when, he added, he heard that a member of the Examining \nBoard had declared at a board meeting that, without knowing the pupils, \nhe put mark 5 opposite the name of Dreyfus, simply because they did not \nwant a Jew on the Headquarters Staff. The prisoner thought that his \nprotests against this would, therefore, be readily understood. \n\nEegarding the alleged remarks about Alsace-Lorraine, Dreyfus declared \nthat the statement was the very opposite of his real sentiments. \n\nM. Lanquety, a mining engineer of Boulogne, who told the Court of \nCassation that he had seen Dreyfus at Brussels during the summer of \n1894, followed. The witness said he could not now swear to when he \nsaw Dreyfus there. \n\nThe prisoner, rising, declared that it was in 1886, at the time of the \nAmsterdam exhibition, adding that was the only time he visited Brussels. \n\n"I met you, M. Lanquety," said Dreyfus, "at a restaurant in St. Hu- \nbert Arcade. We exchanged a few words." \n\nM. Lanquety admitted that the prisoner\'s statement was true. \n\n\n\nGENERALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIRE 205 \n\n\n\nChapter XXXVIIL \n\nGENERALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIRE \n\nWhen the trial of Captain Dreyfus was resumed at the Lyc^e on Au- \ngust 24th, Colonel Jouaust, president of the court, ordered that the evi- \ndence given by M. Penot, a friend of the late Colonel Sandherr, chief of \nthe Intelligence Department, be read. \n\nIt was to the effect that Colonel Sandherr said the Dreyfus family \noffered him 150,000 francs on condition that he would clear Dreyfus. \n\nMaitre Demange, for the defence, disposed of this allegation by read- \ning the actual note on the subject written by Sandherr, thereby proving \nthat the Colonel\'s remarks had been distorted, Dreyfus\'s brothers only \nhaving said : \n\n" We are convinced of the innocence of our brother, and will spend our \nentire fortune to discover the truth." \n\nThe testimony of the first witness of the day, M. DinoUe, a former \nofi&cial of the Government, was also in favor of Dreyfus, as it was in di- \nrect contradiction of what M. Dubreuil deposed yesterday regarding the \nalleged intimacy of Dreyfus with the German attach^ at the house of M. \nBodson, a mutual friend. \n\nThe president of the court then called the next witness. Colonel \nMaurel-Pries, who was president of the Dreyfus court-martial in 1894. \n\nAs M. Labori lashed him with pointed questions the colonel hesi- \ntated, and then answered in a short, choppy manner, and when M. Labori \nfinally disposed of him, the witness left the platform with the pale face \nand scared look of a man who had been awakened from a nightmare. \n\nThe counsel had drawn from the colonel a confession that the secret \ndossier was communicated to the judges of the court-martial of 1894 by \nColonel Du Paty de Clam. This avowal produced a sensation in court, \nand Maurel-Pries\' s declaration that he only read one of the documents \ndid not affect the main fact, while his protestation that the reading of the \n\n\n\n206 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ndocument had no effect upon him, as his mind was already made up, was \nnullified by his subsequent declaration that this one document sufficed to \nconvince him. \n\nM. Labori pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of the offi- \ncers of the Headquarters Staff regarding the importance and nature of the \ncontents of the bordereau, and asked General Mercier where Dreyfus could \nhave obtained particulars about the hydro-pneumatic brake? \n\nThe general hotly objected to being asked to repeat his evidence, and \nM. Labori, equally warmly, said : \n\n" I am only asking for definite statements." \n\nMercier then said he thought Dreyfus might have had cognizance of \nthe brake at Bourges, adding : \n\n" In any case, he had a better chance to obtain such knowledge than \nEsterhazy could possibly have had." \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 General Mercier says, "Dreyfus might have had cogniz- \nance." I desire to emphasize that expression. We shall now prove Drey- \nfus could not have had cognizance of the brake. \n\nCounsel proceeded to demonstrate how rigorously the secret of the \nconstruction of the brake was guarded, and asked why, in 1894, the \ncharges regarding the Kobin shells were not dwelt upon ? \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 That arises from the simple fact that it was not \nknown until 1896 or 1897 that information on the subject was being di- \nvulged. The existence of treachery in regard to the distribution of heavy \nartillery among the army corps was unknown until 1896, \n\nThe passages -at-arms between M. Labori and General Mercier were \nfollowed with the keenest interest. Both men were wary and mutual \nsuspicious of each other, and there was considerable acerbity. Colonel \nJouaust at times finding difficulty in preventing the discussion from wan- \ndering outside legal paths. \n\nContinuing, M. Labori asked why General Mercier did not have a re- \nport prepared regarding the confessions Dreyfus is alleged to have made \nto Captain Lebrun-Eenault. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 The question of the confessions was of no impor- \ntance, as a revision of the case seemed impossible. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 What does General Mercier think of Esterhazy and the \npart he played ? \n\n\n\nGENERALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIRE 207 \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know Esterhazy, and I do not think about \nhim at all. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Did he know you at his trial in 1898? \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 General Mercier was not Minister of War then. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 This is most interesting. General Mercier declares he \nknows nothing of the trial of 1898. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I know nothing of it. I leave that to the court- \nmartial which tried Esterhazy. I have only to answer in court for my \nacts, and I refuse you the right to question me about my thoughts. \n\nColonel Jouaust, addressing M. Labori, said : \n\n" You are reverting to the evidence of General Mercier ? " \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 My object in interrogating the witness is to revert to his \nevidence. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I protest against the word " interrogating, " for I am \nnot a prisoner. \n\n"Interrogatory," in French law, is generally applied to the examina- \ntion of an accused person by a magistrate. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 It is not a question of "interrogatory"; I used the word in \nthe most respectful sense. Will General Mercier say what he means by \nthe charge preferred against the partisans of Dreyfus of having spent \n35,000,000 francs? What was this sum used for? The amount is simply \nridiculous. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I might just as well ask you. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Do you mean to suggest that it was spent in advertise- \nments and in buying consciences? \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I say nothing whatever. \n\nCounsel next wished to know why the bordereau was communicated \nto the court-martial of 1894, when it was considered impossible to show \nthe other documents of the secret dossier. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 Because the bordereau was not dated, not signed, \nand its place of origin could be concealed. \n\nM. Labori pointed out that the place of origin had been mentioned in \ncourt, and then asked for explanations in regard to the perpetration of the \n1894 forgery. \n\nThe cross-examination of General Mercier became more and more \n\n\n\n208 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nheated, and so rapid that it was difficult to follow, and many of the an- \nswers were confusing. As the questions of counsel touched upon the \nsecret dossier and a certain document in blue pencil. General Gonse, Gen- \neral Eoget, M. Gribelin, and Major Lauth also participated in the discus- \nsion, which almost degenerated into a wrangle. \n\nMajor Lauth said he believed a clue to the blue-pencil document ex- \nisted before the trial of 1894, and M. Labori asked why, in that case, it \nwas not produced at the trial, since it incriminated the prisoner? \n\nGeneral Mercier said he did not know of this clue, and Major Lauth \ndisclaimed all responsibility in the matter, as he was not connected with \nthe preliminary inquiry. \n\nGeneral Gonse said the document had been in the possession of Colo- \nnel Sandherr, [sensation] and it was by him placed in the secret dossier \nfor comparison with other papers. \n\nM. Labori asked for explanations in regard to the commentary on the \nsecret dossier, and General Mercier admitted he destroyed it in 1897. \n\nGeneral Gonse, who was questioned on the same subject, declared that \nit was by order of General de Boisdeffre that he returned the commen- \ntary to General Mercier. \n\nAnswering further questions, Mercier said the Panizzardi telegram \nwas not communicated to the court-martial in 1894. He was ordered by \nGeneral de Boisdeffre not to include it in the secret dossier. \n\nCounsel next discussed the three-page document, claiming that the \nfalse rendering of the Panizzardi telegram was to correct it and point \ndirectly to Dreyfus as the traitor. \n\nMercier asked to be allowed to converse with General Chanoine before \nattempting to explain. General Chanoine thereupon advanced and ex- \nplained about the document, which had been handed him by General \nMercier. He said he noticed inaccuracies in it, and resolved not to use \nit. Witness, however, had been carried away in testifying, and read a \npage of the document, and it was after a friendly conversation with Maitre \nLabori that he read the entire document in court, at General Mercier\'s \nrequest, and returned him the document. \n\nGeneral Mercier acknowledged the accuracy of General Chanoine\'s \nstatement, adding that it was Colonel Du Paty de Clam who gave him \nthe document. \n\n\n\nGENERALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIRE 209 \n\nCounsel had the document reread, and referred to the two versions of \nthe two telegrams of November 2d, one designating Dreyfus as communi- \ncating documents to Germany, M. Labori pointed out that M. Paleo- \nlogue of the Foreign Office denied that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs \nhad communicated this version, and asked why General Mercier had re- \nceived it through Du Paty de Clam. \n\nAt this juncture General Eoget mounted the platform and expressed \nsurprise at this " idle controversy being resumed. " [Cries of " Oh ! Oh ! "] \n\nThe general asked that Major Maton, who assisted in deciphering the \ntelegram, be called, and counsel protested against the application of the \nword "idle" to any questions he thought proper to ask. \n\nGeneral Chanoine said that he communicated the document to General \nEoget, while enjoining absolute privacy on the subject. \n\nWhen asked if he accepted responsibility for the document. General \nChanoine replied in the affirmative, adding, however, the admission that \nhe had made a mistake. \n\nColonel Jouaust intimated that the court ought to take no notice of \nthe document in question. \n\nDreyfus here gave a detailed story of how he employed his time at \nBourges from October, 1889, to February, 1890. He said that as he was \npreparing for his examinations he had no time to go to caf^s or to think \nof anything outside of his duties. This was a reply to General Mercier\'s \nassertion that he could have learned the secret of the hydro-pneumatic \nbrake there. The prisoner said : \n\n"I was promoted to be a captain on September 12, 1889, and re- \nmained at Bourges from October, 1889, to February, 1890, when the writ- \nten examination at the Military College began. I was then called to \nParis, obtained two months\' leave, was married in April, and I spent four \nmonths at Bourges. As I was preparing for examination I had no time \nto go to caf^s or to think of anything outside of my duties." \n\nGeneral Eisbourg, who was commander of the Eepublican Guard in \nParis in 1894, was the next witness. He described the scene with Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Eenault, when the witness learned of Dreyfus\'s alleged con- \nfessions to Captain Lebrun-Eenault the day after the prisoner\'s degra- \ndation. \n\nIn conclusion General Eisbourg eulogized the services of Captain Le- \n14 \n\n\n\n210 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nbiun-Renault, and said that before the incident of the confession there \nwas nothing against him. He was an excellent officer, a good comrade, \nand incapable of injuring any one. \n\nAfter being asked the usual question, Dreyfus protested against Gen- \neral Risbourg\'s evidence. \n\n"I am surprised," the prisoner said, "that he. Captain Lebrun-Renault, \ncould have made the statement attributed to him. On the way from the \nprison of La Sante Captain Lebrun-Eenault shook hands with me, a fact \nwhich is in contradiction of his statement. Besides, when such a terrible \ncharge has been hanging over a man who has resisted it for five years, \nwitnesses should not come here merely to speak their beliefs, but ought \nto bring proofs, positive proofs. Otherwise I am completely nonplussed \nas to how I can reply." [Sensation.] \n\nContinuing, Dreyfus said : \n\n" Reference was also made to confessions. I will state the exact terms \nof the so-called confession of mine. The day Captain Lebrun-Eenault and \nI were together in the room I said to him : \n\n"\'I am innocent. I will declare it in the face of the whole people. \nThat is the cry of my conscience. You know that cry. I repeated it all \nthorugh the torture of my degradation.\' \n\nAfterward I added, referring to the visit of Du Paty de Clam : \' The \nMinister is well aware that I am innocent.\' \n\n" What I meant to intimate was that I had apprised the Minister, in \nresponse to the steps Du Paty de Clam had taken against me, that I was \ninnocent. Du Paty de Clam visited me and asked for information. I \nreplied to him: \n\n"\'I am innocent, absolutely innocent.\' \n\n" I replied verbally to Du Paty de Clam and in writing to the Minister \nthat I was perfectly innocent. That is what I meant by the words: \n\' The Ministry is well aware that I am innocent.\' \n\n" Then I reverted to the visit of Du Paty de Clam, and said to Captain \nLebrun-Renault : \n\n" \'Du Paty de Clam asked me if I had not given documents of no im- \nportance in order to obtain others in exchange.\' \n\n" I replied that not only was I absolutely innocent, but that I desired \nthe whole matter should be cleared up. Then I added that I hoped that \n\n\n\nGENEEALS GO POWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIRE 211 \n\nwithin two or three years my innocence would be established. I told \nDu Paty de Clam that I wanted full light on the matter; that an injury \nhad been done, and that it was impossible for the Government to fail to \nuse its influence to discover the whole truth. \n\n" \' The Government,\' I said, \' has means, either through the military \nattaches or through diplomatic channels, to reach the truth. It is awful \nthat a soldier should be convicted of such a frightful crime. Consequently, \nit seems to me, I who asked only for truth and light, that the Govern- \nment should use all the means at its disposal to secure that light.\' \n\n" Du Paty de Clam replied : \n\n" \' There are interests at stake higher than yours. These channels \ncannot be employed.\' \n\n" He added, however, that the inquiries would be continued. It was \non the strength of Du Paty de Clam\'s promise to try what means could \nbe found to reach the truth and end this awful injury, that I said I \nhoped that in two or three years my innocence would be proved, for Du \nPaty de Clam told me that the investigation, which would be of the most \ndelicate nature, could not be undertaken immediately. \n\n"I think I have expressed my whole mind. If you still have any \ndoubt, I ask you. Colonel, to present it to me." \n\nThe prisoner\'s remarks deeply impressed his hearers. \n\nAt the request of M. Demange, General Mercier was recalled and \nasked to explain why, having sent Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus to dis- \ncover the amount of the injury Dreyfus had done, he had not followed up \nhis investigations. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I did not feel called upon to do so. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Tell us. General, why, when you were apprised of \nthe confession, you did not send some one to Dreyfus to try to get a sub- \nstantiation and discover what he had not told Du Paty de Clam. \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 Dreyfus had written me that he refused to discuss \nthe confessions with Du Paty de Clam, and I took no further steps. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 But, since the prisoner seemed to have begun mak- \ning avowals of his guilt, why did you not follow the matter up ? \n\nGeneral Mercier \xe2\x80\x94 I might, perhaps, have thought of it. But it did \nnot occur to me. \n\nThe prisoner again protested that the inquiry ought to have served to \n\n\n\n212 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ndestroy the fiction of a confession, to which such importance is now at- \ntached. Continuing, Dreyfus said : \n\n" Will you permit me. Colonel, to make a small remark with reference \nto the fiction of my confessions ? I remained in the prison of La Sante \nfor two or three weeks and saw M. Demange during that period, and also \nthen and while I was at the lie de B.6 I wrote to the Minister of War \nand others. \n\n" I believed the letters I wrote are contained in the secret dossier. I \nbelieve I also wrote to the head of the state. How is it I was never \nasked about the legend of my confession, that I was in a position to de- \nstroy immediately ? I never heard a word of it. It was only four years \nlater, in January, 1899, when interrogated by the commissioners sent by \nthe Court of Cassation, that I heard of this fiction. What I do not im- \nderstand is that while I was still in France no one spoke to me of this \nfiction, which could have been disposed of before the egg was hatched by \nproving it a false legend and nothing more." \n\nM. de Veruine, Special Commissary of the Minister of War, deposed \nthat Colonel Picquart was ordered to have Esterhazy watched. Witness \ninformed General Gonse, and the latter was advised to continue the inves- \ntigation discreetly. On several occasions, witness continued, Esterhazy \nwas seen entering the German Embassy, always quite openly, but dressed \nin civilian clothes. \n\nM. de Veruine saw Esterhazy enter the German Embassy on October \n23, 1897. He stayed there an hour, and drove to the Credit Eoncier (a \nfinancial institution), whence he went to the o\xc2\xa3&ce of Za Fatrie. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 What does General Eoget think of the part played by \nEsterhazy ? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 I have said that the part played by Esterhazy escaped \nme completely. \n\nM. Labori\xe2\x80\x94 General Eoget, however, spoke of the syndicate as though \nit was a public institution. \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 Exactly, it is a public institution. Everybody talks \nof it. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 But General Eoget mentioned an offer of 600,000 francs \nto Esterhazy. I insist upon asking General Eoget what he thinks of Es- \nterhazy\'s visit to Colonel Schwartzkoppen (the German military attach^) on \n\n\n\nGENEEALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S FIEE 213 \n\nOctober 23, 1897, the same day as the interview ia Mont Souris Park, a \nvisit during the course of which it is known Esterhazy threatened to \ncommit suicide if the German military attach^ refused to declare that he \n(Esterhazy) was not the author of the bordereau? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 It is not for me to say what I think of it. \n\nM. Labori, resuming his seat, said, "Very good." [Loud and pro- \nlonged laughter.] \n\nColonel Eleur, retired, testified to the numerous alleged inaccuracies \nin Colonel Sandherr\'s evidence before the Court of Cassation. Cordier \ntold the witness that the dismissal of himself and Colonel Sandherr was \na beginning of a Jewish revenge, and added that the Jews had influenced \nGeneral de Boisdeffre. Cordier also said he had not doubted the guilt of \nDreyfus. \n\nThe witness dramatically added: \n\n" What was my stupefaction when, later, I heard Colonel Cordier ex- \npress ideas diametrically opposite to those he expressed to me ! " \n\nAsked if he desired to reply to the witness, Dreyfus said : \n\n" I have nothing to say. I only reply to facts. I will not reply to \nlies. If you attach the slightest importance to what has been said, I be- \nseech you, with all my heart, to make a most complete inquiry for the \nmost dazzling truth. That is what I ask of you, Colonel, and of the mem- \nbers of the court-martial." \n\nColonel Cordier, who was Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Office in \n1894, was called. He protested against the conditions under which he \nwas summoned, without being released from his oath of professional se- \ncrecy, and also protested at the manner in which the summons was \nworded. \n\nThe witness expatiated on the series of schemes of which he claimed \nhe had been the victim, to the amusement of the court, until Colonel \nJouaust invited him to curtail his recriminations and proceed with his \ntestimony, to which Cordier genially replied : \n\n" I am coming to that. Colonel. I\'ll reach it in less than five min- \nutes. You will see how I shall cut it short ! " \n\nColonel Cordier, who is said to be given to excessive drinking, caused \nshouts of laughter by interlarding his remarks with the expression : " Full \nstop. That\'s all." \n\n\n\n214 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nEven the judges joined in shrieks of laughter at the colonel\'s testi- \nmony. \n\nColonel Cordier could only testify as to certain facts, since he was not \nreleased from professional secrecy. Colonel Jouaust said he would ask \nthe Minister of War to release Cordier from his oath, and that he would \nthen be recalled. \n\nM. George Charles Alfred Marie Millin de Grandmaison, deputy from \nthe Saumur District of Maine-et-Loire, who is classed as a Eoyalist, \nthough registered as a liberal Eepublican, next appeared as a witness and \nrepeated the testimony he had given before the Court of Cassation. \n\nHe recalled a conversation he had with an English friend, Mr. Charles \nBaker, who said he was assured Dreyfus was innocent because he had seen \na letter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen affirming the prisoner\'s innocence. \nBaker, it seems, also mentioned numerous documents showing that certain \nFrench officers, not including Dreyfus, were spies, and Baker asked the \nwitness to publish the documents, but without proofs of their genuineness, \nas Emperor William did not wish to intervene. \n\nThe witness, after protesting against foreign interference in French \naffairs, repudiated the idea that a French officer could be sentenced be- \ncause he was a Jew. \n\nM. de Grandmaison concluded by saying: \n\n"I adjure the Court to acquit the prisoner unhesitatingly if it believes \nhim innocent, [laughter] and to convict him if it believes him guilty. " \n\nM. Demange bitterly complained that the witnesses of the prosecution \nwere allowed to air their personal opinions and appeal to the gallery, at \nwhich M. de Grandmaison retorted : \n\n" Anyway the defenders of Dreyfus are being assisted by foreigners. \nTheir cause must be very bad to necessitate recourse to such help." \n\nM. Labori invited the witness to define what he meant by foreign in- \ntervention, particularly pointing out the alleged contradictions in the \nstatements of foreign personages. \n\nThe witness quoted the declarations of the German Minister of Foreign \nAffairs, Count von Buelow, according to one of which, he said, the Ger- \nman Government and Embassy were not acquainted with either Dreyfus \nor Esterhazy, while in another statement Von Buelow implicated the Ger- \nman Headquarters Staff and Embassy in connection with Esterhazy. M. \n\n\n\nGENERALS GO DOWN UNDER COUNSEL\'S EIRE 215 \n\nLabori and the German Government might very well not know Dreyfus, \nbut Esterhazy might be known to the German Espionage Bureau. \n\nM. Mertian de Muller, a friend of M. de Beaurepaire, followed. He \ndescribed a visit which he made to Emperor William\'s palace at Potsdam, \nand said that at one point the guide announced that they were about to \nenter the Emperor\'s room. At the bottom of the room witness noticed \nhis Majesty\'s bed, and witness was admiring the canvases on the wall, \nwhen he remarked a small table, upon which was an army list and a \nnewspaper, the Libre Parole, bearing a postage-stamp. Written on the \nnewspaper, in blue pencil, the witness asserted were certain words in \nGerman regarding the meaning of which M, de Muller was certain. \nThey were: "Dreyfus has been arrested." \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 You are quite sure you were in the Emperor\'s bed- \nroom ? \n\nM. de Muller \xe2\x80\x94 I should think so. But his name was not written on \nthe door. \n\nEegarding the German word meaning "arrested," the witness, when \ncross-examined, could not positively say he had distinctly read or under- \nstood it. fi. \n\nM. de Muller, who is a paralytic, left the witness box assisted by an \nusher. \n\nColonel Fleur and M. de Grandmaison momentarily reappeared on the \nscene. But Colonel Jouaust, evidently wearying of the prolonged trial, \nquickly called the next witness. \n\nColonel Picquart\'s former orderly in Tunis, a man named Savignaud, \ntestified to posting letters from Picquart to M. Scheurer-Kestner, the for- \nmer Vice-President of the Senate, who has taken so much interest in the \nDreyfus case, in May and June, 1897. \n\nBut M. Labori pointed out that M. Scheurer-Kestner absolutely denied \nthe receipt of letters under those dates. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n216 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XXXIX. \n\n^^ EXPERT\'\' BERTILLON ATTACXS DREYFUS \n\nWhen the session of August 25th was opened, the clerk of the \ncourt read a medical certificate, signed by two doctors whose names were \nunknown to the audience, declaring it was impossible for Du Paty de \nClam to leave his bed and come to Eennes to testify. \n\nMaitre Labori asked President Jouaust to instruct two well-known \nmedical men to examine Du Paty de Clam, but Colonel Jouaust re- \nfused. \n\nEowland Strong, an English newspaper man, was then called to the \nwitness bar. He deposed to the fact that Major Count Esterhazy con- \nfessed to him that he wrote the famous bordereau. \n\nHenri Weill, a former officer of the Headquarters Staff, was then \ncalled. But he was absent, and his deposition was read. M. Weill\'s state- \nment, in substance, was that Esterhazy told him in 1894 that Dreyfus \nwas innocent, but that this would not prevent his conviction, because he \nwas a Jew. \n\nThe next witness was M. Gobert, an expert of the Bank of France, \nwho could claim the honor of being the first man in France to have de- \nclared in favor of Dreyfus, having reported, on examining the documents \nin the case, that Esterhazy, and not Dreyfus, wrote the bordereau. \n\nThis witness opened his deposition with a brief personal statement \nprotesting against being characterized as a " doubtful expert " by the mili- \ntary party. \n\n"But," he added, in tones of profound pity, and turning toward Drey- \nfus, " I have no right to complain, and am silent when I see before me the \nunfortunate man who sits there." \n\nA murmur of approval from the audience greeted these words of sym- \npathy. \n\nM. Gobert was most emphatic in attributing the bordereau to Ester- \n\n\n\n"EXPERT" BERTILLON ATTACKS DREYFUS 217 \n\nhazy. He declared the bordereau was written in a running natural hand, \nand said there was no tracing or other trickery. \n\nM. Gobert protested against the insinuation that he was an inter- \nested witness. He referred to his thirty years of service, during which \nhe had reported on thousands of documents, and added, visibly affected : \n\n"I protest against the term \' interested expert.\' " \n\nThe court closely followed M. Gobert\'s exhaustive story of his exami- \nnation of the bordereau and his interview with Generals Mercier, de Bois- \ndeffre, and Gonse. \n\nM. Gobert asserted that the handwriting of the bordereau was natural \nand fluent, but that it was almost illegible, whereas Dreyfus, even when \nwriting rapidly, always wrote most legibly. \n\nThe witness had asked General Gonse if an envelope accompanied the \nbordereau, as he, M. Gobert, wished to see what the writer\'s careful cali- \ngraphy was like, explaining that the address of a letter is always in a \nfirmer hand than its contents. \n\nGeneral Gonse had refused the request on the ground that the witness \nmust not know the name of the addressee. \n\nThe General had also decided not to allow the bordereau to be photo- \ngraphed, alleging that if the "War Office photographers were allowed to \nphotograph it all Paris would be acquainted with the bordereau the next \nday. [Laughter.] Thereupon the witness had remarked : \n\n" General Gonse, this is a very interesting confession. " \n\nM. Gobert had then suggested that the work be intrusted to the Pre- \nfecture of Police, where M. Bertillon is the photographer. \n\nUntil then, the witness also said, he had never heard of M. Bertillon \nas a handwriting expert, saying he became an expert for this special occa- \nsion, when he was called into the War Office. [Laughter.] \n\nGeneral Gonse, it appears from the testimony, had been greatly en- \nraged when he learned of the result of M. Gobert\'s examination of the \nbordereau, and visited the expert repeatedly. The latter always insisted \nupon learning the name of the suspect. \n\n"It was not proper," said M. Gobert, "for me to accuse any one with- \nout being perfectly cognizant of the facts, especially in circumstances of \n80 grave a nature. I would not accuse any one anonymously, for to do \nso would be contrary to the law." \n\n\n\n218 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nAmid laughter in court, the witness described how, from an examina- \ntion of an official report on Dreyfus, from which Dreyfus\'s name had been \nremoved, M. Gobert had the malicious satisfaction of telling General \nGonse the name of the officer they wanted to arrest. \n\nIt was after M. Gobert had refused to incriminate Dreyfus that M. \nBertillon had been intrusted with the examination of the bordereau, and, \nafter a few hours\' study, M. Bertillon positively attributed the bordereau \nto Dreyfus. From that time forward M. Gobert had heard no more of the \nDreyfus case. He was not asked to submit a report, but had described to \nthe then Minister of Justice, M. Gu^rin, the circumstances in the case. \nM. Guerin, continued the witness, had intimated that "these were sol- \ndiers\' affairs," which did not concern him as Chief of the Civil Judiciary. \n\nGeneral Gonse having alluded to certain undesirable acquaintances \nformed by M, Gobert, the latter replied, amid a sensation in court : \n\n"I emphatically protest against the insinuations of General Gonse. \nThere is not a single word of truth in what he says." \n\nThere was a further dispute between General Gonse and M. Gobert \nover circumstances in connection with the latter\'s examination of the \nbordereau. M. Gobert said that Colonel d\'Abeville was present, but the \ncolonel promptly advanced, and said he had never seen M. Gobert before \nto-day, adding: \n\n" If M. Gobert\'s other recollections are as exact as this, the court will \ndraw its own conclusions." \n\nDreyfus here declared in the most positive manner that he had never \nbeen at the Bank of France, where M. Gobert was employed, or had rela- \ntions with any one there. The prisoner reasserted that his sole desire was \nto know the truth. He admitted he had been engaged in various finan- \ncial operations, but said he had never asked either for written or verbal \ninformation from the Bank of France. \n\nM. Bertillon, the noted specialist in the measurement of the human \nbody, was called as the next witness. To the surprise of the audience, \nhe entered the court-room without a single paper, carrying a high hat in \nhis hand instead. But the astonishment was short-lived, the first words \nof M. Bertillon being a request to permit his diagrams and papers to be \nbrought in. \n\nThe request was granted, and M. Bertillon retired for a moment. He \n\n\n\n"EXPERT" BERTILLON ATTACKS DREYFUS 219 \n\nreturned at the head of a squad composed of an infantry sergeant and \nfour privates, all staggering under the weight of immense leather satchels, \nbulging with documents, charts, etc., which they deposited on the stage \nas a roar of laughter echoed throughout the court. \n\nEven the judges were unable to repress a smile as they gazed on M. \nBertillon\'s stage properties strewed over half of the platform. A table \nwas brought in, upon which the plans he was using could be placed. \n\nThe witness began by saying that only intelligent men could follow \nhis explanations ; and the court was half emptied as the audience, after \nsmiling at his extraordinary words and expressions, soon became bored and \nwent out. \n\nM. Bertillon\'s deposition occupied the whole of this session. \n\nThe court-room presented a curious scene while M. Bertillon, whom \nthe Dreyfusards, in their most indulgent moments, describe as a " danger- \nous maniac," spent the remaining hours of the session in explaining in \nunintelligible terms his "infallible system" of proving that Dreyfus was \nthe author of the bordereau. The majority of the public, however, utterly \nunable to comprehend M. Bertillon\'s theories, had left the court-room. \nEven "La Dame Blanche" (the White Lady) abandoned her post. \n\nIn the mean while M. Bertillon, with gestures and in the shrill \npitched voice of a quack at a country fair, continued his monologue, pro- \nducing every few minutes some fresh paper covered with wonderful hiero- \nglyphics. These papers he presented to the judges, who, with an expres- \nsion of owl-like wisdom, carefully examined them, their heads clustered \ntogether, their eyes gazing on the long, wide strips of paper, while M. \nBertillon leaned over their table trying to explain his mystifying dia- \ngrams. The copies were afterward passed to MM. Labori and Demange, \nwho, however, apparently did not derive much benefit from their perusal. \n\nDreyfus gazed at the scene with a look of stupefaction. \n\nThe clearest utterance of M. Bertillon during the course of his demon- \nstration was that the handwriting of the bordereau " obeys a geometrical \nrhythm, of which I discovered the equation in the prisoner\'s blotting \npad." \n\nThe audience watched him as he bent over the desk busily drawing \nletters, the judges gazing at him, until at the end of ten minutes the \npeople and the judges became restlessly impatient, and Colonel Jouaust \n\n\n\n220 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nremarked that it was not necessary to copy the whole bordereau, and that \na few lines would suffice. \n\nA few minutes later M. Bertillon arose, strode to the judges\' table, \nand laid before them his copy. The judges, counsel, the Government \nCommissary, Major Carriere, and the clerk clustered around in one group, \neager to see the result. Again the audience watched the strange spectacle \nuntil Colonel Jouaust shrugged his shoulders, and then the audience knew \nthat M. Bertillon had failed to satisfy them. \n\nM. Bertillon noticed this, and said, apologetically: \n\n" I was too badly placed. " \n\nMaitre Demange returned to the counsels\' table and, in response to a \nlook of inquiry from Dreyfus, whispered a few words to the prisoner with \na shrug of his shoulders and a smile on his face. Dreyfus appeared per- \nfectly satisfied. \n\nM. Bertillon gave his testimony in the manner of a schoolboy reciting \na lesson, to demonstrate technically how he reached the conviction of \nDreyfus\'s guilt, reciting facts already published on April 22d. He said \nhe proposed to prove to the court : \n\n" First \xe2\x80\x94 That the bordereau was a doctored document. \n\n" Second \xe2\x80\x94 That it could only be manufactured by the prisoner. \n\n" Third \xe2\x80\x94 That it had been written in a free hand by means of a key- \nword placed beneath tracing paper in such a way as to be quite visible. " \n\nThe witness, continuing, declared Dreyfus did not have recourse to \nimitating Esterhazy\'s free handwriting, because it required too long to \nstudy, and he used the tracing process because it was easier to learn and \nmore likely to be successful. \n\nSuddenly the wandering attention of those remaining in the hall was \nriveted by the cryptographic remark, enunciated by M. Bertillon in loud \ntones : \n\n" We clearly have before us a fabricated document. The one word al- \nways rests upon the other, with a divergence of 1.25 millimetres and 2.25 \nmillimetres. That is a phenomenon which is unnatural. " \n\nM. Labori watched the specialist for a few moments, and then returned \nto his seat, holding up both hands and exclaiming : \n\n"It is most extraordinary." \n\nM. Bertillon continued his explanations, and caused a whirl in the \n\n\n\n"EXPERT" BERTILLON ATTACKS DREYFUS 221 \n\nbrains of his hearers. The audience, quite in the dark regarding the \nmeaning of the technicalities, punctuated the queer expressions with peals \nof laughter. The members of the court-martial evidently tried hard to \nunderstand, while Dreyfus appeared fatigued, but endeavored to follow the \narguments. \n\n"My theory," continued the witness, "was, in 1894, considered by the \nMinistry of War to be favorable to the prisoner. If the defence accepted \nit, they said, the long magisterial investigation would have to be recom- \nmenced, and so," here the witness raised his voice and struck the table \nwith his fist, " when the word \' grille \' [perforated card used for cipher] \nwas uttered at the court-martial of 1894, the prisoner\'s face contracted. \nWhen I spoke of the fabrication of the bordereau he exclaimed : \n\n"\'Oh, the wretch. He saw me write, then.\' \n\n" I did not hear the remark, but when it was repeated to me it was a \nrevelation. For, if innocent, the word \' fabrication \' would have delighted \ninstead of frightened him." \n\n\n\n222 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XL. \n\nMERCIER ACCUSES THE DEAD \n\nWhen the court resumed its sessions on August 26th, M, Alphonse \nBertillon, chief of the Anthropometric Department of the Paris Prefec- \nture of Police, resumed his testimony, which had been interrupted on \nAugust 25th by adjournment. \n\nThe comic aspect of M. Bertillon \'s performance again appealed to the \nrisibilities of the audience, though the judges paid close attention to his \ndemonstrations, which were concluded at 8 : 30 a.m., the witness saying, \nin a declamatory tone : \n\n" I am convinced that the writer of the bordereau is the prisoner sit- \nting there." \n\nDrefyus heard him without flinching and with an expression of dis- \ndain, which he showed in a still more noticeable manner just before the \nspecialist\'s testimony, when M. Demange handed him a paper which M. \nBertiUon had submitted to the judges as convincing proof of the guilt of \nthe accused. The prisoner perused it for a few moments, and then handed \nit back with a shrug of his shoulders and without uttering a word. \n\nEeferring to his papers which were seized at the War Office, Dreyfus \nsaid it would not be strange to see notes, written by officers, altered. He \nadded : \n\n"I was shown yesterday (August 25th) a note relative to General de \nMiribel. There were in the document corrections, made by the chief of \nthe department himself, which shows that immediately after having \nwritten a note he handed it to the chief of the department. " \n\nIn regard to the so-called "blotting-pad letter," Dreyfus said: \n\n" This letter is perfectly genuine. Madame Dreyfus can testify to that \npoint. No one here will doubt the word of Madame Dreyfus, and you, \ngentlemen, less than any one," he added, looking steadily at the judges. \n\nCaptain Valerio of the artillery, called by the prosecution to explain. \n\n\n\nMEECIER ACCUSES THE DEAD 223 \n\nM. Bertillon\'s system and to give an opinion on the subject, said he \nthought M. Bertillon\'s evidence might be summarized in a sentence : \n\n" The bordereau was doctored and the document fabricated by means \nof secret writing, or writing with a key, the key- word \' interest \' being \nfound on the \' blotting-pad letter \' attributed to Mathieu Dreyfus. \n\n"The system," continued the captain, "was evidently devised to offer \nthe prisoner two means of escape. Either he would deny being the au- \nthor of the bordereau by pointing to the difference of the handwriting, or \nhe would contend it was a plot, by showing the documents were traced \nover his writings. \n\n" However complicated the ingenuity of the human mind might ap- \npear," continued the witness, "I propose to show: \n\n" First \xe2\x80\x94 That the document was fabricated. \n\n"Second \xe2\x80\x94 That it was fabricated by means of the key-word \'interest.\' \n\n" Third \xe2\x80\x94 That documents written by the prisoner in the War Office \ncontained words written by means of the same key. \n\n"Fourth \xe2\x80\x94 That the forgery was intended to enable the prisoner to \nplead there was a plot against him. \n\n" Fifth \xe2\x80\x94 That the prisoner alone could be the writer. " \n\nCaptain Valerio then attempted to prove his hypothesis, traversing \npractically the same ground as already laboriously covered by M. Bertil- \nlon, during the course of which he pointed to what he alleged were con- \nclusive proofs of the value of M. Bertillon\'s system. \n\nThe witness declared that as he wished to remain on scientific ground, \nhe would not attempt to define the motive actuating the writer of the \nbordereau. But, he added, he was perfectly convinced it could only have \nbeen Dreyfus. Esterhazy had declared himself to be the writer, but that \ncould not be true, because it had been proved the bordereau was forged. \n\nIn conclusion. Captain Valerio declared the court now had in its pos- \nsession material proof of the prisoner\'s guilt. [Sensation.] \n\nWhen Dreyfus was asked the usual question, the prisoner pointed out \nthat the evidence of Captain Valerio was only a repetition of M. Bertil- \nlon\'s, and that, consequently, his reply to the latter applied equally to \nValerio. \n\nReference having been made to doctored words in minutes written by \nhim at the War Office, Dreyfus pointed out that these minutes were writ- \n\n\n\n224 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OP DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nten in the presence of witnesses. He also dwelt upon the fact that he \nhad already acknowledged the genuineness of the "blotting-pad letter," \nwhich he reaffirmed, adding that the hypothesis that he doctored the bor- \ndereau in order to have means of defence fell to the ground of itself, since \nhe had never attempted to turn the system to use. \n\n"All M. Bertillon\'s measures are false. All, without exception," ex- \nclaimed the prisoner vehemently, amid excitement. \n\nThere was a highly dramatic scene toward the end of the session. \nMaitre Labori asked to have Captain Freystaetter, of the Marine Infantry, \none of the members of the court-martial of 1894 which convicted Drey- \nfus, called in contradiction of the desposition of Colonel Maurel-Pries, the \npresiding judge upon that occasion, who had testified that he only read one of \nthe documents out of the secret dossier communicated to the court-martial. \n\nThe captain, who is a finely built officer, and who has a handsome, \nhonest face, ascended the platform with a firm step and a fearless air. \nWhen he was asked to recount what occurred, he said his conviction of \nthe guilt of the prisoner was formed by the evidence of the experts in \nhandwriting, the deposition of Colonel Du Paty de Clam, "and," he con- \ntinued, " I must add, some slight influence was exercised over my mind \nby hearing the secret dossier read." \n\nThe witness was then questioned as to whether one or more of the \ndocuments were read, and he said they were all read. This was in direct \ncontradiction of Colonel Maurel-Pries, and M. Labori once demanded the \nconfrontation of Captain Freystaetter with Colonel Maurel-Pries. The \nlatter mounted the stage, and presented a miserable spectacle, his shifty \neyes blearing out beneath heavy eyebrows. \n\n" How do you explain this ? " asked M. Labori. \n\nThen the colonel, at bay, replied savagely : \n\n" I said I only read one document. I did not say only one document \nwas read." \n\nThis statement called forth an outburst of hisses and indignant " Ohs ! " \nfrom the audience, which looked upon it as an infamous confession. \n\nThe witness, trembling with shame, but evidently determined to fight \nto the last, threw a fierce look of hatred at M. Labori and the audience, \nas the gendarmes shouted : \n\n"Silence! Silence!" \n\n\n\n\nMADAME LABORI SUPrOETIXG HER WOUNDED HUSBAND. \n\n\n\n\nSCENE BETWEEN GENERAL EUGET AND COLONEL PICQUART, AUGUST 18, 1899. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^\':f^%-,,^,..,\xe2\x80\x9e \',^ii- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWITNESSES AGAINST DREYEUS. \nGeneral Ziirlinden, Casimir-Pdrier, Billot, Mercier. \n\n\n\n\n\nCO \nI\xe2\x80\x94 I \n\n> \no \n\nI\xe2\x80\x94 I \n\n> \n\no \n\nI\xe2\x80\x94 I \n\n< \n\no \n\n<1 \nP-i \n\n\n\n\n\nfe&aiu \n\n\n\n,*\xc2\xab?44-..\'.\'a"#A\xc2\xabir.. \n\n\n\nW p \n\n\n\np \n\n\n\n\n:-/7 \n\n\n\n\nt^ \n\n\n\n\nr\'^ \n\n\n0) \n\n\n\n\n5fl \no \n\n\nO \n\n\n\n\n\n\nT3 \n\n\n:zi \n\n\nr/j \n\n\no \n\n\nOJ \n\n\n\n\nP. \n\n\n(J) \n\n\nOJ \n\n\nN \n\n\n-^ \n\n\nc\xc2\xbb \n\n\n\n\n\n\ntS \n\n\nW \n\n\na \n\n\nw \n\n\n\n\nH \n\n\nu \n\n\n\n\n<u \n\n\nO \n\n\ns \n\n\n:zi \n\n\nOQ \n\n\n1\xe2\x80\x94 I \n\n\nft \n\n\nt3 \n\n\n<T) \n\n\nP \n\n\n^ \n\n\nW \n\n\noT \n\n\n^ \n\n\nOJ \n\n\nW \n\n\n<D \n\n\nO \n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2HH \n\n\nOi \n\n\nTJ \n\n\nH \n\n\n\n\n\nh-1 \n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0^3 \n\n\npq \n\n\n\n\n< \n\n\no \n\n\nw \n\n\n\n\nPI \n\n\na) \n\n\n<J \n\n\nri \n\n\n^ \n\n\n\n\nH \n\n\n\n\np:; \n\n\n\n\n\nH g \n<j ^ \n\n^^ \n\nW CO \n\ni \xc2\xa7 \n\n3 o \nO - \n\nr-, CO \n^ O) \n\nC \n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONFKONTATION OF CAPTAIN FKEYSTAETTER AND COLONEL MAUKEL- \nPRIES, JUDGES IN THE TIUAL OE 1894. \n\n\n\nMERCIER ACCUSES THE DEAD 225 \n\nAfter this the audience listened spellbound as Captain Freystaetter, in \na distinct, bold voice, told exactly what the documents of the dossier \nwere, and how Colonel Maurel-Pries not only read these documents, but \nmade comments on them. This was practically calling Maurel-Pries a \nliar, and the colonel glared at the captain ferociously. \n\nFreystaetter, however, was not dismayed, and his words, spoken in a \ntone of candor and fearlessness, must have carried conviction to every hearer. \n\nGeneral Mercier then asked to be heard, and placed himself by the \nside of Maurel-Pries. The forbidding appearance of these two men, both \ndressed in civilian attire, was in striking contrast with the erect, unflinch- \ning attitude of Freystaetter, who wore the smart uniform of a captain of \nartillery, with medals on his breast. It was a remarkable scene. \n\nGeneral Mercier at once denied Captain Freystaetter\'s declaration that \nthe Panizzardi dispatch was contained in the dossier. " It is a lie ! " \n[Tremendous sensation.] \n\nCaptain Freystaetter, however, was undaunted, and replied, looking \nColonel Jouaust straight in the face : \n\n"I swear that what I have said is true. And," Freystaetter added, "I \nnot merely remember the dispatch, but I have a vivid recollection of the \nfact that the first words were, \' Dreyfus is arrested. Emissary warned.\'" \n\nThis emphatic declaration increased the sensation. \n\nGeneral Mercier then made the self -saving reply that he did not make \nup the dossier, which was made up by the late Colonel Sandherr, Chief of \nthe Intelligence Department. \n\nM. Labori was hotly indignant at General Mercier\'s equivocation, and \nasked Colonel Jouaust again and again to have special doctors make an \nofficial examination of Colonel Du Paty de Clam to see if he was really \nincapable of giving evidence. But the president of the court refused, \nwhereupon M. Labori, beside himself, cried : \n\n" Colonel Sandherr is dead ; Colonel Henry is dead, and Colonel Du \nPaty de Clam won\'t come here." \n\nThen counsel sat down, boiling with indignation. Colonel Jouaust \ntold M. Labori not to make observations. \n\nThe scene this day showed both Colonel Maurel-Pries and General \n\nMercier in an odious light. Maurel-Pries was shown, to put it mildly, \n\nnot to have told the truth, while Mercier, when cornered, threw the awk- \n15 \n\n\n\n226 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nward responsibility for the illegalities of the court-martial of 1894 on \ndead men, as M. Labori pointed out. \n\nThe audience had their hearts in their mouths from the moment Cap- \ntain Freystaetter opened his lips until the three confronted witnesses left \nthe stage, and every moment a murmur of disgust and the general cry of \n" Oh !" burst from the hearers. \n\nGeneral Mercier accused Captain Freystaetter of lying in the matter \nof the Eobin shell, concerning which there is a report accusing Dreyfus \nof communicating the details of the shell to Germany. \n\nFreystaetter had said that it was included in the secret dossier. \n\n"I have caught Captain Freystaetter in the very act of lying," said \nGeneral Mercier, amid the greatest excitement in court, " for the Eobin \nshell was not delivered until 1895." \n\nCaptain Freystaetter replied promptly, maintaining the truth of his \nprevious statement, saying he referred to " a " shell and not to the Robin \nshell, and he spoke like an honest man. \n\nColonel Maurel-Pries, on the other hand, when driven to confess, told \nuntruths, and tried to wriggle out of it. He presented a despicable ap- \npearance, his voice broken as though choking, while his limbs were shak- \ning with suppressed, futile passion. \n\nThis incident, which terminated with the evidence of Captain Frey- \nstaetter, caused an immense impression on the audience. The Dreyfus- \nards were jubilant. \n\nDreyfus said he had nothing to ask the witnesses. Colonel Maurel- \nPries, General Mercier, and Captain Freystaetter then left the stage. \n\nM. Paray-Javal, a draughtsman, was called for the defence. He was \naccompanied by a blackboard, upon which he proposed to refute a portion \nof M. Bertillon\'s problems. The witness said, amid laughter, that the \ndemonstration would occupy no less than two hours. He then proceeded \nto chalk a number of caligraphic signs on the blackboard, and presented to \nthe court photographs of the writing of the bordereau and the prisoner\'s \nhandwriting, pointing out their dissimilarities and entering into elaborate \nexplanations, which were not concluded when the court adjourned. \n\n\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF M. BERTILLON IS EIDICULED 227 \n\n\n\nChapter XLL \n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF M. BERTILLON IS RIDICULED \n\nThe fourth week of the trial of Captain Dreyfus opened in the Lyc^e \nBuilding on August 28th. \n\nThe first witness called was M. Paray-Javal, the draughtsman, whose \nevidence was interrupted on August 26th by the adjournment of the \ncourt. \n\nWith the aid of a blackboard M. Paray-Javal demonstrated the fallacy \nof M. Bertillon\'s calculations, and criticised the latter\'s unfairness in not \nsubmitting Esterhazy\'s handwriting to the same tests as the prisoner\'s \nwriting. At the same time, the draughtsman declared, even if M. Bertil- \nIon had done so, the results would not have proved anything. \n\nIn conclusion M. Paray-Javal said, amid laughter, that he thought M. \nBertillon was a very intelligent man, but that his system was false, and \nhe, the witness, was convinced that only self-esteem prevented M. Ber- \ntillon from admitting his error. \n\nM. Bernard, an inspector of mines, who took high honors at the Poly- \ntechnic School, who followed M. Paray-Javal at the witness bar, said he \nappeared to refute a portion of M. Bertillon\'s evidence which was based \non false calculations. As a matter of fact, he added, it was on such a \nbasis that the whole system rested. \n\nIn conclusion, M. Bernhard exhibited to the judges a plate represent- \ning a page of current handwriting, and said : \n\n" If it was examined by M. Bertillon\'s system it will show certain \npeculiarities which would not be found upon the examination of fifty mil- \nlion other documents. M. Bertillon would therefore say the document was \nfabricated. But he would be wrong, for I borrowed the page from a re- \nport written by M. Bertillon himself." \n\nM. Bertillon demanded permission to reply to the witness, and Colo- \nnel Jouaust replied : \n\n\n\n228 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" I cannot grant your request, and I will not grant such permission to \nany of the fourteen experts, except in the case of a personal explanation. " \n\nM. Bertillon \xe2\x80\x94 I wish to speak of the manner in which I reconstructed \nthe bordereau. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Why, you are discussing the case. I cannot allow \nyou to speak except in regard to a personal fact. \n\nThe president\'s statement aroused loud laughter, amid which M. Ber- \ntillon, disconcerted, resumed his seat. \n\nM. Teysonnieres followed. He said he adhered in all respects to his \nreport dated October 29, 1894, in which he expressed the opinion that \nthe bordereau was the work of the writer of the documents seized at the \nprisoner\'s residence. For purposes of comparison, the witness lengthily \ncriticised the bordereau letter by letter, pointing out resemblances to the \nprisoner\'s handwriting. \n\nM. Teyssonieres, in finishing his testimony, said he thought it was im- \npossible to find more tangible reasons than those which induced in him \nthe belief, which he hoped the court would share. \n\nEeplying to the court, M. Teyssonieres said he had not noticed that \nthe prisoner\'s handwriting was illegible, and he had never seen the docu- \nment dictated to Dreyfus, \n\nThe copy of the bordereau made by Dreyfus was then handed to the \nwitness, who declared it had never been given to him for purposes of \ncomparison. \n\nThe witness added that he would require three days to give an opinion \nupon it. He could not conclude his examination on the spot. He must \nhave time. \n\nM. Charavay, the archivist and expert in ancient manuscripts, said : \n\n" I, with two colleagues (MM. Teyssonieres and Pelletier), though act- \ning under separate instruction, was commissioned to examine the bor- \ndereau and a number of documents for comparison unsigned and in differ- \nent handwritings. I examined, first, the latter documents, and by the \nprocess of elimination fixed upon one resembling the bordereau. I was \nthen furnished with specimens of the handwriting in question, but was \nnot told the name of the writer. I asked if the document could be re- \ngarded as genuine, and was told the place whence it emanated, which \ncould not be mentioned by me, and which could leave no doubt in regard \n\n\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF M. BERTILLON IS RIDICULED 229 \n\nto its value. I make this remark because I think it explains my opinion, \nfor I could not consider a document of this nature which was not marked \nby a certain dissimilarity of handwriting. I therefore attributed to dis- \nsimilarity the differences I was careful to note in my report. \n\n" Now I must inform the court, that, in view of the fact that hand- \nwriting which was not produced in 1894, and which is evidently akin to \nthe handwriting of the bordereau and the handwriting of Dreyfus, has \nsince been submitted to me, I cannot maintain with the same degree of \ncertainty the conclusions of my former report, and I can only make one \nstatement, namely, that these two handwritings resemble the bordereau. \nI should, however, point out one of the typical dissimilarities, upon which \nI laid stress, between the writing of the bordereau and the documents \nsubmitted for comparison, namely, that the double \' s \' is not found in the \nnew handwriting. In other words, the double \' s \' of the bordereau is \nfoimd in Esterhazy\'s handwriting." \n\nAfter repeating the evidence he gave before the Court of Cassation, \nM. Charavay declared it was the new element, the handwriting of Ester- \nhazy, which led him to declare he did not adhere to his conclusions of \n1894. \n\nIn conclusion M. Charavay energetically protested against General \nMercier\'s accusations, adding that what convinced him that he had made \na mistake in 1894 was the publication of Esterhazy\'s letters, the discov- \nery of the Henry forgery, the inquiry of the Court of Cassation, and Ester- \nhazy\'s confession. \n\nThe conscience of the witness compelled him to say that in 1894 he \nwas misled by similarity in handwriting. \n\n"It is a great relief to my conscience," M. Charavay added, "to be able \nto say, before you and before him who is the victim of my mistake, that \nthe bordereau is not the work of Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy . " \n\nAn immense sensation was caused in court by this statement. \n\nEeplying to Colonel Jouaust, the witness said that the mere examina- \ntion of the bordereau and the documents presented for comparison were \nsufficient to convince him that the bordereau was not written by Dreyfus. \n\nThe prisoner, on being asked the customary questions, requested M. \nCharavay to give further particulars as to the reasons which led him to \nmodify his opinions in regard to the writer of the bordereau, whereupon \n\n\n\n230 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe witness entered into a lengthy technical explanation. He told how \nhe found unmistakable resemblances between the bordereau and Ester- \nhazy\'s writing. \n\nM. Pelletier, another expert, prefaced his evidence by saying he de- \nsired to make a definite statement on the point upon which he was in \nentire disagreement with General Mercier. The latter had testified that \nthe witness refused to use certain documents submitted to him for com- \nparison in common with the other experts, and said he had been led to \nregard M. Pelletier\'s work with some suspicion, because of certain inci- \ndents in which M. Pelletier, being summoned to appear simultaneously in \ntwo different courts, had written to both, excusing himself on the ground \nof attendance at the other. \n\nGeneral Mercier declared this made him suspicious of M. Pelletier\'s \nreport in favor of Dreyfus, inferring that his failure to comply with the \nsummons of the examining magistrates in November, 1894, was connected \nwith his report, whereas the report, the witness pointed out, was handed \nin on October 26th. \n\n"I have only to oppose facts to Mercier\'s inferences," said M. Pelle- \ntier. " On October 2 2d I was intrusted with the verification in question. \nI handed in my report October 26th, and it was only in November that \nI was summoned to undergo cross-examination on a complaint lodged by \nthe military authorities. General Mercier, in short, had not the slightest \nreasons to suspect the conclusions which I had reached." \n\nAfter replying to a question or two from the court, M. Pelletier con- \ntinued : \n\n"After settling this personal matter there remains nothing but to \nmaintain in their entirety my conclusions to the effect that there is no \nlikeness between the writing of the bordereau and that of the prisoner." \n\nM. Couard, the official archivist and expert in the Esterha2y case in \n1897, then testified that he was instructed by Major Eavary to examine \nexpertly the bordereau and specimens of Esterhazy\'s handwriting. The wit- \nness insisted upon experimenting with the original bordereau and speci- \nmens of Esterhazy\'s caligraphy written by Esterhazy in the presence of \nexperts. Beyond this the expert and Esterhazy had no relations. The \nlatter therefore could not have influenced him, and the witness protested \nagainst M. Zola\'s accusations and adhered to his opinion of 1897, that the \n\n\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF M. BERTILLON IS EIDICULED 231 \n\nbordereau was not the work of Esterhazy. He, the witness, would wager \nhis head on this. \n\nM. Couard said he was convinced the caligraphy of the bordereau was \nneither frank nor natural, and the writer, in his opinion, probably wished \nto imitate another person\'s handwriting. The letter of August 28th, the \nwitness continued, although declared genuine by Esterhazy himself, seemed \ndoubtful to M. Couard, who added that he believed Esterhazy would say \nanything he was wanted to say. \n\nSince 1897 the witness had not believed a word Esterhazy had said, \nand, he pointed out, there was nothing to prove Esterhazy would not a \nyear hence say exactly the opposite of what he said now. \n\nEeplying to a question, M. Couard, while reasserting that the bor- \ndereau was not the work of Esterhazy, declined to commit himself in \nregard to Dreyfus, whose handwriting, added the witness, he had never \nbeen called upon to examine. \n\nM. Varinard, with whom MM. Couard and Belhomme acted as ex- \nperts in the Esterhazy case, was the next witness. He adhered to his \nreport that the bordereau was not the work of Esterhazy, and said he per- \nsisted in this opinion in spite of Esterhazy\' s statements to the contrary. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n232 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XLII. \nTHE *\' LITTLE WHITE MOUSE\'\' TESTIFIES \n\nThe appearance of Colonel Cordier, formerly Deputy Chief of the In- \ntelligence Department of the War Office, as the first witness at the Drey- \nfus court-martial, on August 29th, aroused great interest, as, since his \nprevious appearance, the colonel has been released by the Minister of War \nfrom his oath of professional secrecy. Speaking in firm, audible tones, \nthe colonel testified that on September 23, 1894, he left Paris on a fort- \nnight\'s leave of absence, and that nothing was then known in the Statisti- \ncal Department of the War Office of the discovery of treason. \n\nContinuing, Colonel Cordier said that the day after he returned to \nParis, Colonel Sandherr, who appeared greatly distressed, handed the wit- \nness a copy of the bordereau on foolscap paper. Sandherr and Cordier \nanimatedly discussed the bordereau, Sandherr considering it ample evi- \ndence of treason. \n\nThe document was photographed and an investigation was opened, \nwhich resulted in arousing suspicions against Dreyfus. Prior to this \nthere was no presumption of Dreyfus\'s guilt. It was on October 8th that \nthe suspicions of the prisoner\'s guilt became definite. \n\nThe witness said he believed the bordereau arrived at the War Office \nafter September 24th. He could not say who received it. Very few \nofficers were then aware that treason had been committed. The witness \nthought it necessary to enter into these particulars in reply to the state- \nments of his assistant, Major Lauth, before the Court of Cassation. \n\nAt this point, Major Lauth, rising in the centre of the court, ex- \nclaimed : \n\n" I beg leave to speak. Colonel. " \n\nProceeding with his testimony, Colonel Cordier said he believed the \nbordereau was handed to Colonel Sandherr by Colonel Henry. \n\nCordier then explained what was the "ordinary channel" by which \n\n\n\nTHE "LITTLE WHITE MOUSE" TESTIFIES 233 \n\ninformation reached the War Office. The "ordinary channel," the witness \nsaid, was a very clever spy, attached to the Intelligence Department, who \nhad the habit of visiting great houses, but who preferred the company of \nservants to the company of their masters, \n\nCordier then described the method of piecing documents, and showed \nhow the bordereau was pasted together by Henry, who was usually in- \ntrusted with this work. The witness said piecing documents possessed \nfascination for the men who were engaged upon such work, " like the pas- \nsion of fortune-telling by cards." \n\n"Men who have once pieced paper," said the witness, amid laughter, \n"will always continue to do so." \n\nEeferring to the spy who has been dubbed as the "ordinary channel," \nColonel Cordier said the former did not directly receive the documents \nfrom the Embassy from which they were abstracted. A woman, he ex- \nplained, served as an intermediary, and, the "ordinary channel" having \nbeen closed, it was found necessary to negotiate directly with the inter- \nmediary, otherwise the woman, with whom rendezvous were usually made \nin chiirches. But, as the "ordinary channel\'s" services were still avail- \nable elsewhere, his pay was continued. \n\nPossibly, continued the witness, the spy endeavored to renew his rela- \ntions with the Embassy. \n\nCordier, whose evidence greatly interested his hearers, described the \nvarious leakages. He especially referred to a very serious case designated \nas "Leakage of St. Thomas Aquinas," in which a clerk of the church of \nSt. Thomas Aquinas, Paris, was mixed up in espionage, and a serious \nleakage in the Minister of Marine. \n\nThe witness then referred to the spy Gu^nee\'s denunciations, to the \neffect that officers of the Headquarters Staff were guilty of treachery. \nBut, the colonel explained, it was very difficult to accept Guenee\'s state- \nment as gospel. The witness regretted Guenee\'s death, as, he said, the \ncourt would have been edified by his testimony in regard to the manner \nin which many things were fabricated. \n\nCordier described the events prior to the arrest of Dreyfus, and showed \nthat only a single real leakage, namely, the plans of the fortresses, had \noccurred at the time of his arrest. The document known as "Cette \ncanaille de D ," he explained, was contemporaneous with this leakage. \n\n\n\n234 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n"It has been said," continued the witness, "that I made a mistake on \nthis point, and confounded the document with another containing the ini- \ntial alone. I should like very much to see the document, in order to as- \nsure myself that it has not been tampered with. It is not, however, of \nany importance, except to show that General Eoget\'s evidence concerning \nit is false from beginning to end." [Sensation.] \n\nReverting to the manner in which the suspicions against Dreyfus crys- \ntallized, the colonel described the efforts to pry into the prisoner\'s life, \nand said the information at first received was very bad and constituted \nstrong proof against the prisoner. Later, however, it assumed quite a \ndifferent aspect. It was admitted that before his marriage Dreyfus was \nnot " unimpeachable moraUy, nor was he entitled to wear a wreath of \norange blossoms." [Laughter.] \n\nBut, Cordier added, after his marriage Dreyfus was quite different. \n\nThe witness also said that while Dreyfus boasted of his conquests, he, \nCordier, was of the opinion that those who boasted the most accomplished \nthe least. [Laughter.] \n\nDreyfus, he continued, bragged a great deal, and probably now re- \npented having done so, and Dreyfus\'s inquisitiveness, according to wit- \nness, was probably explained by his knowledge that he would not long \nremain on the Headquarters Staff, and he desired to obtain all the infor- \nmation which might be useful to him in after life. \n\n"In 1894," declared Colonel Cordier, emphatically, "I had been reas- \nsured by the unanimity of the judges, and I was absolutely convinced of \nthe guilt of Dreyfus. Now I am absolutely convinced of his innocence." \n[Great excitement.] \n\nM. Labori questioned the witness in regard to the letter mentioned in \nM. De la Eoche-Vernet\'s evidence referring to the spy "C. C. C," which \nwas dispatched to the War Ofl&ce at the time of Colonel Picquart\'s arri- \nval. Cordier explained that it was a letter from an Italian lady, with \nwhom the department, at that time, was in correspondence through an \nintermediary at the Foreign Office. \n\n"I greatly respect Italian ladies in general," said Colonel Cordier, "but \nnot when it is a case of espionage, and I advised Colonel Picquart not to \nmake too much use of the lady\'s offices, saying to him: \'There must be \nno petticoats.\'" \n\n\n\nTHE "LITTLE WHITE MOUSE" TESTIFIES 235 \n\nMajor Lauth commented upon Colonel Cordier\'s testimony, especially \nthe statement that there were no Anti-Semites on the Headquarters Staff, \nremarking that there was one exception, and that this was Cordier him- \nself, who was always expressing antipathy to the Jews, especially when \nthere was a question of introducing Dreyfus to the department, \n\n"Yes," exclaimed Cordier, "quite true, I was an Anti-Semite, but \nmy opinions never went to the length of bringing false evidence against \nthe Jews. [Sensation.] I am an honest man, and I have a conscience." \n[Eenewed excitement.] \n\nColonel Fleur appeared in the witness box to refute Colonel Cordier\'s \ntestimony. He declared that on August 23, 1898, Colonel Cordier said \nto him: \n\n"Dreyfus is guilty. But there must be two others. There are three \nof them," \n\nColonel Cordier shrugged his shoulders, and admitted that on that \ndate, just a week before the arrest of Henry, he said forgery had been \ncommitted at the Headquarters Staff. But, the colonel added, he told \nthe same thing of others the day after the posting up of the speech of M, \nCavaignac, then Minister of War, was voted by the Chamber of Deputies, \n\nArchivist Gribelin also advanced and protested against Colonel Cor- \ndier\'s statement. \n\nHe was followed by General Mercier, who said it was necessary for \nCordier to say what he knew about the arrangement of the secret dossier \nby Colonel Sandherr. \n\nGeneral Mercier caused a sensation by indorsing Colonel Cordier\'s \nstatement with reference to the alleged attempt of Mathieu Dreyfus to \nbribe Colonel Sandherr, The general said : \n\n" When Colonel Sandherr reported the interview and I asked his opin- \nion of it, Sandherr replied : \n\n" \' He gave me the impression of being an honest man resolved to sac- \nrifice everything for his brother,\'" \n\nThe name of M, de Freycinet, known as "The Little White Mouse," \nwas called, and amid suppressed excitement the former Minister of War, \nformer Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Premier took the witness \nstand, \n\nMaitre Demange proceeded to question the former Minister, Counsel \n\n\n\n236 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nrecalled General Mercier\'s statement that M. de. Freycinet told General \nJamont that 35,000,000 francs had been raised abroad for the defence of \nDreyfus. \n\nIn reply, M. de Freycinet expressed the anguish which he felt at the \nsight of the trouble into which his country was plunged, and said his \nwhole desire was to see peace and calm restored. In regard to the con- \nversations referred to the witness said : \n\n" General Jamont made me a visit of courtesy on the occasion of my \nquitting office at the beginning of May. I received many similar visits. \nI do not think that I exaggerate when I say I received a hundred such \nvisits. I made no note of the remarks exchanged by my different visi- \ntors. \n\n" In the case of General Jamont we, of course, talked about the case \nand the campaign of speeches and press utterances which had been pro- \nceeding in different parts of the world during the previous two years. In \nregard to the Dreyfus case I was led to say that our agents abroad re- \nported that efforts had been made, on the initiative of private individuals, \nin behalf of this campaign. A very disinterested campaign in France, I \nam sure ; but less so abroad. \n\n" I reported the estimates I heard had been made by people who pro- \nfessed to be well acquainted with the question of advertising in regard to \nthe probable money value of the whole campaign throughout the world \nsince its inception. \n\n" That, Monsieur le President, is a r^sum^, as complete and faithful as \nmy recollection permits, of the conversation with General Jamont. What \nstruck me most was the identity of our anxiety in regard to the army. \nWe mutually expressed uneasiness, for it must not be concealed that the \npresent attacks have had a profound echo which might eventually en- \ndanger the cohesion of the army. \n\n"You know well, gentlemen, that there is a higher discipline than \neven the Military Code. As I said in the Chamber, it is that more rig- \norous discipline which comes from the confidence of the soldier in his \nchiefs. How can that confidence be maintained if those chiefs are depicted \ndaily in the blackest colors ? Was it not to be feared that at a given mo- \nment this confidence would disappear, and what would be the result if we \nwere engaged in external difficulties? [Sensation.] \n\n\n\nTHE "LITTLE WHITE MOUSE" TESTIFIES 237 \n\n*\'\'I adjure those of my countrymen," continued M. de Freycinet ear- \nnestly, " who participate in these attacks under the impulse of generous \npassion and with the object of serving a noble, elevated idea \xe2\x80\x94 I have no \ndoubt they are led away \xe2\x80\x94 to take heed of the dangers in which they may \ninvolve the country. As General Jamont said to me: \'It is high time \nto end it.\' \n\n" Let us cease throwing in one another\'s faces accusations which discredit \nus in the eyes of our rivals. Gentlemen, let us prepare \xe2\x80\x94 and I would that \nmy feeble voice could be heard by all \xe2\x80\x94 let us prepare to accept your judg- \nment with respect and silence. May the judgment of this French court, \ntoward which the whole world has its eyes turned, open up the era of \nreconciliation which is so necessary. [Immense excitement.] \n\n" Gentlemen, pardon me for telling you what I wish. It springs from \na heart which has no longer much to desire here below, except to live and \nsee the country great and honored. \n\n" I have finished. I have given an exact account of the interview \nwith the commander-in-chief of our armies in time of war. I have noth- \ning to add." \n\nM. de Freycinet had fully maintained his title to the nickname, " The \nLittle White Mouse," which was bestowed upon him on account of his \nability to speak lengthily without conveying much information. \n\nEeplying to a member of the court-martial, M. de Freycinet explained \nthe part which he played in the Ministry to which he belonged. He said \nhe confined himself to giving effect to the Government\'s decisions when \nthe Supreme Court decided in favor of a revision. \n\nM. Demange wanted M. de Freycinet to repeat in court his statements \nmade in the Chamber of Deputies in regard to the small importance at- \ntaching to the alleged treason, but M. de Freycinet declined to repeat \nthem, saying the court could, however, indicate the sense of his speech. \nIn his opinion most of the leakages could only have been of infinitesimal \nimportance, though the information relative to covering the troops might \nhave been important. The publication of secrets relating to arming and \nexplosives was also dangerous. But when the witness made his speech \nin the Chamber of Deputies he wished above all to avoid increasing pub- \nlic excitement. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Is M. de Freycinet aware of any fact which led him to \n\n\n\n238 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nbelieve foreign money has played a part in the revision of the trial of \n1894? \n\nM. de Freycinet \xe2\x80\x94 No, no, Monsieur le President. \n\nM, Labori \xe2\x80\x94 What does M. de Freycinet think of the accusations of a \ncertain section of the press against MM. Scheurer-Kestner, Tarieux, Bris- \nson, and Eanc, and by another section against the Court of Cassation, \ntending to attribute the opinion on the revision expressed by those persons \nto the influences of corruption? \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 I refuse to put the question. \n\nM. Labori insisted that he should at least be permitted to question M. \nde Freycinet relative to M. Scheurer-Kestner, the former Vice-President \nof the Senate, whose statements about the letters Colonel Picquart wrote \nto him from Tunis have been contradicted by Savignaud, Picquart\'s former \norderly. \n\nTo this the president of the court replied that the good faith of M. \nScheurer-Kestner was not under discussion. Colonel Jouaust added that \nM. Labori wished to import passion into the proceedings. \n\nCounsel was defending himself against this aspersion, when M. de \nFreycinet intervened and said he did not scruple to say that M. Scheurer- \nKestner was his friend, and that he had the highest opinion of his char- \nacter. \n\nM. Labori thanked the witness for this frank statement. \n\nAfter leaving the witness-stand M. de Freycinet took a seat beside \nGeneral Billot, with whom he briefly conversed. The former Minister \nthen left the court-room, after having been excused from further attend- \niance. \n\nM. Gallichet, editor of the Drapeau, then testified. He expressed his \npersonal indignation at the charges of treason against Henry, and repeated \nthe gossip of a third party relative to an alleged remark Colonel Cordier \nwas overheard to make, namely: \n\n" We have taken Dreyfus with his hand in the bag. " \n\nM. Belhomme, a former Inspector of Schools, seventy-eight years of \nage, testified that he examined as an expert the bordereau in the Ester- \nhazy case, and came to the conclusion that it was not the work of Ester- \nhazy. The witness added that he adhered to his opinion even more posi- \ntively now than before. Incidentally, M. Belhomme expressed surprise \n\n\n\nTHE LITTLE "WHITE MOUSE TESTIFIES" \n\nat the fact that the Court of Cassation did not take the result of his exam- \nination into account. In conclusion M. Belhomme declared he never be- \nlieved the bordereau was in Esterhazy\'s writing, and added that until he \nactually saw him make a fresh copy of the document, witness would have \nno remarks to make in regard to the handwriting of Dreyfus, which he \nhad not suflficiently examined. \n\nAfter M. Demange had asked a question or two, to which M. Bel- \nhomme did not reply, M. Demange pointed out the contradictions in M. \nBelhomme\'s original report and in his statements at this session. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n240 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XLIII. \nESTERHAZY ACCUSED BY FOUR WITNESSES \n\nM. Paul Meyer, member of the Institute and Director of the School \nof Ancient Manuscripts, was the first witness on August 30th. He de- \nposed in favor of Dreyfus. \n\nAfter MM. Molinier and Giry, and M. Picot, a member of the Insti- \ntute, aU of whom testified in favor of Dreyfus, General Deloye testified \nagainst the prisoner on the artillery references in the bordereau. \n\nThen the court, on the application of the Government Commissary, \nMajor Carriere, ordered that the opening part of the session of August \n31st be behind closed doors for the purpose of discussing documents relat- \ning to the artillery. \n\nThe evidence of MM. Meyer, Molinier, and Giry, all of whom are \nhandwriting experts of the first mark, was a strong point for Dreyfus. \nThey were most emphatic in declaring the bordereau was written by \nEsterhazy, and created a better impression than M. Bertillon by not in- \ntroducing the fantastic diagrams which the latter deemed necessary. \n\nOn the other hand, many persons thought General Mercier, fearing \nthat the exposure of August 26th would discredit him altogether with the \njudges, had conceived the idea of giving way on certain points, and thus \nto some extent reinstating himself by an affectation of impartiality. \n\nM. Meyer explained this in his evidence before the Assizes Court. \nHe was unable to be so positive in regard to the writer because he had \nonly seen a facsimile of the bordereau ; but at the Court of Cassation he \nsaw the original bordereau. \n\n"I convinced myself," said M. Meyer, "by a magnifying glass that the \nbordereau was written in a free hand and without hesitation, whereas it \nis precisely hesitation in the formation of the strokes which reveals the \nuse of a method of tracing. I can affirm that it is in the writing and in \n\n\n\nESTERHAZY ACCUSED BY FOUR WITNESSES 241 \n\nthe very hand of Esterhazy. That is perfectly clear to me." [Commo- \ntion.] \n\nAt the conclusion of his testimony the witness gave a demonstration \nof the fallacy of the Bertillon system. \n\nProfessor Auguste Molinier, of the School of Ancient Manuscripts, gave \nsimilar evidence. He said that each fresh examination of the bordereau \nonly served further to convince him that it was the work of Esterhazy. \n\nAmid deep attention the witness demonstrated how the conclusions of \nthe experts who attributed the bordereau to Dreyfus were mutually de- \nstructive, and dwelt on the defects of M. Bertillon\'s arguments, pointing \nout the striking resemblance of the alleged doctored handwriting with \nEsterhazy\'s writing, who, he added, in everybody\'s opinion, had relations \nwith Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the former German military attach^ at Paris, \nand the dissimilarities between the writing of the bordereau and that of \nthe prisoner. \n\nThe members of the court-martial were apparently much interested, \nand asked Professor Molinier a number of questions, to which he replied, \nupholding his conclusion that Esterhazy was the writer of the bordereau. \n\nGeneral Mercier requested permission to speak, and called attention to \nthe fact that in his testimony before the Court of Cassation Professor Mo- \nlinier said a change was apparent in Esterhazy\'s handwriting after 1894, \nand asked that the professor\'s former evidence be read. \n\nM. Labori then jumped up .and inquired if General Mercier intervened \nwith the object of verifying Professor Molinier\'s evidence. Counsel added \nthat it seemed to him that General Mercier intervened less in the charac- \nter of a witness than as a representative of the Government Commissary. \nHe therefore would be grateful to the general if he would kindly explain \nthe bearing of his remark. \n\nMercier replied that on this special point he desired to confirm the \nevidence of Professor Molinier, which, he said, corroborated M. Bertillon\'s \nstatement that Esterhazy, the man-of-straw, changed his handwriting in \norder to replace Dreyfus. \n\nIn conclusion General Mercier said : \n\n"Having emphasized the point in regard to the change in Esterhazy\'s \n\nhandwriting in 1897, perhaps before, I am satisfied." [Commotion.] \n\nProfessor Giry, also of the School of Ancient Manuscripts, gave sim- \n16 \n\n\n\n242 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nilar evidence to that of Professor Molinier. He said the bordereau only \nhad a superficial likeness to Dreyfus\'s handwriting, and asserted that it \nwas certainly the work of Esterhazy. \n\nThe witness also said the bordereau was not written with the aid of \nkey-words. \n\nM. Labori asked if the witness had noticed a change in Esterhazy\'s \ncaligraphy, and Professor Giry replied that he had studied the question, \nbut did not think there had been any marked change. \n\nCounsel then asked whether General Mercier had meant to intimate \nthat Esterhazy\'s handwriting had become more or less like that of Drey- \nfus since 1894, to which the general replied that he had not wished to \nexpress an opinion, but he reiterated that M. Bertillon had shown that \nEsterhazy\'s handwriting had become more like that of the bordereau. \n\nM. Picot, a member of the French Institute, said he had had an inter- \nview with a " certain military attache " (Colonel Schneider, the Austrian \nmilitary attach^), and that the conversation turned upon the Dreyfus case. \nThe attach^ expressed surprise at the " incorrect attitude of French officers \nin doubting the word of foreign ojfficers." \n\n"My impression," added the witness, "was that he was anxious to as- \nsert firmly and unequivocally the absolute innocence of Dreyfus." [Sensa- \ntion.] \n\n"Eegarding the bordereau," continued M. Picot, "the attach^ said only \nthree documents, enumerated, were referred to, the real fact being that \nthe others were padding, meant to swell the dossier." \n\nThe witness noticed that the attach^ employed the expression "hy- \ndraulic brake," and never "pneumatic brake." \n\nIn regard to Esterhazy, the attach^, M. Picot said, declared that he \nconsidered him a swindler. The attach^ also asserted that Esterhazy had \nrelations with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, who dismissed him because Ester- \nhazy only brought information devoid of interest. \n\nIt was then, continued M. Picot, that Esterhazy tried to enter the \nWar Office, and almost succeeded, and it was then that he wrote to \nColonel Schwartzkoppen the letter since known as the bordereau. In re- \nply to the writer of the bordereau, added M. Picot, Colonel Schwartzkop- \npen wrote the telegram card known as the petit bleu. But on reflection \nhe crumpled it up and threw it into the fireplace. \n\n\n\nESTERHAZY ACCUSED BY EOUR WITNESSES 243 \n\nAt this juncture General Roget asked leave to speak and, stationing \nhimself beside the witness, said he must strongly protest against M. \nPicot\'s evidence regarding the military attache\'s surprise that French \nofficers did not believe their foreign colleagues. \n\n"What does the witness think," continued General Roget, "of the for- \neign office, who, having caused the publication in the Figaro of an em- \nphatic denial of a statement of General Mercier, was afterward obliged to \nacknowledge the authorship of a document ? " \n\nM. Picot retorted that he had only repeated statements made to him, \nand had abstained from comments on them. He had, therefore, nothing \nto say in reply to General Roget\'s questions. \n\nM. Demange, intervening, asked General Roget if he did not think \nthe Foreign Office\'s mistake was excusable, since the word " report " had \nbeen applied to a document not possessing the character of the report? \n\n"It is not for me to accuse or excuse," replied the general. "I con- \nfine myself to pointing out to the court that the conversation repeated \noccurred in May, that is to say, at the time the result of the investigation \nof the Court of Cassation was already known. For my part, I only inter- \nvened because French officers have been arraigned, and when being \naccused, French officers have the right to reply." [Excitement.] \n\nGeneral Deloye, Director of Artillery at the War Office, was called to \nthe witness bar. He repeated his explanations given before the Court of \nCassation as to the various peculiarities of the artillery, particularly with \nreference to the brake of the " 120 short " gun. \n\nThe witness said he considered that in 1894 it would have been im- \npossible for any officer serving with his regiment to communicate any- \nthing in regard to the brake of this gun. He added that, although the \ngun was in use at Rennes, the officers forming the court-martial, among \nwhom was an officer commanding a " 120 short " gun, had only the vaguest \nideas about this gun, while in 1894 the details of the "pneumatic brake" \ncould only have been known to very few officers. \n\nWhen Dreyfus was asked if he had anything to say, he replied : \n\n" I do not intend to discuss the terms of the bordereau, nor advance \ntheories about it. It must be known what is in the notes and what is \ntheir nature and their value before theories can be suggested. \n\n"Mention has been made of the \'120 short\' gun. I state briefly for \n\n\n\n244 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe second time all that I knew in 1889-90 at Bourges of this gun. I \nknew the principle of the \' pneumatic brake.\' \n\n" General Mercier\'s deposition recalled the fact that he was Inspector- \nGeneral at Bourges in 1890. He must remember the lecture given in the \npresence of all the officers, both of the Gunnery School and the foundry, \nand all the departments of Bourges, and the officers of the garrison artil- \nlery. He must recollect the final lecture given on the subject of the \n\'pneumatic brake,\' of which he made the customary rough sketch. This \nis to be found in the St. Cyr lectures. All my knowledge of the \'pneu- \nmatic brake \' was derived from the lectures. As regards the brake itself, I \nhave seen it twice, once in the courtyard of the Gunnery School at Bourges \nand once in the School of War. I have not seen it in action. I have \nnot seen the \'120 short\' gun fired. I have never been present at the \nfiring trials. \n\n"Mention has also been made of the shrapnel shell of 1891. The \nknowledge of General Deloye on this point is much more extensive than \nmine, and everything he has said is quite correct. Li 1894 I studied the \nshell, and, in a necessarily incomplete study, reached the conclusion that \nthe shell of the 1891 pattern was a shell in which the bullets were kept \nin place by a smoke-generating substance intended to produce dense clouds \nof smoke on bursting, in order to facilitate range finding. These are the \nconclusions I reached in 1894, and I chronicled them in a report made at \nthe time." \n\n\n\nTHE PEISONER BREAKS DOWN UNDER THE STRAIN 245 \n\n\n\nChapter XLIV. \n\nTHE PRISONER BREAKS DOWN UNDER THE STRAIN \n\nThe session of the court-martial of August 31st opened behind closed \ndoors. Majors Hartmann and Ducros and General Deloye, all of the artil- \nlery, were present. The court discussed the secret documents relating to \nthe artillery subjects of the bordereau. In addition to the usual cordons \nof troops in the streets leading to the Lyc^e, an extra guard was posted, \nso as completely to isolate the hall in which the judges met in secret \nsession. \n\nThe public were admitted to the court at 9 :30 a.m. The first wit- \nness called after the public session was opened was Captain Lebrun-Ee- \nnault of the Eepublican Guard, who reiterated his testimony given before \nthe court of Cassation, repeating the terms of the alleged confession of \nDreyfus : \n\n" I am innocent. In three years they will recognize my innocence. \nThe Minister knows it. If I delivered documents to Germany, it was to \nhave more important ones in return." \n\nThe witness\'s explanation that he did not refer to the confession of \nDreyfus during his interview with President Casimir-Perier, because he \noverheard a conversation during the course of which he was called \n"traitor," "canaille," and "cur," came as a surprise, for he did not men- \ntion this in his evidence before the Court of Cassation, as Maitre Labori, \nleading counsel for the defence, pointed out. \n\nM. Labori also laid stress on the fact that Captain Lebrun-Eenault \nshould have kept his notebook, in which, he asserts, he made a note of his \nconversation with Dreyfus, for four years, and have destroyed it on the \nvery day the matter was brought up in debate in the Chamber of Depu- \nties. The captain\'s reply that he looked upon the copy made by M. \nCavaignac, then Minister of War, as being sufficient, was considered rather \nlame. \n\n\n\n246 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nCaptain Lebrun-Eenault is a well-built man of medium height, broad- \nshouldered, and wears a well-trimmed mustache. But he has queer eyes. \nHe spoke in a loud, clear voice. \n\nDreyfus, replying to the witness, began by calmly declaring that Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Eenault\' s statement that a certain Captain d\'Attel was pres- \nent during his conversation with Captain Lebrun-Eenault was inaccurate. \n\nThe witness, however, maintained that Captain d\'Attel was present, \nwhereupon Dreyfus said that if he was present he, the prisoner, did not \nspeak to him. \n\nDreyfus then raised his voice excitedly, and, accompanying his words \nwith short, emphatic gestures of the right hand, which was quivering with \nhis emotion, he declared that Captain Lebrun-Eenault should not have re- \npeated to his chiefs his utterances, which began with a protestation of \ninnocence, without asking him to explain his words. \n\n"Those are manoeuvres," cried the prisoner, "which must fill all honest \nmen with indignation." \n\nThis declaration of the prisoner made a deep impression on the audience. \n\nDreyfus spoke the last words through his teeth and was evidently la- \nboring under the greatest excitement and indignation. The audience \nbroke into " Bravos ! " which the gendarmes immediately suppressed. \n\nCaptain Anthoine followed and repeated what Captain d\'Attel had said \nconfirming the confession. Dreyfus replied that he had not spoken to \nCaptain d\'Attel. \n\nOn being recalled. Captain Lebrun-Eenault said this was true, but he \nadded that Captain d\'Attel was present and could have overheard the con- \nversation. \n\nM. Labori here pointed out that Captain d\'Attel had not spoken to his \nchiefs on this subject, and General Mercier, who, like all the military \nwitnesses, followed the proceedings with the keenest attention, rose and \nadmitted that this was correct. \n\nColonel Jouaust told Dreyfus that he had not explained why he men- \ntioned the term of three years, to which Dreyfus replied : \n\n" I did not give three years as the term. I only said I hoped that in \nthe course of two or three years my innocence would be recognized. And \nI wish to state, Colonel, that, as my letters to General Gonse show, my \nwords did not have the sense evil minds have sought to give them." \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER BREAKS DOWN UNDER THE STRAIN 247 \n\nM. Labori then had General Gonse called to the bar, and asked him if \nhe had not used the alleged confession of Dreyfus in opposing Colonel Pic- \nquart\'s arguments in favor of a revision. \n\nGeneral Gonse replied that he had not, whereupon M. Labori asked \nthat the letters exchanged between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart \nshould be read. \n\nThe clerk of the court began to read a letter which began " My dear \nPicquart," when General Gonse interrupted him and asked that Colonel \nPicquart\'s previous letter be read first, but, as the letter was not available \nfor the moment, the reading of all the letters was adjourned until Septem- \nber 1st. \n\nMajor Forzinetti, who was governor of the Cherche-Midi Prison during \nthe time Dreyfus was imprisoned there, and who testified in behalf of \nDreyfus, declaring he had never heard of the confession Dreyfus is said to \nhave made, was the next witness called. He repeated his testimony before \nthe Court of Cassation, adding that he frequently met Captain Lebrun- \nRenault and Captain d\'Attel, and that neither of them ever alluded to the \nalleged confession. \n\nThe witness declared that he once taxed Captain Lebrun-Renault be- \nfore General Gonse and other witnesses, with saying he had spoken to the \nwitness (Major Forzinetti) of the confession, and Captain Lebrun-Eenault \ndid not reply. "Whereupon," Major Forzinetti said, "I seized his arm \nand cried : \' If the words repeated as yours are true, you are an infamous \nliar.\' " \n\nMajor Forzinetti then declared that on visiting General de Boisdeffre \nto express fears about the health of the prisoner, the general asked him \nhis opinion of Dreyfus, and the major replied : \n\n"My General, had you not put that question to me I would have \nkept my counsel. But since you ask my opinion, I declare I believe he \nis innocent." \n\nThe witness then recounted Colonel Du Paty de Clam\'s theatrical de- \nvices to surprise Dreyfus, to which Forzinetti declined to be a party, and \nthe major also said that on one occasion, when Dreyfus was in a crisis of \ndespair, he, the witness, remained with the prisoner, consoling him, until \nthree o\'clock in the morning. \n\nColonel Jouaust asked Major Forzinetti if Dreyfus ever had ideas of \n\n\n\n248 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nsuicide, and the witness replied that Dreyfus had asked for a weapon, and \nthat also, after his condemnation was read to him, he was with difficulty \nprevented from dashing his head against the wall. \n\nAfter the last visit of Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus, continued Major \nForzinetti, the prisoner wrote to the Minister of War a letter which con- \ncluded with the words : \n\n" When I am gone, let them seek the culprit. " \n\nAt the conclusion of Major Forzinetti\'s evidence, Dreyfus, on Colonel \nJouaust\'s invitation, and after reference to the last interview with Du \nPaty de Clam, said, looking with gratitude at the major: \n\n"There is a matter which Major Forzinetti has just recalled which has \ngreatly moved me, and which I wish to recall, for I wish to say to whom \nI owe the fact that I have done my duty \xe2\x80\x94 to whom I owe having done it \nfor five years after my condemnation. I had determined to kill myself. I \nhad made up my mind not to undergo the frightful torture of a soldier from \nwhom they wished to tear the insignia of honor. \n\n" Well, then, let me say this : That if I went to that torture, I can say \nhere that it was thanks to Madame Dreyfus, who showed me my duty, and \nwho told me that if I was innocent I ought to go to it, for the sake of her \nand our children. If I am here, it is to her I owe it, Colonel." \n\nHere Major Forzinetti said : \n\n" It is quite true. In his last interview with his wife Dreyfus said : \n\' For her and for my children I will undergo this torture of to-morrow.\' " \n\nThis declaration of Dreyfus that his life was due to his wife deeply \nstirred all his hearers. He spoke in a broken voice, with emphatic ges- \ntures, swaying to and fro with emotion, and when he had finished he sat \ndown abruptly, evidently to conceal his discomposed features from the \ngaze of the spectators in court, who when he was seated were only able \nto see his back. Tears were glistening in his eyes, and he was clearly sup- \npressing an outburst of sobbing. \n\nGeneral de Boisdeffre denied that Major Forzinetti had expressed to \nhim his conviction that Dreyfus was innocent. But the major main- \ntained his assertion. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Gu^rin, whom General Saussier ordered to attend \nthe degradation of Captain Dreyfus and report upon it, said : \n\n"At about 7:45 I saw the prison van arrive. Dreyfus alighted and \n\n\n\nTHE PEISONER BREAKS DOWN UNDER THE STRAIN 249 \n\nwas taken to the office, where he was guarded by Captain Lebrun-Eenault, \nwhose name I did not know at that time. At 8:55 the adjutant of the \ngarrison relieved Captain Lebrun-Eenault, with four artillerymen and a \ncorporal, composing the guard which was to conduct the prisoner to the \nplace of degradation. At that moment I was at the door of the building. \n\n" Captain Lebrun-Eenault, when relieved from duty, saw me and im- \nmediately began to relate what Dreyfus had said. The three statements \nwhich struck him, because of their importance, remained so graven in my \nmemory that I could never forget them, \xe2\x80\x94 namely, first, the prisoner\'s pride \nin the facings he had lost; second, his confession that he had delivered \ndocuments to a foreign power; third, that, in three years justice would be \ndone him. A group of officers were standing near, and as Captain Lebrun- \nEenault\'s conversation was not confidential, and the statement he had made \nme was of great importance and interest to us, I begged him to repeat to \nthe officers what he had just told me. \n\n" I must add that Captain d\' Attel had been ordered to superintend \nmatters, and his special duty required him to report everything which oc- \ncurred in the office of the adjutant while Dreyfus was there, and until \nDreyfus was conducted to the place of degradation. \n\n" Throughout the ceremony the prisoner walked automatically. After- \nward, when he was conducted to the prison van, I stood, in company with \nsome officers, in the passage Dreyfus traversed, and Dreyfus, addressing \nthe officers, repeated that in three years justice would be done him. He \nthen entered the van and disappeared. \n\n" After the ceremony I verbally reported to General Saussier the inci- \ndent of the morning, particularly the statements made by Dreyfus to Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Eenault. \n\n"During the day Captain d\' Attel also told M. Wunenberger, archivist \nof the Paris Headquarters, that Dreyfus had confessed." \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 How do you reconcile his protests of innocence with \nthe alleged confession? \n\nColonel Gu^rin \xe2\x80\x94 That is not my business. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 You reported the confession to General Saussier? \n\nColonel Gu^rin \xe2\x80\x94 Certainly. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Was it suggested that steps be taken to verify the \nalleged confession? \n\n\n\n250 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nColonel Gu^rin \xe2\x80\x94 I do not recollect. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 So there was no attempt to interrogate Dreyfus in re- \ngard to the alleged confession? \n\nColonel Gu^rin \xe2\x80\x94 The case had passed out of the hands of the military \nauthorities, the prisoner having been handed over to the civil authorities. \n\nDreyfus, when the usual question was put to him, said he had nothing \nto add to the reply he had made to Captain Lebrun-Renault. \n\nOne of the judges asked the witness whether M. Weil, when attached \nto the Army Headquarters, had relations with Esterhazy, to which Colonel \nGuerin replied that he believed M. Weil had known Esterhazy for a Jong \ntime. \n\nThe Judge \xe2\x80\x94 Do you think Esterhazy knew the prisoner? \n\nColonel Guerin \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know. \n\nDreyfus here remarked that he never knew Esterhazy. \n\nMajor de Mitry of the hussars testified to Captain Anthoine telling \nhim of the alleged confession of Dreyfus. \n\nArmy Controller Peyrolles also testified that he heard of the confession \nfrom Colonel Guerin. The latter he added, introduced the witness to Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Eenault on their way to the Zola trial. \n\nContinuing, Major de Mitry said : \n\n" I said to Captain Lebrun-Eenault, point blank : \' How is it the con- \nfession of Dreyfus was not reported to our President and Premier when \nyou were summoned to the Elysfe ? \' \n\n" Captain Lebrun-Eenault replied : \' I did not report it, through a \nkind of apprehension, because when in the anteroom I heard some one say \n" Who is this gendarme who is betraying professional secrets and feeding \nthe press? He might smart for such indiscretions." \' \n\n" I replied : \' Eenault, you have made a mistake. In your place I \nwould have told the President.\' " \n\nWhen called upon to reply, Dreyfus declared he had never said his \ntrial would be revised in three years. \n\n"I do not understand these words," said the prisoner, "I should be \nvery grateful to you. Colonel, if, in the interest of truth, you would make \npublic the letter which I wrote to the Chief of the Headquarters Staff. It \nwould then be seen in what terms I asked that an investigation should be \nmade. " \n\n\n\nTHE PRISONER BREAKS DOWN UNDER THE STRAIN 251 \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 But why in three years ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 I have already told the court that I told Colonel Du Paty \nde Clam that the Government had the means of investigation, but that it \nrequired time to use them. I said, therefore, that before two or three years \nmy innocence would be acknowledged. But I emphatically assert there \nwas no sinister motive in my mind such as has been attached to these \nwords. [Excitement.] \n\nDreyfus evidently referred to the General Staff\'s suggestion that when \nhe used the expression " three years " he knew that Esterhazy would then \nappear as a man-of-straw and try to take Dreyfus\'s place. \n\n\n\n252 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONES OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XLV. \n\nMORE TESTIMONY FOR DREYFUS \n\nImmediately after the opening of the session of the court-martial on \nSeptember 1st, Colonel Jouaust aroused the interest of the audience, by \nremarking : \n\n" Maitre Labori the other day asked that information be obtained re- \ngarding the character of a certain witness. I would not have acceded if \nthe witness had not expressed a similar desire. Information which has \nnow reached me will be read. " \n\nThe clerk of the court accordingly read a report regarding M. Dubreuil, \nthe Parisian friend of M. de Beaurepaire, who testified on August 23d \nthat Dreyfus met a German attach^ at the house of a mutual friend named \nBodson, and whose cross-examination reflected severely on his reputation. \nThe report was to the effect that M. Dubreuil never was a horse-dealer, \nas claimed by M. Labori, and that the character of the witness was most \nrespectable, he being held in general esteem. \n\nThis was a very satisfactory session for Dreyfus. The Beaurepaire \nwitness, Germain, who was to prove that Dreyfus attended the Alsatian \nmanoeuvres, found his statements denied by a reputable witness, while \nGermain himself, it was proved, had undergone two convictions for swin- \ndling. \n\nIn his deposition Germain declared he saddled a horse for Dreyfus to \nfollow the manoeuvres, and he said that his employer, Kuhlman, accom- \npanied Dreyfus riding, and adding that the major told the witness the \nname of his companion. \n\nColonel Jouaust questioned Dreyfus on this point, and in reply to the \nusual question Dreyfus admitted that about 1886 or 1887 he spent a fur- \nlough at Mulhouse, adding : \n\n" Every year, both while studying and attending the gunnery and artil- \nlery training schools, I passed one or two months at Mulhouse. But I \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY FOR DREYFUS 253 \n\ncan positively affirm that I never was present either in an official or semi- \nofficial capacity at the German manoeuvres. I was never invited to attend \nthe German manceuvres, and I never dined or lunched with any German \nofficer. On each visit I called on the general commanding at Mulhouse \nwith my regular passport, in accordance with my duty. \n\n" I would like to point out, in regard to the manoeuvring ground to \nwhich reference is made, that the Mulhouse ground is not ground over \nwhich manoeuvres could be carried out. It is merely a small drill ground, \nnothing more than a clearing in the Hartz Forest on the road from Mul- \nhouse to Basle. It is true that in the course of my excursions in 1886 \nI might have seen regiments drilling. But I emphatically declare that \nwhile out riding in 1886 or 1887 I never dined or lunched with German \nofficers, was never even invited to do so by foreign officers, and never \nspoke to foreign officers." \n\nEeplying to Colonel Jouaust, Dreyfus said that while he was at Mul- \nhouse he rode his brother\'s horse, and did not remember anything about \nthe horse mentioned by Germain. \n\nDuring the cross-examination M. Labori asked the groom, Germain, if \nhe was acquainted with M. de Beaurepaire, and the witness replied that \nhe was not acquainted with him, but he added that M. de Beaurepaire \nknew the facts to which he testified, through the witness\'s friends, and he \nalso admitted having written to M. de Beaurepaire giving information \nwhich the latter had published in the Echo de Paris. \n\nThe next two witnesses, however, gave strong testimony in favor of \nDreyfus, and sadly knocked Germain\'s testimony about. \n\nKuhlman, the livery-stable keeper, who employed Germain at this \ntime, in his testimony said that he never rode with Dreyfus as stated by \nGermain ; that he never went to the manoeuvres in company with Dreyfus, \nand absolutely denied all Germain\'s statements. Germain, the liveryman \nadded, was in his employ, and possibly the groom accompanied Dreyfus. \nBut the witness had no knowledge of it. \n\nIn conclusion, Kuhlman emphatically reiterated that he never rode \nwith Dreyfus. He said he was well acquainted with the whole Dreyfus \nfamily. \n\nMajor d\'Infreville testified that he had known Germain since 1894. \nHe added that Germain informed him that Dreyfus attended the German \n\n\n\n254 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nmanoeuvres. Witness had never said that an officer Germain saw in the \nBois de Boulogne was Dreyfus, for the simple reason that he did not know \nDreyfus. \n\nGermain, on being recalled, asserted that he certainly thought Major \nd\'Infreville told him the officer referred to was Dreyfus. \n\nThe next witness. Captain Le Monnier of the Headquarters Staff, who \nwas a probationer at the same time as Dreyfus, deposed that while they \nwere at the School of War in 1894, Dreyfus, in the course of a conversa- \ntion referring to the covering of troops in the Vosges region and the move- \nments necessary for the invasion of Alsace, said that he was well acquaint- \ned with a certain position to which the Germans attached great importance \nas a means of checking a French advance. This position, witness con- \ntinued, was westward of Mulhouse, and Dreyfus said he reached this \nopinion after following the German manoeuvres on horseback. \n\nThe prisoner at this point quietly pointed out that the position men- \ntioned by Captain Le Monnier was situated in an entirely different locality \nfrom where he, the prisoner, is supposed to have followed the manoeuvres. \nDreyfus added : \n\n" Captain Le Monnier must have confused it with a position which I \ndescribed from knowledge acquired when traversing the whole district on \nhorseback while a youth." \n\nThe prisoner reiterated that he never attended the manoeuvres in ques- \ntion. \n\nThe next witness, M. Villon, another of the friends of M. de Beaure- \npaire, declared that when in Berlin during the year 1894 he overheard a \nconversation of some German officers who were lunching in an adjoining \nroom of a caf^ in that city. One of the officers, the witness added, ex- \npressed indignation that a French officer was guilty of treason, and his \ncompanion replied: \n\n"It is a good thing for us. You know we are getting the plans of \nmobilization from Dreyfus." [Murmurs of assent and dissent.] \n\nAt the request of M. Demange, M. Villon detailed the alleged con- \nversation, and said he had not mentioned the conversation in 1894, because \nDreyfus has been arrested, and, knowing him to be guilty, the witness \nforesaw he would be convicted. \n\nThe caf^, however, in which the above conversation is reported to \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY FOR DREYFUS 255 \n\nhave occurred has since disappeared, and, as there are no means of veri- \nfying Villon\'s testimony, it certainly should not have had much effect on \nthe judges. \n\nTwo or three witnesses, in support ot Dreyfus on artillery questions, \nwere next heard, and special Commissary Fischer of the Eastern Military \nRailway System testified that he was charged to investigate the leakage of \ndocuments at the gunnery school at Bourges, and found nothing to in- \ncriminate Dreyfus. \n\nFischer asserted that he was not long in finding out that a former \nartilleryman named Thomas had communicated to a foreign power docu- \nments affecting the national defence. Thomas, he added, was sentenced \nto death for attempted murder in 1886, but the sentence was commuted \nto penal servitude for life. The witness went to Avignon and secured the \nconvict\'s confession that he communicated sketches of " shell 80 " of the \nhorse artillery and of the "120 siege-gun," for which he had received one \nthousand francs. \n\nReplying to Colonel Jouaust, the witness declared that, as Thomas was \narrested in 1886, he could not have been a spy at a later date. \n\nFischer was followed by Lieutenant Bernheim, who testified that, while \nin garrison at Rouen, he furnished Esterhazy with information and docu- \nments regarding the artillery, in which Esterhazy was much interested. \nThe witness was never able to recover the documents. He supposed at \nthe time that Esterhazy was anxious to increase his military knowledge, \n\nReplying to M. Demange, Lieutenant Bernheim said he had not testi- \nfied at the Esterhazy trial, because his testimony was then considered to \nbe of no great value. \n\nLieutenant Brugere, of the Artillery Reserve, the next witness called, \nsaid it was perfectly easy for any officer to inspect closely the " 120-short " \ngun. Moreover, he added, detailed explanations and information regard- \ning the brake were given to the officers present when the gun was fired. \nOn two occasions, witness also said, when the gun was fired he noticed the \npresence of a group of non-artillery officers. Therefore, the lieutenant \npointed out, it was plain that access to the gun was quite easy. \n\nIn May, 1894, Lieutenant Brugere continued, the new Firing Manual \nwas distributed. A copy was given to each battery, and, as the captain\'s \nlectures were not fully understood, other copies of the Firing Manual were \n\n\n\n256 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nprinted, and all officers and non-commissioned officers so desiring could \nobtain as many as they liked. In some regiments even the ordinary gun- \nners secured copies, and among those favored regiments, Lieutenant Brugere \npointed out, was the Sixth Artillery, stationed at Eennes. [Excitement.] \n\nThe witness said he gave his copy of the Firing Manual to an infantry \nofficer on May 17, 1894. The SocUte cle Tir ct Canon, of Paris, also re- \nprinted the manual and distributed it among its members. \n\nCaptain Le Eond here interposed, saying that no batteries of the \n" 120-short " gun were at the Chalons camp in 1894, and Lieutenant Bru- \ngere retorted that he only referred to what he saw in the month of May. \nA lively discussion ensued, General Eoget and General Deloye denying \nLieutenant Brugere\'s statements. \n\nGeneral Eoget asked Lieutenant Brugere if he was not the officer who \nhad written M. Cavaignac, then Minister of War, a violent letter tendering \nhis resignation and declaring it was a dishonor to serve in the French \narmy. \n\nThis declaration caused a scene, for Lieutenant Brugere, turning to \nGeneral Eoget, cried : \n\n" I protest against General Eoget\'s words. I affirm that I never said \nany such thing." \n\nGeneral Eoget then backed down, saying : \n\n" Well, that was the general sense of the letter. " \n\nA roar of disgust came from the audience at this apparent underhand- \nedness upon the part of the general, and Lieutenant Brugere again em- \nphatially declared General Eoget was wrong. \n\nGeneral Deloye, to whom General Eoget appealed, said he had been \nconsulted by the Minister of War as to what ought to be done in connec- \ntion with the letter, and witness read the report which he made on the \nsubject to the President of the Eepublic, who, he added, immediately \nsigned an order relegating Lieutenant Brugere to the Territorial Army. \n\nAfter this Lieutenant Brugere again arose, and emphatically main- \ntaiaed that he made no statement in the sense indicated by General Eoget, \nbut had only alluded to some personalities, and had not mentioned the \nFrench army. It would have been absurd to do so, he continued, since \nthe French army consists of all citizens over twenty years of age. \n\nMaitre Labori and Colonel Jouaust agreed that the letter should be \n\n\n\nMOKE TESTIMONY EOR DREYEUS 257 \n\nobtained from the Ministry of War and read in court. Lieutenant Bru- \ngere expressed satisfaction at this step, while General Eoget returned to \nhis seat with less buoyancy than he left it. \n\nThe next witness, Captain Carvalho, a handsome young artillery officer, \nproved an excellent reinforcement for Dreyfus. He gave his evidence \nclearly and boldly, and emphatically declared that there were no special \nprecautions to keep the mechanism of the " 120-short " gun secret. He \nsaid the gun was frequently operated in the presence of non-artillery offi- \ncers, who were told everything that they desired to know, including a de- \nscription of the hydro-pneumatic brake. Moreover, he added that in \nApril, 1894, the artillery officers had a description of the hydro-pneumatic \nbrake given them. \n\nEegarding the 1895 Firing Manual, witness said copies were obtaina- \nble in 1894 in all the regiments of the army, and asserted that he had \npurchased a copy. \n\n"Here," said Captain Carvalho, "is an actual copy of the manual, \nwhich I hand over to the court-martial." \n\nM. Labori then had an animated discussion with Colonel Jouaust, who \nat first refused the counsel\'s request to read a letter which the latter had \nreceived on the evening of August 31st. After receiving a reluctant per- \nmission from the court, Labori read the letter, which proved to be from a \nspy named Corningue, stating that he had copied the Firing Manual in \nthe room of Major Panizzardi, the Italian military attach^ at Paris, in \nthe presence of Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^ at \nParis (referred to in the letter as A and B). Labori then said he was not \ncertain whether this was the 1894 or 1895 manual, and begged the Presi- \ndent to question Colonel Picquart on the subject. \n\nPicquart said, in response, that he believed it was the 1895 manual, \nand that the copy was made in 1896 in Major Panizzardi\'s room in the \npresence of Major Panizzardi and another person. Colonel Picquart added \nthat Major Lauth ought to know something about a certain mark on the \nmanual. All the manuals at the Versailles garrison were ordered returned \nto headquarters in order to see which one was missing. \n\nGeneral Deloye admitted that he was not sure whether it was the \n\n1894 or 1895 manual, and corroborated Colonel Picquart\'s statements. \n\nMajor Lauth expressed surprise at the fact that Colonel Picquart\'s rec- \n17 \n\n\n\n258 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER 0\xc2\xa5 DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nollections were so vague, and added that Picquart had relations with the \nspy, Corningue, who, he said, was a doubtful character. \n\nHere M. Labori asked to what spy Major Lauth was able to give a \ngood character, to which the major replied: \n\n"Why, none." [Laughter.] \n\nM. Labori then said that Major Lauth insinuated that Corningue was \ntrying to levy blackmail. Was that his idea? \n\nColonel Jouaust refused to allow the question. \n\nM. Labori then asked to be allowed to question Major Lauth further, \nbut Colonel Jouaust refused. Counsel insisted, but Colonel Jouaust waved \nhim down, whereupon M. Labori cried : \n\n" You suppress all awkward questions." [Sensation.] \n\nThe Government Commissary, Major Carriere, said : \n\n" I desire to point out that the defence is always asking to speak, while \nI am always refused permission to do so when I ask." \n\nColonel Jouaust, out of patience, retorted : \n\n" I have heard enough. Be quiet. The incident is closed." \n\nThis cavalier treatment of the Government Commissary, who, however, \nmade himself ridiculous whenever he opened his mouth, caused general \nlaughter. \n\nAddressing Colonel Picquart, M. Labori asked : \n\n" When did you know that the Firing Manual was being copied ? " \n\nColonel Picquart \xe2\x80\x94 During the summer of 1896. \n\nM. Labori having remarked that this was all he desired to ask at pres- \nent. General Hippolyte Sebert, retired, of the marine artillery, deposed. \nHe preceded his testimony by saying he did not think he ought to with- \nhold the evidence he was able to give, as he felt it would contribute to the \nreparation of a judicial error. \n\nThe general then criticised the bordereau from a professional stand- \npoint, pointing out that the writer must have been a low- classed man, ne- \ngotiating directly with a correspondent on whose doles he was dependent. \nHe said he was probably an officer, but certainly not an artillery officer, \nadding that this was proved by the employment of expressions an artillery- \nman could not have used. \n\nGeneral Sebert entered into long explanations of his statements, perti- \nnently pointing out that an artillery officer would have known the inter- \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY FOR DREYFUS 259 \n\nesting parts of the Firing Manual, and would not have written in the bor- \ndereau, " Take what interests you. " The witness gave a number of instances \nshowing the dense ignorance displayed in gunnery technicalities by the \nwriter of the bordereau, and amid profound silence General Sebert de- \nclared that his study of the case had led him to the conviction that the \nbordereau could not have been written by an artillery ojfficer or by an offi- \ncer belonging to a special arm of the service who had passed through the \nPolytechnic School. [Excitement.] \n\nGeneral Sebert referred to the satisfaction he felt at knowing that the \nexperts of the highest standing in handwriting had confirmed his opinion, \nand he dismissed M, Bertillon\'s assertions, saying that on examination \nhe, the witness, had easily found proof of the worthlessness of that demon- \nstration. \n\n"It is painful for me," added General Sebert, "to express so severe \nan opinion on the man whose name is connected with the application of \nthe anthropometric method, which has been of great service to our coun- \ntry. But French science cannot give its authority to lucubrations so pre- \ntentious as those M. Bertillon brought here. I reassert most emphatically \nthat the bordereau was not written by an artillery officer or by an officer \nwho passed through the Polytechnic School. I have been sustained in \ngiving my evidence by my firm belief in the entire innocence of Dreyfus, \nand I am glad I have had strength enough to bring here the stone which \nI have to lay on the edifice of reparation, and conscientiously, while hold- \ning aloof from outside passions. This edifice is a work of appeasement and \npeace, which will restore the country to an era of concord and union." \n[Prolonged excitement.] \n\nGeneral Sebert also expressed his opinion of Valerio\'s evidence in sup- \nport of M. Bertillon\'s system, saying that, in spite of the latter\'s talent, \nhe had not succeeded in converting a false theory into a true one. \n\nAs soon as General Sebert had finished his testimony, M. Bertillon \nbounced up, and asked to be allowed to speak; but Colonel Jouaust \nquickly turned to the usher and said, "Bring in the next witness," where- \nupon M. Bertillon, extremely annoyed, returned to his seat. \n\nMajor DucTos then deposed that he commanded a field battery; that \nhe knew Dreyfus and offered him certain information. But, he pointed \nout, Dreyfus never asked him a question, although he knew he (the wit- \n\n\n\n260 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nness) possessed much interesting information, especially particulars about \nthe hydro-pneumatic brake. \n\nGeneral Mercier here intervened, and said that, at the time Major \nDucros was speaking of, the Ducros field-piece had been rejected in favor \nof the Deport cannon, and, he said, Dreyfus therefore could have no object \nin procuring particulars of the Ducros gun. \n\nMajor Hartmann of the artillery was the next witness for the defence. \nHe asked permission to refer to certain of the documents which were pro- \nduced during the secret session of the court on August 31st, upon which, \nhe said, he had reached important conclusions. But General Deloye ob- \njected, as it was contrary to the instructions of the Minister of "War. \n\nThe major then asked the court to sit briefly in camera, and Colonel \nJouaust promised to render a decision later. \n\nMore support for Dreyfus was forthcoming, however, in this deposi- \ntion of Major Hartmann, since he expressed the opinion that the author \nof the bordereau did not know what he was writing about, as he spoke of \nthe " 120-short " gun when he meant the " 120-long " gun. \n\nThe major led the court through a maze of technical details about \nartillery, until Colonel Jouaust asked him to refrain from technicalities as \nfar as possible, evidently fearing that Hartmann might reveal secrets of \nthe service. His evidence was directed entirely to show that Dreyfus was \nnot the author of the bordereau, and that the artillery information men- \ntioned in it was accessible to many officers of all arms in the spring of \n1894. \n\nProceeding, Major Hartmann testified on highly technical subjects, his \nevidence being the same as given before the Court of Cassation. He \nspoke in loud, energetic tones, and occupied the whole of the remainder of \nthe session. The major\'s testimony was not concluded when the court \nadjourned. \n\nSo far as the depositions were concerned, Dreyfus certainly had every \nreason to be pleased with this day\'s proceedings. \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOK OF DEEYFUS 261 \n\n\n\nChapter XLVL \n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DREYFUS \n\nTheee was a large attendance of generals at the Lye^e at the opening \nof the session of September 2d. \n\nThe interest centred in the testimony of Major Hartmann, of the \nartillery, which was interrupted by the adjournment of the court on Sep- \ntember 1st, and was resumed at this session. The major, who had done \ngreat service for the defence, resumed his important deposition regarding \nartillery matters, and the bringing out of points and phraseology in the \nbordereau indicating that the writer could not be Dreyfus. \n\nThe witness wished to enter into the question of the Eobin shell. But, \non General Deloye\'s objecting to a statement on the subject in open court, \nMajor Hartmann asked to be allowed to give it behind closed doors, say- \ning it would only take him a few minutes to call attention to the point he \nhad in mind. \n\nThe president of the court decided to hear this part of the witness\'s \ntestimony in camera at the end of the proceedings, or at the beginning of \nthe session of September 4th. \n\nIn response to questions from Maitre Labori, leading counsel for the \ndefence, and M. Demange, Major Hartmann said any officer attending the \nChalons camp would have obtained sufficient information to write notes on \nthe covering of troops and Madagascar matters. \n\nM. Labori then recalled General Mercier\'s attack on Captain Freystaet- \nter, on the latter\'s declaration that the secret dossier communicated to the \ncourt of 1894 contained a document concerning a shell, for which General \nMercier called the captain a liar. Major Hartmann affirmed that it was \nquite possible that particulars about a certain shell should have leaked out \nin 1894. \n\nAn interesting confrontation between General Deloye and Major Hart- \nmann followed, the general declaring that he did not believe the major was \n\n\n\n262 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nkeeping strictly to the truth. Deloye then proceeded to point to what he \nsaid were inaccuracies in Major Hartmann\'s testimony. He insisted that \nDreyfus, in the course of conversations with artillery officers, could have \nsecured information on the subjects mentioned in the bordereau, to which \nthe major retorted that if any artillery officer had been questioned by Drey- \nfus he would already have come forward to say so as a matter of strict \nduty. \n\nGeneral Deloye, questioned by M. Labori and M. Demange, said the \ninventor of the Eobin shell told him Dreyfus never asked him for particu- \nlars about his shell, except on a minor point. The general added he came \nas a technical witness to show Dreyfus could be guilty, adding that it was \nnot his business to say whether he believed him innocent or guilty. He \ncould only say that Dreyfus\'s contention that it was impossible for him to \nknow certain matters referred to in the bordereau was untrue. \n\nM. Labori asked General Deloye if he knew whether the documents \nwhich could have been betrayed by the traitor, especially by the writer of \nthe bordereau, were important, whereupon the general turned to counsel \nand excitedly cried: \n\n"Don\'t ask me. Don\'t ask me ! " \n\nThese exclamations created a sensation in court, which was doubled \nwhen General Deloye added that there was sufficient in the bordereau to \nestablish that the traitor knew the importance of the documents he was \ngiving up. The witness added : \n\n"When I read the bordereau I was dismayed." \n\nMajor Hartmann, in reply to General Deloye, reiterated that the author \nof the bordereau was ignorant of artillery matters. \n\n" For," the major pointed out, " if he meant the \' 120 \' hydraulic brake, \nhe gave particulars of what was long known, while if he meant the \'120 \nshort\' he employed a wrong expression." \n\nGeneral Mercier reappeared in the witness box in an attempt to refute \nMajor Hartmann\'s argument. He accounted for the use of the expression \n" hydraulic brake " in the bordereau by the fact that the Germans used the \nexpression to designate similar brakes. Therefore, he added, it was natu- \nral that the correspondent of the Germans should employ the term. \n\nGeneral Deloye then said : \n\n" I beg the court to allow me to say that in an army liable to find itself \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DREYFUS 263 \n\nconfronted by the enemy there is need of cohesion. Consequently, all the \nofficers of France must march hand in hand, as brethren. I do not think \nit is good for it to be said that officers who have risen from the ranks \nshould stop short at a certain point, and that individual merit should not \ncount, and that there is a bar which cannot be passed. No ! no ! that is not \nsatisfactory any more than it is true. Captain Valerio is an example. He \nhas made himself, and a large number of others similarly able have filled \nthe positions to which they have risen. Coming here as the representa- \ntive of the Minister of War, I beg the court to allow me to say to one of \nour comrades who has risen from the ranks that these opinions are not \nours. I think it was necessary to say so." \n\nAfter a brief discussion between General Mercier, General Deloye, and \nMajor Hartmann on the German expression used to designate hydraulic \nbrake, the trio returned to their seats. \n\nThis ended the deposition of Major Hartmann, who certainly was a \nvery valuable witness for the defence, although the effect of his testimony \nwas somewhat weakened by General Deloye\'s theatrical statement in reply \nto M. Labori. \n\nThe next witness, M. Louis Havet, a member of the Institute, took up \nthe bordereau from a grammatical point of view, declaring it to be his \nconviction, after studying closely the styles of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, that \nthe latter wrote it. The witness entered into an interesting analysis of the \nphraseology of the bordereau, pointing out that certain phrases in it were \nmet in Esterhazy\'s letters, but never in those of Dreyfus. He then traced \nthe influence exercised on Esterhazy by his linguistic acquirements, nota- \nbly traces of German construction. \n\nThe Government Commissary, Major Carriere, who was always blun- \ndering, asked M. Havet if he had been present at ^ sessions of the court \nbefore he had testified. \n\nM. Havet said "Yes," to which the major, with great severity, said: \n\n"You have been guilty of a grave breach of judiciary discipline." \n\nTo this M. Havet quietly remarked : \n" " But I had not been summoned as a witness at the time I attended the \nsessions." \n\nMajor Carriere sat down, checkmated. \n\nThe letters exchanged between Colonel Picquart and General Gonse, at \n\n\n\n264 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe time the colonel wanted a thorough investigation into the case, were \nthen read, and M. Labori pointed out to General Gonse that these letters \nnever alluded to the alleged confession of Dreyfus. \n\nGeneral Gonse replied that it was because he always advised Colonel \nPicquart not to mix up the Esterhazy and Dreyfus cases. Dreyfus, he \nadded, had been condemned, and his case could not be reopened, but they \nwere bound to see if there was not another traitor. \n\nThe general then made a bitter complaint of the fact that his letters \nhad been communicated to M. Scheurer-Kestner, former Vice-President of \nthe Senate. \n\nEeferring to this published correspondence. General Gonse exclaimed: \n" When one procures the handwriting of a man one can get him hanged. " \n[Laughter.] General Gonse referred to a well-known saying of a French \njudge, Laubardemont : "Give me four lines of a man\'s handwriting and \nI\'ll have him hanged." \n\nContinuing, General Gonse said: \n\n" When a man intends to publish another\'s letters he asks what the \nwriter\'s meaning was. That is but fair. But, without doing so, Picquart \nhanded my letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner without my knowledge or con- \nsent. These letters have been published in a book which can be found at \nevery bookseller\'s, entitled "Gonse-Pilate.\' " \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Was not the bordereau, in conjunction with the ;petit bleu, \nthe basis of Picquart\'s belief in Esterhazy\'s guilt? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 I said to Picquart: "Don\'t let us trouble about hand- \nwritings at present." \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 How could the Dreyfus and Esterhazy cases be separated, \nwhen both were based on a common document? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 Because at that time Dreyfus had been convicted, and \nthe bordereau was ascribed to him. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Was it not possible to reconsider an error? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 There was nothing to prove to me that the bordereau \nwas written by Esterhazy. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Will General Gonse repeat what Colonel Picquart told \nhim concerning the conclusions of M. Bertillon? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 I was not acquainted with M. Bertillon\'s conclusions, \nbut Picquart seems to exaggerate them. \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DREYFUS 265 \n\nAt M- Labori\'s request, Colonel Picquart was recalled, and said : \n\n" In a brief letter which I wrote to General Gonse in regard to M. \nBertillon\'s conclusions, I only referred to part of his observations, and the \nbest proof that I did not wish to exaggerate them is the fact that I asked \nGeneral Gonse to order a supplemental inquiry." \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 In what form did M. Bertillon communicate the \nresult of his examination? \n\nColonel Picquart \xe2\x80\x94 Verbally, on two occasions. As regards General \nGonse\'s letters I handed them to a lawyer when I understood that I \nwas the object of abominable intrigues, and when I received from my \nformer subordinate, Henry, while in Tunis, a threatening letter, which \nhad been forwarded with the assent of General Gonse and de Bois- \ndeffre. If this letter was published I cannot be held responsible for it. \n[Excitement.] \n\nGeneral Gonse maintained that the Henry letter was written without \nhis assent and in reply to an insolent letter from Picquart. The latter, the \ngeneral added, saw machinations everywhere. He alleged that he was sent \nto Tunis to be killed. The court could form its own conclusions. \n\nColonel Picquart remarked that he brought the secret dossier to Gen- \neral Gonse simultaneously with the bordereau, and that the general, conse- \nquently, was in a position to judge of the probabilities of the innocence of \nDreyfus. \n\nM. Labori asked if General Gonse knew of the plot hatched against \nPicquart, and if he knew that letters addressed to Picquart at Tunis were \nopened at the War Office? and the general admitted that a letter was \nopened in the Intelligence Department in November. He added that sus- \npicious letters were always handed to him (General Gonse) by Lieutenant- \nColonel Henry, so that he, the general, might report to the Minister of \nWar on them. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Whom was the letter addressed to ? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know. No doubt to the chief of some de- \npartment. \n\nColonel Picquart \xe2\x80\x94 It was addressed to me personally. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does General Gonse know that the words in the letter in \nquestion were used for the purpose of fabricating a telegram intended to \ndestroy the value of the petit bleu? \n\n\n\n266 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nGeneral Gonse admitted that the expressions seemed to him suspicious. \nIf the letters were seized it was because they were addressed to Picquart \nas head of the department, and it was thought they might relate to official \nmatters. He added that Picquart\'s letters were only opened when they \nlooked suspicious. \n\nColonel Picquart retorted that it was curious his opened letters after- \nward reached him without a sign of having been tampered with. \n\nCounsel then questioned General Gonse relative to the opening of the \n" Speranza " letter, and the general replied that this letter was not addressed \nto Picquart, but bore a curious address. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Why did General Pellieux ascribe the letter to Colonel \nPicquart, whom he had never seen ? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know. \n\nM. Labori pointed out that the first letter, which was genuine, was for- \nwarded to Colonel Picquart after having been opened, while the " Speranza " \nletter was retained. The latter could therefore be regarded as the work of \na forger. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 You are entering into a discussion. \n\nM. Labori (sharply) \xe2\x80\x94 No, Monsieur le President; by virtue of Article \n319 of the Code, I merely say what I think in regard to the evidence. \n\nGeneral Gonse, replying further, dwelt upon the fact that it was neces- \nsary that the Intelligence Department should know the acts of Colonel \nPicquart, who had been removed on account of his conduct. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does General Gonse think the Henry forgery was the re- \nsult of a plot against Colonel Picquart? \n\nGeneral Gonse said he thought the forgery was " an unfortunate pro- \nceeding." [Laughter.] He would have prevented it if he had been con- \nsulted. But he did not believe there was a plot against Picquart. Henry \ndesired to have fresh proof against Dreyfus, " though fresh proof was not \nreally required, as the diplomatic dossier contained ample proof." \n\nM. Labori protested against such a statement, and asked which docu- \nment of the dossier implicated Dreyfus. \n\nColonel Jouaust refused to allow the question, and counsel thereupon \nremarked that he reserved the right to form what conclusions he thought \nproper on this point. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Form as many conclusions as you like. \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DREYFUS 267 \n\nM. Labori next referred to the attempt to bribe Commissary Tomps, \nand to erasures in the petit hleu. \n\nGeneral Gonse declared the petit hleu already had traces of erasure be- \nfore it was first photographed. \n\nThis M. Labori vigorously denied, and asked that the evidence of the \nexperts proving the contrary should be read. \n\nHere General Eoget reappeared on the scene, and, amid the keenest \nattention of all, described the forgery proceedings against Picquart as re- \nsulting from his (the witness\'s) discovery that erasures had been made in \nthe petit hleu. \n\n" It was General Zurlinden," Eoget added, "who ordered Picquart to be \nprosecuted. I assume responsibility for all my own acts, but for my own \nacts alone. I am surprised that the defence should arraign me on this \npoint. " \n\nM Labori declared that he merely wished to show that the erasures \ncould not be ascribed to Picquart, and that therefore they ought not to \nhave formed the basis of a prosecution against him. Then counsel again \nasked that the expert evidence on the subject be read, and Colonel Jou- \naust promised it should be read during a future session. \n\nUpon three occasions M. Demahge asked General Gonse to explain \nwhy Picquart, on seeing the petit hleu, proposed to lay a trap for Ester- \nhazy, unless the petit hleu was addressed to Esterhazy, But counsel \nelicited no reply, until General Eoget came to the rescue and said Pic- \nquart knew Esterhazy was coming to Paris in any case, and if he sent a \ndecoy letter, Esterhazy would have appeared to come in response to it, \nwhether he had done so in reality or not. \n\nM. Labori declared this was untrue, and Picquart maintained that his \nconduct throughout was perfectly straightforward. \n\nM. des Eonds-Lamothe, a former artillery officer, and now an engineer, \nwas the next witness. He testified that he was a probationer simultane- \nously with Dreyfus. The witness said that in August, 1894, he borrowed \nthe Firing Manual from Colonel Picquart and kept it as long as he \nliked. \n\n"In 1894," M. des Eonds-Lamothe said, "Firing Manuals were given \nto whoever asked for them." \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Can the witness, who was on the Headquarters Staff \n\n\n\n268 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwith Dreyfus, say whether, in 1894, he thought he would go to the ma- \nncBuvres? [Excitement.] \n\nM. Lamothe \xe2\x80\x94 I have only performed a conscientious act. I am con- \nvinced that not one probationer in 1894 could have believed he would go \nto the manoeuvres. \n\nM. des Fonds-Lamothe also stated that the probationers were informed \nby a circular dated May 15, 1894, that they would not attend the ma- \nnoeuvres. The object of antedating the bordereau, the witness added, was \nto make it a prior date to that of the circular. It had since been attempted \nto attain the same object by post-dating the circular. \n\nAs to the post-dating of the circular, witness said he did not doubt that \ndifferent Ministers of War who had expressed opinions in the case were \nperfectly honest, but he thought they had made a mistake. [Excitement.] \n\nThe witness, who was a fellow-probationer of Dreyfus, proved one of \nthe strongest witnesses for the defence, as he brought out in support of his \ncontention that Dreyfus could not have written the bordereau the follow- \ning argument: \n\n" If, as at first asserted, the bordereau was dated May, Dreyfus could \nnot have written, \' I am going to the manoeuvres,\' because a circular was \nissued in May informing the probationers that they would not go to the \nmanoeuvres; while if the bordereau was written in April, as now asserted, \nDreyfus could not have spoken of the Firing Manual, which was only \nprinted at the end of May." \n\nNot one of the generals found a reply to the last argument, which \nlooked like a clincher, General de Boisdefifre alone declaring that, although \nit was true the circular mentioned was sent to the probationers, the latter \nknew that they could nevertheless go to the manoeuvres if they made spe- \ncial application. Generals Mercier and Eoget then went on the stage and \nconfronted M. des Fonds-Lamothe, and a heated discussion ensued. Gen- \neral Eoget asked when the witness had altered his conviction in favor of \nDreyfus, and M. des Fonds-Lamothe replied : \n\n" From the time of the publication of the proceedings before the Court \nof Cassation. I was expecting proof of my comrade\'s guilt, and I was \nthunderstruck when I saw the date of the bordereau had been altered." \n\nGeneral Eoget asked if Fonds-Lamothe had not on several occasions \nexpressed his belief in Dreyfus\'s guilt? \n\n\n\nMORE TESTIMONY IN FAVOE OF DEEYFUS 269 \n\nM. des Fonds-Lamothe admitted that possibly he had done so, before \nthe publication of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, but not \nat the time of the prisoner\'s arrest, for that was kept secret. \n\nAsked the usual question, the prisoner reminded the court that in 1894, \nwhen Colonel Du Paty de Clam had endeavored to make the date of the \nbordereau August, he had protested that he could not have written the \nsentence, " I am going to the manoeuvres," since he would not be going on \nregimental duty until October, November, and December, and he dwelt \nupon the fact that at the time he handed M. Demange a note on the \nsubject. \n\nM. Demange corroborated the prisoner\'s testimony, and pointed out \nthat the note mentioned by the prisoner had been added to the dossier by \nthe Court of Cassation, while Dreyfus was still on Devil\'s Island, thus \nprecluding all doubt as to its genuineness. \n\nGeneral Eoget here interpellated that requests to go to the manoeuvres \nwere usually made verbally, so that it could not be proved whether Drey- \nfus had asked or had not asked to go to the manoeuvres. The general, \nhowever, admitted that no inquiry had ever been made on this important \npoint. \n\nM. Demange created a stir by saying that it was most regrettable that \nno inquiry had been made by the War Office on a point of such impor- \ntance. \n\nGeneral Eoget was greatly excited during the foregoing scene, but M. \ndes Fonds-Lamothe did not flinch. He retorted quickly to all the gen- \neral\'s observations. The two men glared at one another, and once General \nEoget addressed M. des Fonds-Lamothe in such a bullying fashion that \nthe audience hooted him. \n\nM. des Fonds-Lamothe concluded with declaring that if the prosecu- \ntion would follow up the pieces of evidence they would be absolutely \nconvinced that Dreyfus did not write the bordereau. \n\nThe court briefly retired and afterward announced that it had been de- \ncided to hear the remainder of Major Hartmann\'s evidence in camera on \nSeptember 4th. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n270 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XLVH. \n\nCONFLICTING TESTIMONY \n\nThe fifth week of the second trial by court-martial of Captain Dreyfus \nbegan on September 4th, with the largest attendance yet seen in the Lyc^e. \n\nThe session opened very interestingly with the appearance of M. Cer- \nnuschi, an Austro-Hungarian refugee. \n\nHis letter to Colonel Jouaust, offering his testimony, stated that, hav- \ning been mixed up in political troubles in Austria-Hungary, he had been \nobliged to seek refuge in France, where he had a friend who was a high \nofficial of the foreign office of a central European power. This friend, the \nwitness said, told him that certain foreign agents in France might denounce \nhim, the first name mentioned being that of Dreyfus. Another officer, a \nforeign general of staff, similarly warned him. \n\nOne day, the witness said, when he was visiting the latter, he saw him \ntake from his pocket a voluminous packet containing military documents. \nThe officer said that in France one could buy anything, adding : \n\n"What is the good of Jews if you don\'t use them? " \n\nBeing questioned if he asked the name of the traitor in this case, the \nwitness replied: \n\n" No, because the officer had already said Dreyfus was his informant. " \n\nThis answer and the tone in which it was delivered evoked a move- \nment of incredulity among the audience. Major Carriere, representing the \nGovernment, asked that the court hold further examination of this witness \nbehind closed doors, in view of the diplomatic side of his testimony. \n\nM. Labori then arose and announced that since the prosecution had \nsummoned the aid of foreigners he intended to make formal application to \nhave complete steps taken through foreign channels to ascertain whether \nthe documents mentioned in the bordereau were delivered to a foreign \npower, and if so, by whom. \n\n\n\nCONFLICTING TESTIMONY 271 \n\nThe words of M. Labori created a deep impression, as they made it \nevident that counsel for the defence was on the war-path. \n\nThe second witness called was M. Andr^, clerk to M. Bertulus, judge \nof the Court of Cassation, who received the confession of Lieutenant-Colo- \nnel Henry. M. Andr^ deposed that he overheard Lieutenant-Colonel \nHenry exclaim : \n\n"Don\'t insist, I beg of you; the honor of the army must be saved be- \nfore everything." \n\nThe next important witness was the well-known mathematician M. \nPainleye, who began by tearing M. Bertillon\'s system of argumentation to \npieces, \n\nM. Painleye exhaustively criticised Mr. Bertillon\'s cryptographic sys- \ntem, citing in support of his conclusions the opinion of M. Henri Poin- \ncar^, in his opinion the most illustrious mathematician of modern times, \nwho, in a letter the witness read, examined seriatim the deductions of M. \nBertillon and demonstrated their fallacy, also pointing out miscalculations \nmade by M. Valerio. Professor Poincar^\'s letter fully supported M. Ber- \nnard\'s conclusions. \n\nThe reading of Professor Poincar^\'s letter having been concluded, M. \nPainleye repeated his evidence which had been given before the Court of \nCassation. He vehemently protested against the false versions that had \nbeen published of his conversations with M. Hadamard, in which the lat- \nter was made to affirm the guilt of Dreyfus. On the contrary, the witness \nsaid, M. Hadamard never doubted the prisoner\'s innocence. \n\nGeneral Gonse intervened at this juncture. He was surprised, he said, \nat the importance attached to the evidence of MM. Hadamard and Pain- \nleye. There had been. General Gonse asserted, at least fluctuations in \ntheir views of Dreyfus\'s character, for which Dreyfus\'s own family were \nunwilling to give guarantees. \n\nM Painleye reasserted that both M. Hadamard and himself had always \nbeen satisfied that Dreyfus was innocent. \n\nGeneral Gonse replied, declaring that the whole matter was insignifi- \ncant, and insinuated that the faith of M, Hadamard and M. Painleye in \nthe innocence of Dreyfus must have been strengthened recently. \n\nM. Painleye replied, warmly insisting that he never had any doubt of \nDreyfus\'s innocence. \n\n\n\n272 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe two men then went at it hammer and tongs, M. Painleye facing \nGeneral Gonse with his arms folded, and thrust home with his questions \nand retorts until General Gonse became red in the face. Then General \nEoget joined in the discussion. \n\nAs the altercation between General Gonse and M. Painleye was rap- \nidly becoming heated, M. Labori intervened. A sharp passage of arms \nfollowed between M. Labori and Colonel Jouaust, leading to considerable \nexcitement. \n\nM. Labori asked General Gonse why he had incorrectly reported cer- \ntain information he had collected. \n\nColonel Jouaust refused to put the question, and invited M. Labori to \nstudy moderation. \n\nM. Labori retorted : \n\n"The defence is using its rights with the utmost moderation." \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 No, you are not. I beg you not to drown my voice \nwhen I am speaking. Your very tone is wanting in moderation. More- \nover, I consider the question unimportant. \n\nThere were prolonged murmurs of assent and dissent among the audi- \nence at this declaration by Colonel Jouaust. \n\nM. Labori said he was surprised that General Gonse had included in- \ncorrect information in the secret dossier. \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 I composed one of the secret dossiers by means of \nannexed documents communicated to the ministry ; but the minds of all \nthe War Ministers were made up before they had any cognizance of these \ndocuments. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does General Gonse assume responsibility for these secret \ndossiers to July, 1898? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 Yes, I had charge of it. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 How happens it, then, that a telegram from the French \nAmbassador at Eome, sent by the Foreign Office to the War Office, refer- \nring to payments to Esterhazy by an Italian agent, was not added to the \nsecret dossier? \n\nGeneral Gonse \xe2\x80\x94 There were plenty of others. All were not included, \nbut only the most important. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Was the information of the French Ambassador at Eome \nof less importance than the garbled conversation of M. Painleye ? \n\n\n\nCONFLICTING TESTIMONY 273 \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 I will not put the question. \n\xe2\x96\xa0 M. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Why was information against Dreyfus always included \nin the dossier, and never any incriminating Esterhazy? \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 I also refuse to put that question. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 All right. I think the question itself fully answered the \npurpose. \n\nM. Labori then asked General Gonse who compiled the secret dossier \nin question. \n\n" I did," shouted Commandant Cuignet from the body of the hall. \n\nCommandant Cuignet then came to the bar, and declared that he had \nomitted all documents from abroad, "because foreigners were interested \nin deceiving us." Several documents of this kind had been omitted, \nparticularly one reciting a conversation between a foreign sovereign and \na French attach^, in the course of which the sovereign was represented \nas saying that what was occurring in France was proof of the power of \nthe Jews. \n\n"That," added the major, "might be regarded as against Dreyfus; but \nnevertheless it was not included in the dossier." \n\nAs he made this statement. Commandant Cuignet turned to a brother \nofficer sitting in the place set apart for witnesses, and smiled with the self- \nsatisfied air of a man who had made a distinct score. \n\nM. Demange rose immediately to express surprise that the document \nin question had not appeared in the War Office dossier. \n\nMajor Cuignet \xe2\x80\x94 It does not appear there because it was received at the \nForeign Office. \n\nM. Paleologue, intervening, said that the Foreign Office only acted as \nan intermediary in that matter. \n\nM. Labori commented with astonishment upon the fact that alleged \nfresh proofs against Dreyfus were still spoken of, and demanded that all \nproofs be produced at the secret session of the court-martial at which M. \nCernuschi was to be examined. \n\nGeneral Chanoine was asked by Colonel Jouaust if he had any explana- \ntions to offer, and replied that his duty was merely to produce the secret \ndossier, and that he could not say anything regarding documents outside \nthe dossier. \n\nThe question of the report drawn up by Commandant Cuignet and Offi- \n18 \n\n\n\n274 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ncer Wattines, dealing exhaustively with the secret dossier, was then intro- \nduced. \n\nGeneral Billot, formerly Minister of War, mounted the platform and \nsaid he was glad that reference had been made to the secret dossier, as it \nenable him to protest against the insinuation that he had handed Major \nCuignet a docment from the secret dossier, \n\n"I gave this report," he said, "to M. Cavaignac, the former Minister \nof War." \n\n"Then," said M. Labori, "let us have M. Cavaignac\'s explanation of \nwhat became of the report." \n\nColonel Jouaust called for M. Cavaignac, but the former Minister of \nWar was not in the court-room, and an of&cer was sent to seek him. \n\nMeanwhile the testimony of two minor witnesses was heard. \n\nThe proceedings to this point were very exciting, as at one time, when \nGeneral Chanoine and M. Paleologue were brought upon the stage to ex- \nplain Commandant Cuignet\'s statements, there were five witnesses at the \nbar, all speaking at once and interrupting one another. The testimony \nthroughout was interspersed with heated scenes between M. Labori and \nColonel Jouaust. \n\nM. Demange during the day read a letter from Eabbi Dreyfus denying \nthat he had ever heard a number of scandalous statements which, it had \nbeen alleged, were made to him. \n\nSince M. Cavaignac could not be found in the precincts of the Lyc^e, \nit was decided to hear him on September 5th. \n\nM. Mayer, who is on the staff of the Temjps, testified that the spy \nGu^nee informed him that the War Ofl&ce had indisputable proof of the \nguilt of Dreyfus, and mentioned a snapshot photograph representing Drey- \nfus conversing with a millitary attach^ at Brussels. \n\nAfter a brief recess of the court-martial Dr. Peyrot deposed that he \nmet M. Bertulus, judge of the Court of Cassation, at Dieppe after the ar- \nrest of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, and that M. Bertulus narrated to him \nthe dramatic scene in his ojEfice with Henry. M. Bertulus was very jubi- \nlant over Henry\'s arrest, and said he was convinced that, if Henry were \ndetained, everything would be known in due time. \n\nA commissary of the secret police, named Tomps, was then called by \nthe defence, and it was admitted at the end of the proceedings that he \n\n\n\nCONFLICTING TESTIMONY 275 \n\nproved indirectly a strong witness for Dreyfus and a correspondingly dam- \naging witness for the General Staff. His evidence brought out a glaring \ninstance of duplicity on the part of the staff office in suppressing docu- \nments which must weaken its own case. \n\nCommissary Tomps was called to the General Staff office to investigate \na case of espionage, and naturally had consultations and close relations \nwith officers of the bureau. \n\nThe commissary began his testimony by paying a high tribute to \nLieutenant-Colonel Picquart\'s correct attitude and uprightness in the \nDreyfus inquiry, while other officers sought to undermine him by \ninsinuations. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, the witness asserted, tried \nto induce him to attribute to Picquart the communication of the bor- \ndereau to the Matin, in which journal the bordereau was first pub- \nlished. \n\nM. Tomps, who was also a special commissary of the railway police, \ndeposed that he photographed the bordereau by order of Colonel Sandherr. \nHe had not manipulated the plate with a view to concealing marks upon \nthe document. Wlien the facsimile of the bordereau was published Lieu- \ntenant-Colonel Picquart ordered the witness to discover who had supplied \nthe photographic copy. While engaged in the investigation of this matter, \nLieutenant-Colonel Henry upon one occasion approached the witness and \nclearly evinced great uneasiness at the successive revelations in the Drey- \nfus matter. Henry told the witness that the revelations could only have \nemanated from an individual who had the documents in his hands. \nHenry, the witness testified, added : \n\n" They can only emanate from our office, where only Picquart, Lauth, \nGribelin, or myself could have revealed them. I am sure that neither \nLauth, Gribelin, nor myself have been so indiscreet. You would do well to \ndiscover who is responsible." \n\nM. Tomps detailed successive steps in his investigations, showing how \nLieutenant-Colonel Henry and Major Lauth had brought pressure to bear \nto make him implicate Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, and their angry \nthreats when the witness\'s report did not suit them. They accused the \nwitness of being influenced by some one. \n\nEeplying to M. Demange, M. Tomps said that he had only once \nmixed up Esterhazy in connection with the report. Esterhazy had been \n\n\n\n276 DREYFUS: THE PRISONEE OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nseen at a foreign agent\'s residence, which had two exits, and he had other \nsuspicious relations. Witness had found corroboration of this. \n\nAnswering a question of M. Labori, M. Tomps further detailed Lieu- \ntenant-Colonel Henry\'s pressure upon him with a view to having the com- \nmunication of the bordereau to the Matin ascribed to Lieutenant-Colonel \nPicquart. Witness did not know if the leakages at the War Office con- \ntinued after Dreyfus left. \n\nThen Commissary Tomps came to the most important portion of his \ntestimony, which led to a restricting of his revelations. The witness was \nasked if he had ever investigated the Paulmier affair, which was as fol- \nlows: \n\nPaulmier was the valet of Colonal Schwartzkoppen, the German mili- \ntary attach^ at Paris, and it was alleged that he saw on Schwartzkoppen\'s \ndesk documents signed by Dreyfus. The General Staff had declared that \nan effort would be made to get at the truth of this story, but Paulmier \ndisappeared, and therefore, although the General Staff could not prove the \nstory, it could not be disproved. \n\nTo a question regarding this case, Commissary Tomps replied that he \nhad not investigated the affair, whereupon M. Labori suggested that M. \nHennion, sub-chief of the Political Police, who was now in Rennes super- \nintending the precautions for the safety of witnesses, may have been in- \ntrusted with the inquiry into this case. \n\nColonel Jouaust called to Hennion, who was present in the court-room : \n\n" Come here and testify. " \n\nM. Hennion ascended the platform and took the oath. He declared \nthat he did investigate the case, and actually found Paulmier, who told \nhim there was not a word of truth in the whole story. He never saw any \npaper bearing the name of Dreyfus. Thereupon M. Hennion had furnished \na typewritten report on the subject, stating that Paulmier never saw, or \nsaid he had seen, such documents. \n\nM. Labori immediately called attention to the fact that the General \nStaff had suppressed M. Hennion\'s report in favor of Dreyfus, and only \ndeclared that the report had been received representing Paulmier as un- \ntraceable. M. Labori also pointed out that the Headquarters Staff had \nalleged that the detective only reported that Paulmier had disappeared, \nand that his address was unknown. Probably, M. Labori suggested, the \n\n\n\nCONFLICTING TESTIMONY 277 \n\ngentlemen at Headquarters merely misunderstood the report of the detec- \ntive. \n\nCommandant Cuignet and Captain Junck then arose and insisted that \nonly a report that Paulmier could not be traced had been received at the \noffice of the General Staff. \n\nM. Hennion replied, reiterating that he had forwarded a report to the \nGeneral Staff, giving Paulmier\'s emphatic denial of the whole story. \n\nM. Labori asked Commandant Cuignet and Captain Junck where the \nxeport was that they said had been received by the General Staff stating \nthat M. Paulmier could not be found. The officers interrogated were \nobliged to admit that they were unable to find the report. \n\nM. Labori much regretted that this report could not be found, and \nadded, amidst much excitement : \n\n" But this is always the case. It is always impossible to get at the \nbottom of interesting incidents owing to documents being missing." \n\nMajor Lauth reappeared with the view of refuting the evidence of M. \nTomps. Lauth declared that no one in the Statistical Section dreamed of \nsuspecting Picquart when the inquiry was ordered as to how the Matin \nsecured the bordereau. Suspicion attached rather to a civilian clerk who \nwas on friendly terms with Tomps. \n\nAfter Commissary Tomps had replied, the court retired to deliberate on \nthe subject of holding another secret session. \n\nWhen the members of the court returned Colonel Jouaust announced \nthat there would be a sitting in camera on September 5th. \n\nThe name of Mr. Serge Basset was then called. Mr. Basset is the \nLondon correspondent of the Matin, who furnished the Esterhazy inter- \nviews, and MM. Labori and Demange pointed out that Esterhazy\'s confes- \nsions were too important to be discussed at the fag-end of this session. \n\nUpon suggestion of counsel for the defence, the court therefore ad- \njourned. \n\n\n\n278 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter XLVIIL \n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEROR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT \n\nMaitke Laboki telegraphed personal appeals to Emperor William and \nKing Humbert to grant permission to Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major \nPanizzardi, German and Italian military attaches in Paris in 1894, to \ncome to Rennes to testify at the trial of Captain Dreyfus. The appeals \nwere couched in eloquent terms, invoking the assistance of their majesties \nin the name of justice and humanity. \n\nThe demand of Maitre Labori that the court-martial should issue proc- \ness, subject to the approval of the two sovereigns, came like a thunderbolt \non September 5th. The step was fraught with momentous consequences, \nas it afforded Emperor William an opportunity again to assume his \nfavorite role of arbiter of the destinies of the world. \n\nColonel Jouaust told Maitre Demange at the close of the session that \nif he received official notification that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major \nPanizzardi were coming to depose he would be prepared to adjourn the \ntrial pending their arrival. \n\nA remarkable circumstance, and one that was significant of the rela- \ntions between the two eminent advocates who are conducting the defence, \nwas the fact that Maitre Labori telegraphed the German Emperor and the \nKing of Italy on his own initiative, without consulting or advising Maitre \nDemange. \n\nThe Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, on September \n5th sent orders to the generals and other military witnesses to leave \nRennes and return to their respective posts within two hours after the \nconclusion of the depositions, and not to be present during the pleadings. \n\nM. Cernuschi, the political refugee, who appeared before the court- \nmartial on September 4th, as a witness for the prosecution, was not exam- \nined by the court during the time it sat behind closed doors on September \n5th. The examination of the secret espionage dossier, mentioned by Cap- \n\n\n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEROR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT 279 \n\ntain Cuignet at the sitting of September 4th, occupied the great part of the \nsecret session of the court. \n\nWhen the open session of the court-martial began Maitre Labori sub- \nmitted a preamble and motion in the following terms : \n\n" As I had the honor to announce on September 4th, I beg to submit \nto the court-martial the following conclusions : \n\n" May it please the court, in view of the fact that at its sitting on \nMonday, September 4th, the president of the court-martial, by virtue of \nhis discretion and power, called as a witness Eugene de Cernuschi, a \nformer lieutenant of cavalry in the Austrian army, residing at 37 Rue \nChambon, Paris, who represented, notably, that Dreyfus had been signal- \nized to him not only by the chief of a department in the foreign office of a \ncentral European power, but also by an officer of the Headquarters Staff \nof another central European power, as an informer in the service of foreign \nnations; and, considering that the intervention in such circumstances of \na former officer of a foreign army against the French officer renders neces- \nsary that the defence abandon the reserve they have hitherto imposed upon \nthemselves, and move for the communication to the court of the docu- \nments enumerated in the papers called the bordereau, all of which com- \nmunication to the court will be of such nature as to prove in a striking \nmanner the innocence of the accused with regard to allegations which can- \nnot entirely or immediately be refuted except by official documents, I \ntherefore move that the Government Commissioner request the Govern- \nment to ask the power or powers concerned through diplomatic channels \nfor communication of the documents enumerated in the paper called the \nbordereau." \n\nAfter reading the preamble M. Labori proceeded to inform the court \nthat he did not intend to develop conclusions which in themselves were \nsufficient. \n\n"I am well aware," said counsel, "that we are face to face with a pe- \nculiarly delicate situation ; but as I have no control over decisions of the \ncourt with regard to the conclusions I have the honor to submit, I beg to \nstate that I have notified the Government Commissioner to name Colonels \nSchwartzkoppen and Panizzardi as witnesses whom I consider it necessary \nto call before the court-martial at Rennes if they are willing to testify be- \nfore it. I beg to point out that it is only now and for exceptional reasonss; \n\n\n\n280 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthat we are obliged to have recourse to the testimony of foreign officers. \nI add that in view of present^circumstances there is nothing in this course \nthat can cause anxiety. It is in conformity with precedent. The mo- \nment is very near when truth and light are about to break forth, showing \nthe innocence of the accused." \n\nMajor Carriere, in objecting to M. Labori\'s request, said : \n\n" We cannot prejudge the issue of a trial in the conclusions submitted \nby M. Labori. One point seems to be extremely delicate. These conclu- \nsions amount to a request that the court instruct the Government Com- \nmissioner to ask the French Government to submit to a foreign govern- \nment, though diplomatic channels, a request for the production of \ndocuments which are peculiarly non-diplomatic and possess little official \ncharacter. Therefore this mission imposed upon the French Government \nis of a very delicate kind. I do not know if the Government Commis- \nsioner is qualified to perform such a function. Certainly the diplomatic \npoint of view seems to me morally and materially impossible. I cannot \nconceive of one government addressing to another such a request. I think \nthe end now in view cannot be attained. The defence, which has power- \nful means behind it, might obtain these documents in a semi-official \nmanner, but I think there are reasons to believe the Government can- \nnot undertake such a mission. I make all reservations, then, in this \nrespect. \n\n" As regards notification to me of the names of Colonels Schwartzkop- \npen and Panizzardi, I see no reason why the gentlemen should not be ex- \namined by the court if they care to attend. The court will determine \nwhat course will be taken with regard to the request presented by the de- \nfence concerning documents to be obtained abroad. This seems to me \nbeyond our jurisdiction. The court will judge. I beg the president to \nretire with the judges to a private room and decide the question." \n\nM. Paleologue, the representative of the Foreign Office, supported \nMajor Carriere\'s views. He said : \n\n" I understand perfectly the importance the defence attaches to the pro- \nduction of the documents enumerated in the bordereau, seeing that the \nwhole case turns upon them. But even if the request of the accused ap- \npears to be based upon logic and justice, it seems inadmissible from a \ndiplomatic point of view. Considerations of the highest order are op- \n\n\n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEROR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT 281 \n\nposed to the Government\'s taking the initiative it is requested to take \nwith regard to a foreign power." \n\nColonel Jouaust then said that the court would announce its decision \nin this matter later. \n\nSerge Basset, the first witness called, testified that the Matin sent him \nto London on five occasions to interview Major Esterhazy, who furnished \na mass of interesting information concerning the Headquarters Staff. \nEsterhazy declared that he was not the author of the bordereau, though \nthe witness did not believe him. Esterhazy complained bitterly of the \ngenerals, who, he said, had thrown him overboard, adding that there was \nnothing left for him but to blow out his brains. The witness advised \nagainst suicide, and urged Esterhazy to the utmost endeavor to reveal the \ntruth and the part he had played. Finally, while walking in Piccadilly, \nMajor Esterhazy said to the witness point blank : \n\n"Well, Eibon [the witness\'s pseudonym], I am going to tell you what \nnobody knows. It is I who am the author of the bordereau. I wrote it \nin 1894 at the request of my friend Sandherr. There was a traitor at \nHeadquarters, Dreyfus, whom Sandherr told me they wanted to catch. I \ndid not hesitate to do what I was asked." \n\nMr. Basset added that, with Esterhazy\'s consent, he had each of \nEsterhazy \'s statements verified, Esterhazy saying he had decided to make \nthe avowals because he was disgusted with his abandonment by the gener- \nals. In conclusion, the witness referred to offers of money to Esterhazy. \n\nLieutenant-Colonel Brongniart, a member of the court-martial, asked : \n\n"Did Esterhazy tell you Dreyfus was guilty?" \n\nM. Basset \xe2\x80\x94 Yes. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 The two statements of Esterhazy are incompatible. \n\nM. Basset \xe2\x80\x94 It is not for me to reconcile them. \n\nMajor Carriere here made an extraordinary protest against Major \nEsterhazy\'s insinuations against Colonel Sandherr. \n\n"I protest," he cried, "in the name and memory of Colonel Sandherr \nagainst the insinuations introduced against him. I have made it a rule \nnot to enter into discussion with witnesses, but, as M. Basset states that \nMajor Esterhazy asserted that Colonel Sandherr told him to write the bor- \ndereau, I, on behalf of Colonel Sandherr\'s memory, protest against such \ninsinuations. He was incapable of such an order." \n\n\n\n282 DKEYFUS; THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 I hope this protest is not addressed to the defence. \n\nMajor Carriere \xe2\x80\x94 It is not addressed to counsel for the defence; it is \naddressed to the man who was capable of launching such a statement. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does M. Basset know that Major Esterhazy addressed let- \nters to General Roget? \n\nM. Basset \xe2\x80\x94 I do not. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 General Roget, perhaps, will tell us. \n\nCounsel then called upon General Roget to testify regarding letters he \nhad received from Major Esterhazy since the opening of the trial. \n\nGeneral Roget looked the ghost of his former assertive self. His face \nwas careworn, and showed little of that fighting spirit which first charac- \nterized his appearance upon the stage. \n\nGeneral Roget said : " I did receive a letter from Major Esterhazy in \nAugust, and informed the president of the court-martial of the fact, ask- \ning him to make what use he liked of it. I refused to open further let- \nters as soon as I recognized Esterhazy\'s handwriting." \n\nOn M. Labori asking to see the letter, Colonel Jouaust said he would \nnot put the letter in evidence, because it contained only abuse and recrim- \ninations. \n\nAs M. Labori protested. General Roget said he had handed all the let- \nters to the president of the court-martial, because he did not wish to be \ncompromised by Esterhazy, which was evidently the latter\'s intention. \n\nColonel Jouaust said he had not included Esterhazy\'s letters in the \nevidence, because he did not wish the proceedings to be unduly protracted, \nbut, as the defence insisted, the letters would be produced. \n\nGeneral Roget read the one Esterhazy letter which he admitted hav- \ning opened. In this letter Major Esterhazy said he could not prove the \nexistence of the alleged syndicate organized in the interest of Dreyfus, and \ncomplained that the General Staff had refused to give him a fair hearing. \n\nM. Labori put a series of questions intended to bring out the fact that \nthe General Staff had made use of Major Esterhazy, even after he was \nknown to be unreliable. General Roget said he had not considered Major \nEsterhazy\'s avowal to be of any value. \n\nCounsel sought to question General Roget more closely on his state- \nment that none of the generals of the General Staff had any relations with \nMajor Esterhazy, but Colonel Jouaust declined to allow further discussion. \n\n\n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEROR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT 283 \n\nThis led to another scene between the president of the court and coun- \nsel for the defence, M. Labori declaring that General Eoget, who came \nmore as a public prosecutor than as a witness, refused to reply to probing \nquestions. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does General Roget consider the confessions of Esterhazy \nvalid ? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 No ; all versions given by Esterhazy are quite incor- \nrect. He is an impostor concerning whom I prefer to express no opinion. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Does General Eoget consider Esterhazy a man-of-straw? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 I have no proof of the fact, but I am inclined to be- \nlieve he is. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Was he a straw-man in 1894? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 No, I do not think so. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 When, do you think, did he first contemplate playing the \npart? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 I have made no investigation on that point. Contra- \nry to Esterhazy\'s assertions, the generals of the Headquarters Staff had no \nrelations with him. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Why was Major Esterhazy\'s role of straw-man not men- \ntioned in the trial of 1898? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 I was not present, and do not know. \n\nConsiderable discussion ensued between Colonel Jouaust and M. La- \nbori, the former attempting to protect General Eoget from too close ques- \ntioning. M. Labori insisted, however, and gained his point. The exam- \nination proceeded : \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 Since General Eoget expresses an opinion on this case, \nupon what does he base it? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 On the part generally played by Esterhazy. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 How do you explain the fact that Esterhazy made no con- \nfession during the Zola trial? \n\nGeneral Eoget \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know. \n\nM. Labori then expressed surprise that there was no mention of a man- \nof-straw until so late a day, while all the acts of which Esterhazy is ac- \ncused were long known. \n\nAt the request of M. Labori the report of the Court of Inquiry, which \ndecided whether or not Esterhazy should be cashiered, was read. Accord- \n\n\n\n284 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ning to this report, the court was not permitted to go outside of specific \nquestions submitted to it by the Minister of War. One of the questions, \nreferring to Major Esterhazy\'s letter to President Paure, caused Du Paty \nde Clam to admit that he inspired those letters. This made a great im- \npression upon the Court of Inquiry, which finally concluded that there \nwas ground for clemency. \n\nWhen the reading of the report was concluded M. Labori vainly tried \nto question General Billot concerning the " document liberateur " which \nsecured Esterhazy\'s acquittal. Colonel Jouaust declaring he would not per- \nmit General Billot to be re-examined. \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, at that stage of the proceedings, ascended the plat- \nform, dressed in the uniform of his rank, and with his inseparable eye- \nglass. He spoke a few words respecting the General Staff\'s belief in \nMajor Esterhazy. M. Demange said he could not understand why it was \nalleged that the defence desired to compromise the Headquarters Staff, and \nasked whence arose the suggestion that Major Esterhazy was a mere \ndummy. \n\nGeneral Eoget replied that one reason which induced the belief that \nEsterhazy was a man- of -straw was that his confession that he had written \nthe bordereau was absolutely inadmissible. General Eoget was perfectly \nconvinced that Esterhazy was entirely innocent of treason. [Murmurs of \nasset and dissent.] \n\nGeneral Eoget next attempted, but without success, to refute the evi- \ndence given on September 2d, by M. des Ponds-Lamothe relative to the \nsentence, "I am going to the manceuvres," saying the circular issued may \nhave been indefinite. \n\nDreyfus arose and in a clear voice emphatically insisted that the cir- \ncular of May 17, 1894, announcing that the probationers would not go to \nthe manoeuvres, was written in the clearest language, which the court \nwould see if it were read ; that the court possessed the circular and conse- \nquently could judge whether it contained definite instructions. The pris- \noner recalled the fact that in August the probationers were asked which \nregiments they desired to join. The situation was very clear. All the \nprobationers at the Staff Headquarters had participated in the June jour- \nney made by the General Staff. He did not know whether or not certain \nofficers retained doubts, but he was absolutely certain he had never asked \n\n\n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEROR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT 286 \n\nfor leave to attend the manoeuvres. The sentence in the bordereau, " I am \ngoing to the manoeuvres," expressed a positive idea. He not only never \nwent to the manoeuvres, but never could have attended them. He reiter- \nated that he had never asked to go to the manoeuvres, for he was absolutely \nconvinced that such a request would not be granted. \n\nM. Deffres, a reporter for the Temps, of Paris, then testified that he \nsaw Esterhazy in London, and that the latter confessed that he was the \nauthor of the bordereau. The witness added that he raised the question \nof the letters to Mme. Boulancy, and brought away the impression that \nEsterhazy wrote the " Uhlan " letter. \n\nSenator Trarieux, formerly Minister of Justice, was the next witness. \nHe made a long deposition in favor of Dreyfus, reviewing the history of \nthe case and his own part in connection therewith. M. Traireux showed \nhimself to be an excellent speaker, with a good presence. He had iron- \ngray hair and mustache, and spoke with a clear, resonant voice, which was \nheard outside the court-room. \n\nM. Trarieux looked straight at the judges while testifying. He pre- \nceded his evidence by saying he wished to throw light upon his conduct \nin this case. When Dreyfus was convicted, the witness said, he was con- \nvinced, like everybody else, of the prisoner\'s guilt ; but violent diatribes \non the fact that Dreyfus was a Jew awakened his suspicions. He there- \nfore consulted M. Hanotaux, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the \nlatter informed the witness of the existence of the "Cette canaille de \n\nD " document, though M. Hanotaux failed to inform him that it had \n\nbeen imparted to the judges of the first court-martial, unknown to the pris- \noner. This fact the witness learned later. \n\nContinuing, M. Trarieux, whose statement was practically an impas- \nsioned speech for the defence, denounced the secret communication of the \ndocuments to the court-martial as a monstrous illegality and a violation \nof the most sacred rights of the defence. The witness described as im- \npossible the hypothesis advanced by M. Teyssonieres, the handwriting ex- \npert, to convince the witness that Dreyfus was guilty. The witness said \nhis doubts were confirmed when he heard that M. Scheurer-Kestner had \nsecured proofs of the innocence of Dreyfus and the guilt of another. \n\nM. Trarieux dwelt upon the noble ideal of M. Scheurer-Kestner, who \nhad passed sleepless nights, tormented with the thought that an innocent \n\n\n\n286 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND. \n\nman was shedding tears of blood. When M. Scheurer-Kestner revealed \nwhat he knew, the witness was greatly surprised, especially when he \nlearned that Colonel Picquart had not succeeded in obtaining the support \nof the chiefs of the army. The witness said he was amazed that the latter \nhad not eagerly grasped the opportunity to work together for the rehabili- \ntation of an innocent man. \n\nDuring the course of his deposition M. Trarieux said he could not \nagree to a single conclusion reached by General Gonse in his correspon- \ndence with Picquart, and said the latter\'s removal from the Secret Intelli- \ngence Department was the result of underhand plotting by some one, op- \nposed to revision. The witness enumerated in support of this statement \nvarious forged documents which, he asserted, had emanated from the Se- \ncret Intelligence Department, namely, the " Cette canaille de D " \n\ndocument, in which the name of Dreyfus had been substituted for the hy- \npothetical "de D ," the Weyler forgery, and the publication of a fac- \nsimile of the bordereau. \n\n"Lastly," said M. Trarieux, "there appeared the cynical Henry forgery. \nAll these facts created a great impression regarding the Headquarter Staff. \nI accuse no one, but assume that the chiefs were deceived." \n\nThe witness pointed out that if any proof of the guilt of Dreyfus ex- \nisted in 1896, General Gonse would have given Picquart an order to stop \nthe investigation. \n\nAfter an interview with M. Scheurer-Kestner, M. Trarieux added, he \nbecame convinced of the guilt of Esterhazy, and saw his duty as a consci- \nentious citizen and senator, and perhaps as an ex-Minister, and that to \nfulfil his duty he must devote himself to a work of justice. \n\nIn describing the steps taken in support of revision, M. Trarieux men- \ntioned an interview he had with a foreign ambassador, who, in tones of \nthe most profound and affecting sincerity, declared that Dreyfus never had \nrelations with him or with any military attach^ or officer of the army of \nhis country. M. Trarieux asserted the importance of this statement to \nthe ambassador, who energetically reaffirmed the absolute innocence of \nDreyfus. The ambassador added that he had investigated and found noth- \ning to implicate Dreyfus. Further, the ambassador said he had seen in \nthe hands of Colonel Panizzardi a letter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen \nproving the guilt of Esterhazy, who, his excellency added, generally com- \n\n\n\nAPPEAL TO EMPEEOR WILLIAM AND KING HUMBERT 287 \n\nmimicated information of minor value. Moreover, at the time of M. \nScheurer-Kestner\'s revelations Major Esterhazy called upon Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen, and it was then that a dramatic scene of violent recrim- \ninations and threats occurred. The ambassador also showed the witness \nthat the " Cette canaille de D " phrase did not apply to Dreyfus. \n\nAs he proceeded M. Trarieux became more and more impassioned, and \nwalked back and forth upon the platform. He explained that, notwith- \nstanding the confidential nature of his revelations, the ambassador had \naccorded him permission to communicate it to the judicial authorities. In \na subsequent interview which the witness had with the same ambassador \nthe latter had informed him that the Henry forgery, which had just been \ndiscovered, had been long known to his Government, and that the French \nGovernment had been aware of it for a year. \n\nM. Trarieux continued: \n\n"Exception may be taken to certain passages of what I have asserted, \nbut among men of honor who listen there is not one who doubts the sin- \ncerity of my language or the truth of what I have said. It may be said \nthat I should not adduce here the evidence of a foreigner. That is M. \nCavaignac\'s opinion, and I do not oppose it, but it has no foundation \neither in fact or in law. The testimony of foreigners is not disallowed by \nlaw, which does not restrict the field of investigation of a judge, to whom \nit merely says: \' See, investigate, enlighten yourself.\' Moreover, Major \nPanizzardi was cited to appear in a case of swindling at Versailles. This \ncountry should be bold and proud enough to seek the truth everywhere. \n\n" Besides, was there not yesterday somewhat unexpected evidence of a \nforeigner who related remarks of a foreign sovereign? Why should the \ntestimony of foreign representatives be opposed here ? Even\' the supreme \nhead of the army, the gallant soldier. General the Marquis de Gallifet, \nhas not shrunk from adducing before the Court of Cassation the testimony \nof General Talbot." \n\nM. Trarieux said he suspected neither the sincerity nor the probity of \nthe judges of the court-martial of 1894, but only the nature of the docu- \nments submitted to that tribunal. \n\nCriticising General Mercier\'s rQle as a witness, M. Trarieux said he \nwas surprised that the ex-Minister of War had not included in the dossier \nthe official version of the Panizzardi cipher telegram. \n\n\n\n288 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nWith regard to General Roget and Captain Cuignet, the witness de- \nclared that their allegations that Major Panizzardi had informed his am- \nbassador that Colonel Schwartzkoppen had relations with Dreyfus were \nabsolutely unfounded. On the contrary, the witness asserted, Panizzardi \nexpressly stated that Dreyfus had no relations with any foreign attache. \nGeneral Roget and Captain Cuignet had therefore mis-read \xe2\x80\x94 he would not \nsay misinterpreted \xe2\x80\x94 the report upon which it was alleged they had based \ntheir statements. \n\nGeneral Roget attempted to intervene, but M. Trarieux continued, re- \nasserting the truth of all he had stated. The ambassador already referred \nto, M. Trarieux declared, said, "Esterhazy is the traitor." \n\nContinuing, M. Trarieux said : " The Supreme Court has given its de- \ncision, and our eyes confirm its judgment." He then proceeded to show \nthat Esterhazy \'s confession must be genuine. "If," said he, "an ideal of \nthe type of traitor is sought, he is the man. He is overwhelmed with \ndebts, and is a man of loose habits. He wrote the \' Uhlan \' letter to \nMme, Boulancy. He had not even the soul of a Frenchman. And yet \nhe is placed on a level with a young captain of irreproachable conduct, \nagainst whom nothing but secret documents has been brought. Doubt is \nno longer possible." \n\nAfter demonstrating, in this way, why question of the innocence of \nDreyfus was impossible, M. Trarieux concluded : \n\n"This is no longer the time for pleading falsehoods; it is the hour for \npacification. It is also the hour for justice, which has declared that small \nas well as great, without distinction of sex or person, shall have their rights. " \n\nThe deposition of M. Trarieux closed the public session. At its con- \nclusion the court-martial went behind closed doors and examined the \nsecret espionage dossier. The court also deliberated upon the application \nof M. Labori for a order upon the Government Commissary to request the \nFrench Government to invite foreign governments to supply the documents \nenumerated in the bordereau. After a brief interval it was unanimously \ndecided to reject the application of M. Labori, on the ground that the court \ndid not consider itself competent to pronounce a judgment which might \nentail diplomatic action by the Government. It was also decided unani- \nmously to examine M. de Cernuschi on September 6th, behind closed doors. \n\nThe court then adjourned. \n\n\n\n.\xe2\x96\xa0.\xe2\x96\xa0:sr-\'> \n\n\n\n\n\no \n\n\n\n\no \n\nCO \n\n\n\nH \n\nP? \nO \n\nfH \nK? \nh- 1 \n\nH \nP5 \n<1 \n\nH \n\nP5 \nt> \nO \nO \n\npq \nI\xe2\x80\x94 I \n\n;> \n< \n\ntH \n&5 \n\nI\xe2\x80\x94 ( \n\n-^ \n\nr-t \n\n< \n\n\n\nM. LABORI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE 289 \n\n\n\nChapter XLIX. \n\nM. LABORI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE \n\nIt was said on September 6th, that the salvation of Dreyfus was then \nhanging on a word from Emperor William. If the Kaiser consented to \nallow Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^, to testify \nbefore the court-martial, or to send a deposition, or, what was considered \nstill more probable, to allow his deposition to be accompanied by the \nactual documents mentioned in the bordereau, then Dreyfus was saved. \n\nIf the Emperor, however, should decide that it was not in the interests \nof Germany for Colonel Schwartzkoppen to intervene, then Dreyfus\'s case \nwas pronounced hopeless and his condemnation certain. \n\nMaitre Labori insisted that the appearance of Cernuschi on the witness \nstand was quite without precedent, but the anti-Dreyfusards pointed out, \nand with a certain amount of reason, that the counsel for the defence were \nreally the first to introduce foreign testimony, as they summoned the Eng- \nlish journalist, Eowland Strong, on the question of Esterhazy\'s confession \nthat he wrote the bordereau. \n\nThe public proceedings of September 6th were marked by three im- \nportant episodes. \n\nThe first was General Zurlinden\'s admission that the erasure and res- \ntitution of Esterhazy\'s name in the petit hleu could not have been perpe- \ntrated by Colonel Picquart, and consequently must be attributed to some \none inside the General Staff. \n\nThe second was the declaration by M. Paleologue that the secret dos- \nsier contained a document which showed that Colonel Schwartzkoppen \nadmitted his relations with Esterhazy, and that Schwartzkoppen, in the \nopinion of Paleologue, sent to Esterhazy the identical petit hleu for which \nColonel Picquart was detained ten months on a charge of forgery. \n\nThe third was General Billot\'s insinuation that Esterhazy and Dreyfus \nwere accomplices, which led to an impassioned protestation on the part \n19 \n\n\n\n290 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAJSTD \n\nof the accused, and to a thrilling scene between M. Labori and Colonel \nJouaust, resulting in the lawyer\'s excited denunciation, tantamount to an \naccusation of open partiality. \n\nFrom a spectacular point of view, however, the great event of the sit- \nting was the battle royal between Maitre Labori and Colonel Jouaust over \ncertain questions which counsel wished to put to General Billot. M. \nLabori here lost control of himself under the influence of his deep feeling \nof indignation, and his belief that Colonel Jouaust was deliberately gag- \nging him in the interest of the military clique. His voice, which at first \nresounded through the court-room, became choked with emotion. . The \nspectators held their breath as he retorted defiantly to Colonel Jouaust\'s \nrefusal to put the questions, his words drowning Jouaust\'s voice in an ir- \nresistible torrent, whose force was heightened by his passionate gestures. \n\nWhen he finally fell back in his seat with a look of hopeless indigna- \ntion, his face was blanched and his fingers twitched spasmodically \xe2\x80\x94 a \nspeaking testimony to the high tension to which his nerves had been \nwrought by fruitless combat with the iron ruling of the bench. \n\nDreyfus too, in his vehement protest against General Billot\'s insinua- \ntions of his complicity with Esterhazy, recalled his anguished outbreak \nearly in the trial. \n\nIt was a strange contrast to hear him a little later, when he had ap- \nparently mastered his feelings, deliver an argumentative reply to Major \nGallopin, of the artillery, in a calm, moderate tone. Indeed, one was \nalmost tempted to imagine that his emotional outcry in reply to General \nBillot was a piece of theatricality. \n\nGallopin\'s evidence left a decidedly unfavorable impression, despite the \nplausibility of the explanation given by Dreyfus. \n\nTwo hours of the opening of the sitting of September 6th were spent \nbehind closed doors. The length of time occupied in the examination of \nEugene de Cernuschi, the Austrian refugee and witness for the prosecution, \nwas the subject of much remark, as being indicative of the fact that the \ncourt found this witness to be worthy of more consideration than it had \nbeen supposed he deserved. \n\nSenator Trarieux, former Minister of Justice, resumed his deposition, \nwhich was inten\'upted by the adjournment of the court on September 5th. \nHe took up the testimony of Savignaud, the former orderly in Tunis of \n\n\n\nM. LABORI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE 291 \n\nColonel Picquart, and witness for the prosecution, who had claimed to \nhave seen letters addressed to M. Scheurer-Kestner, formerly Vice-Presi- \ndent of the Senate, by Picquart, while in Tunis. M. Trarieux declared \nthat Savignaud was a perjurer, and that two ojBficers visited Savignaud be- \nfore the court-martial opened. M. Trarieux hinted that the officers drilled \nSavignaud on the testimony he was to give. \n\nSavignaud replied, reiterating the truth of his previous testimony. \n\nColonel Picquart then repeated his denial of Savignaud\' s story. \n\nM. Trarieux reviewed the question of the petit bleu, which, he said, \nhe was convinced was authentic. He proceeded to comment upon the \nquestionable role played by Major Lauth in the affair. \n\nMajor Lauth interrupted the witness, asking that he be allowed a \nhearing, and on the conclusion of M. Trarieux\'s deposition Major Lauth \nconfronted him. The major declared that he had acted honestly through- \nout, and that he had not the least doubt of Picquart\' s falsification of the \npetit hleu, in order to incriminate Esterhazy. \n\nA striking incident occurred when Lauth, a moment later, asserted \nthat Picquart had always shown the greatest contempt for the officers of \nhis bureau, asserting that on one occasion Picquart had brought to the \nGeneral Staff, in the presence of Mesdames Henry and Lauth, a woman, \n\nMme. D , who was the wife of a magistrate, and, Lauth intimated, \n\nPicquart\'s mistress. \n\nPicquart arose and cried : " I protest absolutely. " \n\nAt the same time there arose from the spectators a chorus of indignant \ncries of " Oh ! " " Canaille ! " " Cochon ! " (" Pig ! ") , and " Miserable ! " \n\nThe gendarmes were ordered to repress the outbursts of indignation \nwhich had been evoked by the conduct of Major Lauth in publicly nam- \ning a woman in a scandalous connection. \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, formerly Minister of War, followed Major Lauth \nat the witness bar. Zurlinden spoke in justification of his action while \nhe was Military Governor of Paris and Minister of War in the matter of \nthe prosecution of Picquart, taking the ground that the measure was ab- \nsolutely necessary in order that the court should clear up the charge of \nforgery brought against Picquart. Moreover, General Zurlinden said, the \nMinister of Justice had persuaded him to send Picquart before a military \ncourt. \n\n\n\n292 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nGeneral Zurlinden, during bhe day\'s testimony, amid intense excite- \nment, admitted that the Tavernier inquiry showed that the ;petit bleu had \nnot been scratched when it reached the statistical section of the Intelli- \ngence Department, and that consequently the erasure was not the work of \nPicquart. \n\nM. Trarieux replied to General Zurlinden, reproaching him with Colo- \nnel Picquart\'s ten months in prison. \n\nM. Labori then asked a question of General Zurlinden regarding the \npetit hleu. Colonel Jouaust refused to put the question, on the ground \nthat the court was engaged in the trial of Dreyfus, and not of the Picquart \naffair. \n\nCounsel, however, insisted, taking the ground that \\hQ;petit hleu demon- \nstrated the guilt of Esterhazy, and that consequently it was very impor- \ntant for Dreyfus. \n\nThe lawyer proceeded with his attack on General Zurlinden, who ad- \nmitted that the magisterial inquiry showed that the petit bleu was not tam- \npered with when it first arrived at the Intelligence Department, and that \nconsequently Picquart could not have been guilty, as alleged, of distorting \nthe document. \n\nM. Labori asked that M. Paleologue, the representative of the Foreign \nOffice, be consulted with reference to the reading before the court of diplo- \nmatic documents which established irrefutably the authenticity of the petit \nbleu. \n\nM. Paleologue, who sits behind the judges, came to the front of the \nstage and said that he did not know to what documents M. Labori alluded. \n\n"The document," replied M. Labori, "in which is recounted a conver- \nsation between M. Delcasse, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the former \nCount von Munster-Ledenburg, German ambassador to Paris, in the \ncourse of which the ambassador said Colonel Schwartzkoppen had admit- \nted that he sent Esterhazy a number of telegraphic cards or petits bleus. " * \n\nM. Paleologue replied that what M. Labori said was quite true, and \nthat the document belonged to the diplomatic dossier. As to the petit \nbleu in question, added M. Paleologue, Colonel Schwartzkoppen could \naffirm whether he wrote it himself or whether he had not seen it; but \nin any case, M. Paleologue said, he believed it was sent by Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen. \n\n\n\nM. LABOEI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE 293 \n\nThis declaration by the representative of the Foreign Office created a \nmarked sensation in court. \n\nM. Trarieux then read a letter, which he wrote to General Billot, \nJune 1, 1898, protesting against these falsehoods. To this letter General \nBillot had replied that he had not instituted the inquiry. The judges in- \ntrusted with the investigation of the Esterhazy case, notwithstanding their \nconscientiousness, were, M. Trarieux asserted, absolutely deceived by sto- \nries then current. The judges accepted as gospel all the lies of Esterhazy, \nwho, though acquitted, was not tried. \n\nReplying to M. Labori, M. Trarieux dwelt at length upon the charges, \nwhich he described as fairy tales, against Picquart, who had been alleged \nto be an agent in the pay of the Dreyfus family, and whose object, as as- \nserted, was to put Esterhazy, an innocent man, in the place of Dreyfus \nthe culprit. \n\nM, Trarieux again entered upon a long statement, in the course of \nwhich he said Esterhazy was acquitted, not judged. \n\nColonel Jouaust stopped the witness, saying he must not speak in that \nway of judges. M. Trarieux replied that he had not referred to judges, \nbut to "la chose jug^e." \n\nColonel Jouaust then pointed out that M. Trarieux was taking M. La- \nbori\'s place and making a regular speech for the defence. \n\nGeneral Billot then confronted M. Trarieux, and, in reply to the lat- \nter\'s criticism of him, the general was much affected, and spoke in a husky \nvoice. He began by declaring that M. Trarieux had delivered an eloquent \noration, but that it was special pleading for Dreyfus and Picquart, and an \narraignment of former ministers. \n\nThe General praised Picquart for his services in the army, and de- \nclared that he had the greatest confidence in him \xe2\x80\x94 a confidence which, \nhowever, he has since been compelled to withdraw. Then, discussing \nPicquart\'s investigation of the suspicions against Esterhazy, the general \nsaid: \n\n" Even if Esterhazy should be proved a traitor, that would not prove \nDreyfus innocent; for in cases of espionage it very often occurs that there \nare several accomplices." \n\nM. Labori wished to question General Billot, and an altercation with \nColonel Jouaust ensued. Finally M. Labori cried : \n\n\n\n294 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" Allow me to remark, Monsieur le President, that it has never been \nsaid that Dreyfus had an accomplice in Esterhazy. " \n\nDreyfus, who heard General Billot\'s statement with evident excite- \nment, also sprang to his feet, and shouted : \n\n" I protest against this odious accusation. " \n\nM. Labori again insisted that he be allowed to question General Billot. \nColonel Jouaust still refused, and a heated wrangle once more ensued. \n\nM. Labori made a passionate protest against the attitude of Colonel \nJouaust, who then said: \n\n"I decline to allow you to speak." \n\nCounsel retorted excitedly : \n\n" I bow to your ruling, but I take note that every time I put a ques- \ntion which is irresistible you refuse to allow it." \n\nThis declaration M. Labori delivered in a ringing voice, punctuating \nhis utterances with striking gestures. The audience burst into loud ap- \nplause. The greatest excitement prevailed, and Colonel Jouaust said: \n\n" If this demonstration is renewed I will have the court-room cleared. \nHave you anything more to say, Maitre Labori? " \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 No, because \xe2\x80\x94 and I speak with the utmost respect \xe2\x80\x94 I am \nprevented from putting any questions touching the core of the affair. I \nreserve the right to take such action as regard for my responsibility com- \npels me to take up." \n\nThis sentence was the climax of the strained relations which have pre- \nvailed between the president of the court-martial and M. Labori. \n\nMajor Gallopin, an officer of the artillery, was then examined. He \nproved a rather unfavorable witness for Dreyfus, whom he declared he \nonce met on the Boulevard St. Germain, carrying a voluminous package, \nwhich he said contained secret papers treating of mobilization, and which \nhe was carrying to the Geographical Bureau. \n\nDreyfus was questioned regarding this statement, and admitted that \nhe sometimes took documents home to facilitate work ; but he said that \nhe did not recall the particular incident to which Major Gallopin referred. \nThis admission by Dreyfus made a bad impression, especially when the \nnext witness, Major Hirschauer, deposed that he heard Dreyfus express a \ndesire to go to the manoeuvres. The major, however, could not remember \nthe exact date. \n\n\n\nM. LABORI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE 296 \n\nDreyfus replied : \n\n" It is very possible that I expressed regrets that I should be unable to \ngo to the manoeuvres, and, what is certain, we all knew that none of the \nprobationers could go." \n\nColonel Picquart was called to the witness stand, and said that Drey- \nfus never applied to him for leave to go to the manoeuvres, adding that he \nwas surprised no inquiry had been made upon his point to the chief of \nDreyfus\'s bureau. \n\nColonel Jouaust read a letter from the colonel of the one hundred and \nthirty-eighth regiment of infantry, dated September 2d, recalling the \ndate of the report on Madagascar, which had enabled him to fix the \ndate of the bordereau as August, 1894. This report, he added, was \ndrawn up in the Third Bureau of the General Staff, and consequently \nan indiscretion might have been committed by an officer employed in \nthe bureau. \n\nThe deposition of Colonel Du Paty de Clam, which was taken by \nMajor Tavernier, was then read. It was more remarkable as being a repe- \ntition of Du Paty de Clam\'s former evidence, than as containing any new \nrevelations. This was what the defence feared, and the reason they de- \nclared they had little faith in the result of an cx-parte examination. \n\nIn his deposition Du Paty de Clam replied to the attacks made upon \nhim as a soldier and citizen. He complained that slanderous statements \nunsupported by proof had been made regarding him. The witness laid \nstress upon the fact that the charges had been dismissed, and expressed \nthe opinion that the sole object of the slanderers was to impugn the judges \nwho condemned Dreyfus in 1894. He denied that he ever had relations \nwith Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, or that he was concerned with the pub- \nlication of the article in the Eclair, or with furnishing Esterhazy with the \n"document liberateur." \n\nDu Paty de Clam admitted that he had had relations with Esterhazy, \nand repeated the explanations with reference thereto which he gave before \nthe Court of Cassation. \n\nWith regard to the Dreyfus case, Du Paty de Clam declared that he \nwas not connected with the discovery of the bordereau. It was only on \npressure, the deposition continued, that the witness accepted the task of \ninvestigating the charges in this case. After detailing the course of this \n\n\n\n296 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ninvestigation, Du Paty de Clam said that the order for the arrest of Cap- \ntain Dreyfus had been distinctly issued quite independent of the dictation \ntest. \n\nDu Paty de Clam then described the famous dictation scene, in the \ncourse of which, he said, Dreyfus displayed an emotion regarding the \ncause of which there might be differences of opinion, but the fact, witness \nasserted, was undeniable that M. Cochefert, the chief of the detective de- \npartment, who was present, regarded the prisoner\'s agitation as an indica- \ntion of his guilt. Dreyfus manifested his excitement by nervous move- \nments of the jaw, and complained that his fingers were cold. \n\nDu Paty de Clam defended himself against the charge of being a tor- \nturer of Dreyfus and his family. The deposition contained copies of let- \nters from Madame Dreyfus establishing the fact that Du Paty de Clam\'s \nrelations with her were always courteous. \n\nWith regard to the date of the bordereau, Du Paty de Clam expressed \nthe opinion that it must have been written between the 15th and the 30th \nof August, 1894. \n\nThe witness denied all statements attributed to him with regard to the \nincorrect versions of the Panizzardi telegram. \n\nLater in his deposition, Du Paty de Clam referred to the preparation, \nby himself and Colonel Sandherr, of a secret commentary intended to \nshow who was the traitor among the officers at the headquarters of the \nGeneral Staff, "who must be a a Captain D ." None of the docu- \nments accompanying the commentary mentioned the Panizzardi telegram \nnor the manufacture of a shell. \n\nEegarding the interview with Captain Dreyfus, Du Paty de Clam de- \nclared that he never said to Dreyfus : \n\n" The minister knows you are innocent. " \n\nThe Minister of War never spoke of delivering documents in order to \nobtain others. What Dreyfus said was : \n\n"No, no, Major, I do not wish to plead extenuating circumstances. \nMy counsel has promised me that in three, five, or six years, my inno- \ncence will be admitted." \n\nLater Dreyfus said: \n\n" Major, I know your belief. I have not opposed it. I know you are \nan honest man, but I assure you you have made a mistake. Seek what \n\n\n\nM. LABORI THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CASE 297 \n\nyou call my accomplices, and what I call the culprits, and you will find \nthem. " The prisoner\'s last word to him was : " Seek. " \n\nThe deposition of Du Paty de Clam made no reference to cases con- \nnected with that of Dreyfus. The witness swore that everything con- \ntained in his statement was true. \n\nThe court-martial then adjourned. \n\nAs a result of the scene between Colonel Jouaust and M. Labori the \nlatter wished to retire from the case. He was convinced that the judges \nwere utterly hostile to him, and it is said that he had conceived the idea \nof a dramatic withdrawal at the opening of the session of September 7th. \nA meeting of the friends of M. Lahori was held at his house during the \nafternoon to decide whether such a step would be advisable. \n\n\n\n298 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter L. \n\nJOUAUST REFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACHES \n\nA VEEY pessimistic feeling was produced among the friends of Drey- \nfus on September 7th, by the decision of Colonel Jouaust not to ajlow \nthe evidence of Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi in the \ncase. \n\nIt was predicted that it meant the certain condemnation of Dreyfus. \nThis was the unanimous opinion of the anti-Dreyfusards, and it was the \nimpression of a majority of the Dreyfusards, whose last hope was that \nColonel Jouaust only dared to refuse to take the evidence of Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi, because the court had already \nmade up its mind to acquit the prisoner. \n\nAt the opening of the day\'s session of the court-martial Maitre Labori \nannounced that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi would be \nunable to appear personally before the court, and so he proposed that a \nrogatory commission should be telegraphed to receive their depositions. \n\nIn making his motion for the appointment of a rogatory commission, \nM. Labori said: \n\n" I have received notice that, for reasons of public policy, Major Paniz- \nzardi and Colonel Schwartzkoppen could not come to Eennes to testify be- \nfore the court-martial. But I am also informed from the same quarter \nthat they would answer the questions of a commission sent by the court- \nmartial. I therefore beg the court to direct, as in the case of Colonel Du \nPaty de Clam, that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi be ex- \namined by commission. \n\n" The court will certainly understand that the defence must submit to \nthe necessities of public policy, which are, I have no doubt, similarly un- \nderstood by the Government of the republic. I shall, therefore, be glad if \nyou will ask M. Paleologue if, in this case, the telegraph may be employed. \nI think such a method would be exceedingly rapid, and I am convinced \n\n\n\nJOUAUST REFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACHES 299 \n\nthat the president of the court-martial and the court-martial itself will not \nrefuse to allow the defence to ascertain the truth." \n\nCounsel added that he would make a formal application to this effect. \n\nColonel Jouaust, president of the court, then invited the opinion of M. \nPaleologue, who replied: \n\n" It is clear that considerations of public policy stand in the way of \nforeign military attaches appearing in a French court to testify in regard \nto facts of which they had cognizance in their diplomatic capacity. Colo- \nnel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi will not attend the court-mar- \ntial. \n\n" As regards the dispatch of a commission, I believe the Foreign Office \nwill not oppose it. But I must make all reservations regarding the use of \nthe telegraph. I do not know if that would be a regular proceeding." \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 But couriers can be employed. \n\nM. Paleologue \xe2\x80\x94 I do not think the telegraph can be used. \n\nMajor Carriere \xe2\x80\x94 I do not oppose the appointment of a commission. \nIt is a matter for the president to decide. There are no legal objections, \nprovided we respect the provisions of the Military Code, which do not per- \nmit an interruption of the trial. Such procedure must not be allowed to \nhinder the progress of the trial, and must, therefore, be rapid. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 I think it possible to make the procedure I propose very \nrapid. The Military Code provides for a suspension of forty-eight hours. \nOn the other hand, the court might shorten its sittings, reducing them \nfour hours each. In any case, I shall have the honor of formulating an \napplication which I will submit to the court, \n\nHe then drew up a formal application that Colonel Schwartzkoppen \nand Major Panizzardi be cited as witnesses, and that eight questions \nshould be telegraphed them, to which they should reply under oath. \n\nWhile M. Labori was drafting his motion, a member of the court-mar- \ntial remarked that certain documents mentioned in Du Paty de Clam\'s \ndepositions could not be found either among the records or in the statisti- \ncal department of the War Office, \n\nTo which M. Demange replied that perhaps they were under seal. \n\nM. Labori then read the terms of his formal application, which stated \nthat as considerations of public policy prevented the appearance of Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen, and Major Panizzardi before the court-martial, commis- \n\n\n\n300 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nsions should be sent to examine them, in order to permit these officers to \nstate mider oath all that they knew in regard to the case. \n\nCounsel furthermore requested the court to have the following ques- \ntions put to each of the two officers : \n\n"First \xe2\x80\x94 On what date did you receive the documents mentioned in \nthe bordereau? \n\n" Second \xe2\x80\x94 Are these documents in the same handwriting as the borde- \nreau, which you know from a facsimile ? \n\n" Third \xe2\x80\x94 What did these documents contain ? \n\n"Fourth \xe2\x80\x94 Did you receive the Firing Manual, either in the original \nor a copy? \n\n"Fifth \xe2\x80\x94 Did you receive the graduation bar? \n\n"Sixth \xe2\x80\x94 Since what date did you receive those documents? \n\n" Seventh \xe2\x80\x94 Was it to the same correspondent to whom you address the \npetit lieu that was referred to in the conversation between Count von \nMunster and M. Delcasse? \n\n" Eighth \xe2\x80\x94 Have you had direct relations with the accused ? " \n\nM. Labori urged the importance of the evidence of these two witness- \nes, whom, he declared, he would not have cited if Cernuschi had not been \ncalled. Counsel pointed out it was possible to suspend the proceedings \nlong enough to obtain replies to the questions, which he considered indis- \npensable. \n\nThe court made no answer at once, but retired to deliberate on M. La- \nbori\'s application. Every one in court stood up when the judges returned \nfifteen minutes later. \n\nColonel Jouaust gave the order " Present arms " to the guard of soldiers \nat the bottom of the hall, while he, standing, and with the other judges \nstanding on either side of him, read the decision that the president, Colo- \nnel Jouaust, was competent to order a rogatory commission, but that the \njudges as a body, according to the Military Code, were not competent to \ndo so. \n\nM. Labori thereupon asked Colonel Jouaust if he still maintained his \nrefusal to appoint the commission, the colonel, when M. Labori submitted \nhis conclusions, having said he was opposed to the application. \n\nColonel Jouaust replied, "Yes "; and by this decision the evidence of \nColonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi, who were prepared, it \n\n\n\nJOUAUST REFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACH:&S 301 \n\nwas said, to swear they never had relations with Dreyfus, was thus \nexcluded. \n\nThe refusal of Colonel Jouaust seemed inexplicable, because it appeared \nto be his duty to receive all evidence directly bearing on the case, and \nmore especially the evidence of the two attaches, the refusal of whose testi- \nmony was thought to be equivalent to a slight on their respective countries. \n\nThe chief of detectives, M. Cochefert, the first witness of the morning, \ndeposed favorably regarding the attitude of Dreyfus when Du Paty de \nClam dictated the bordereau to him. The witness said Dreyfus appeared \nnot to be troubled until afterward, when Du Paty de Clam questioned him. \n\nM. Cochefert referred to a revolver found on a table near the desk at \nwhich Dreyfus was then seated, and he recounted how the prisoner, on \nperceiving it, cried : \n\n" I will not kill myself. I will live to establish my innocence. " \n\nThe clerk of the court then read a letter from Captain Humbert to the \neffect that Dreyfus had expressed a keen desire in 1894 to enter the Sta- \ntistical Section of the War Ofl&ce, and saying that he met Dreyfus once \ncarrying some voluminous packets of maps and documents, and remarked \nthat he was acting very imprudently. \n\nIn reply to the usual questions, Dreyfus said that Captain Humbert\'s \nrecollections were not exact, adding : \n\n" In regard to the papers mentioned, perhaps it would be advisable to \nhave the Commissariat Tables of Plan 13 produced, when you will see that \nthey are of no great importance. It is certain I was acquainted with five \nor six tables, the printing of which I was instructed to superintend." \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you apply to Colonel Sandherr with the view \nof entering the Statistical Section? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No, no. \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Did you not express such a desire to your com- \nrades ? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 No. \n\nSavignaud, the former orderly of Colonel Picquart, and one of the wit- \nnesses, asked the court to certify that Senator Trarieux, the former Minis- \nter of Justice, had called him an impostor and a perjurer. \n\nM. Trarieux rose and insisted that Savignaud\'s evidence was a contra- \ndiction of the evidence of Colonel Picquart, M. Scheurer-Kestner, and M. \n\n\n\n302 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nRoque, proving, he claimed, perjury somewhere, but not by the last trio \nof witnesses. \n\nM Trarieux added that his statements were in accordance with the \ndictates of his soul and conscience, and, if he was amenable to the law for \nthem, there was also a law against perjurers. \n\nGeneral Mercier here reappeared on the scene. After saying that the \nevidence of Captain Freystaetter must have greatly influenced the judges, \nhe referred to the attacks on himself made by the revisionist newspapers, \nsaying that in consequence of Freystaetter\'s assertions he had been de- \nscribed as a forger, and it was great satisfaction to him now to be able to \nreply to Captain Freystaetter by adducing, in addition to the testimony of \nColonel Maurel, an addition to his own testimony, which was confirmed \nby Colonel Du Paty de Clam\'s deposition. \n\nContinuing, the general said that information which he had happily \nbeen enabled to obtain would completely enlighten the judges. He main- \ntained that in 1894 he gave orders that the various translations of the \nPanizzardi telegram received from the Foreign Office should not be taken \ninto account, and he declared that the testimony of General de Boisdeffre \nand M. Gribelin on this point agreed with his. \n\nThe sealed envelope handed to the court-martial of 1894, the general \nalso said, was made up in his presence, and did not contain the Panizzardi \ntelegram. It was sealed by Colonel Sandherr, and Colonel Du Paty de \nClam was entrusted with conveying it to the court-martial. \n\nHe, the witness, had questioned the officers who acted as judges of the \ncourt-martial of 1894, in regard to the presentation to the court of a se- \ncret envelope. All, with a single exception, had assured him that they did \nnot remember reading the Panizzardi telegram, although they could not \ndeclare under oath that it was not among the documents. \n\nThree officers apologized for the vagueness of their recollections after \nthe lapse of five years. Mercier asseverated that these statements them- \nselves constituted proof, but he thought it necessary to point out contra- \ndictions in the evidence of Captain Freystaetter. He read an old letter \nfrom Freystaetter to a friend, in which the captain expressed his belief in \nthe guilt of Dreyfus. \n\nThe general quoted a number of statements to the same effect, alleged \nto have been made by Freystaetter. \n\n\n\nJOUAUST REFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACHI:S 303 \n\nGeneral Mercier, continuing, said he reproached Captain Freystaetter \nfor engaging in newspaper discussion, which, perhaps, resulted in mixing \nhis ideas so that others were being substituted for his personal recollec- \ntions, which indicated a certain mental derangement. In support of the \ntheory of lunacy, Mercier mentioned that Freystaetter, while in Madagas- \ncar, was once guilty of disobeying his commander, and on another occa- \nsion the captain executed thirty natives without trial. \n\nThe allegations of General Mercier caused so much excitement in court \nthat Colonel Jouaust requested the general not to enlarge on the subject. \n\nIn conclusion Mercier invited the judges to pay no attention to Cap- \ntain Freystaetter\'s statement, but to accord to the evidence which he him- \nself had had the honor to give, all the confidence and moral authority \nthey would have reposed in it if the Freystaetter incident had never hap- \npened. \n\nM. Demange said he agreed with General Mercier that the Freystaet- \nter incident could be dropped without injuring the case of Dreyfus. \n\n"Thank God," said the lawyer, " I am here in a court of justice, where \nthe question of justice is being discussed before honorable men and loyal \nsoldiers. Then let this incident be forgotten. " \n\nThe reports of experts were next read, showing that the tracing paper \non which the bordereau was written was similar to paper used by Ester- \nhazy, and official records were produced, showing that Dreyfus was wrong \nin regard to the number of probationers in 1894. \n\nThe prisoner admitted that his recollections were perhaps not precise. \n\nM. Labori said he regretted that Cernuschi was not present, as coun- \nsel desired to question him, and, in any case, he wanted to add to the \ndossier certain letters showing that Cernuschi had suffered from insanity, \nand was destitute of moral sense. The defence had discovered that appli- \ncations had been made for Cernuschi\'s extradition, and that he was pro- \nnounced to be altogether worthless and unreliable. Counsel also said that, \nalthough representing himself to be a political refugee, if Cernuschi had \nnot left Austria he would have been placed in an asylum for the insane. \n\nM. Labori then asked that a letter received from the witness Grenier \nshould be read. The Government Commissary admitted receiving it, but \nsaid that the letter was of no importance. Counsel thought otherwise, \nand read a copy of the letter which Grenier had sent him simultaneously \n\n\n\n304 DKEYPUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwith one to Major Carriere. The letter referred to a letter from Esterhazy \nshowing the latter\'s great interest in questions outside of his duties, that \nEsterhazy had in his possession official documents, that he concerned him- \nself with the mobilization of the troops, and that he had expressed su- \npreme contempt for the French army. \n\nColonel Jouaust remarked that if the letter had reached him he would \nnot have made use of it, as it had nothing to do with the Dreyfus case. \n\nThis called forth murmurs of assent and dissent, and M. Labori retorted \nthat he was of quite an opposite opinion. He said that General Chanoine \nhad handed the court a latter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen to his govern- \nment, announcing that he was about to send them information regarding \nthe real effectiveness of the Russian army, and this was also referred to in \nEsterhazy\'s letter. Colonel Schwartzkoppen had also mentioned the Paris \nand Toul manoeuvres, which would explain the phrase, " I am going to the \nmanoeuvres. " This letter was written a fortnight after the arrest of Drey- \nfus, and M. Labori declared that he would be glad to hear the generals on \nthat point. \n\nGeneral Roget accordingly marched to the platform. In regard to the \nmohilization of the Russian army, he said that a well-informed article on \nthe subject had appeared in the Revue Bleue, owing to the indiscretions of \na certain person he would not name, as he, the general, did not wish to \ncompromise him. \n\nCaptain Cuignet confirmed General Roget\'s statement, adding that it \nmust not be concluded that the information furnished to the German gen- \neral staff did not emanate from Dreyfus. The fact that it took a fort- \nnight to reach its destination proved nothing. \n\nGeneral Mercier also intervened to show that any information fur- \nnished by Esterhazy could have had no value. \n\nColonel Picquart offered explanations of the leakage in 1893, and Gen- \neral Mercier again jumped up and protested against indiscretions commit- \nted in favor of a former minister being called leakages. \n\nAt the request of M. Labori, the testimony given by the witness \nnamed Ecalle before the Court of Cassation was read. It described how \nEsterhazy employed Ecalle to execute a sketch of a rifle, which afterward, \nEsterhazy said, he had sent abroad with an imaginary plan of mobilization. \n\nAfter further testimony on this point, a letter from Esterhazy to Gen- \n\n\n\nJOUAUST EEFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACHi^S 305 \n\neral Eoget was read, in which the writer complained that no use was \nmade of his information, and violently attacking M. Bertillon, who, ac- \ncording to Esterhazy, ought to be in an asylum for the insane. \n\nEsterhazy complained of his miserable condition, described General de \nBoisdeffre as a scoundrel, and the Echo de Paris as a "dirty Jew sheet," \nadding that it was a mistake to abandon him and then prosecute him. \n\nAfter repeating his threats, Esterhazy wrote that if he were the moral \nauthor of the bordereau he could not have supplied the information con- \ntained in it, and expressed surprise that nothing had been said in regard \nto the role played by Colonel Picquart. He then attacked, turn about, \nall the ofi&cers of the General Staff. \n\nAt this juncture M. Labori said that he thought that the court had \nheard quite enough of this edifying letter, and asked that the rest of it be \nnot read. But Major Carriere objected, remarking that the letter was \nmost interesting. \n\nM. Labori \xe2\x80\x94 They are all interesting, and I would like to have them \nall read. \n\nMajor Carriere \xe2\x80\x94 They are all of the same degree of interest. They \nare all rot. \n\nThe reading then proceeded. In a letter containing a long string of \nbitter recriminations and violent insults, particularly in regard to certain \nmembers of the court-martial, whose impartiality was impugned, Esterhazy \ndeclared in conclusion : \n\n" I will say or do nothing to increase the dangers of the situation. \nBut I, an old and faithful servant, have been denounced and have fallen \nbeneath the blows, after having been basely abandoned by the Boisdeffres, \nBillots, and other generals. " \n\nAfter Major Hartmann had briefly refuted General Mercier\'s state- \nment that the Germans always termed the hydro-pneumatic brake the \n"hydraulic brake," which Hartmann declared to be absolutely untrue. Colo- \nnel Jouaust, though requested by M. Labori to allow M. des Fonds- \nLamothe to be re-examined, refused to hear any further testimony. \n\nThereupon on September 7th, at 10:30 a.m., the Government Com- \nmissary, Major Carriere, began his speech closing the case for the prosecu- \ntion. He concluded at 11 :50 a.m. His speech, lasting only an hour and \n\na quarter, was generally characterized as one of the weakest and most \n20 \n\n\n\n306 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nridiculous orations ever heard in a court of law. His absurd arguments, \ncolored by his grotesque mannerism, evoked continual outbursts of de- \nrisive laughter. \n\nMajor Carriere, after reading the judgment of the Court of Cassation, \nand the questions referred to the present court-martial, said : \n\n"Colonel and Councillors: By a judgment, June 3d, last, of the \nCourt of Cassation, the Dreyfus case was sent before a court-martial at \nEennes. I read the judgment at the beginning of the trial. It quashes \nand annuls the judgment of December 22, 1894, convicting Captain Al- \nfred Dreyfus, and sends him before a court-martial at Eennes to be tried \non the following question : \n\n"Is Captain Alfred Dreyfus guilty of having in 1894 practised machi- \nnations for the benefit of a foreign power, by delivering the documents \nmentioned in the bordereau? \n\n" The task of the court-martial at Eennes is the same as that of 1894. \nThe trial has been public, and has been conducted with all the fulness \npossible to answer the requirements of justice and public opinion. It is \nmy duty to discharge the task of justice with moderation. I have no per- \nsonal opinion to defend. I have carefully examined the documents, seek- \ning scrupulously to ascertain the truth, without malice, without passion, \nand without fear." \n\nMajor Carriere then entered upon a review of the case. He defended \nthe secret sessions as being necessary, while they did not injure the diffu- \nsion of light; traced the espionage plot, recalled the discovery of the bor- \ndereau and the investigation which was said to show that the traitor was \nDreyfus, and reviewed his prosecution and trial and the judgment of 1894. \n\n"The proceedings," said Major Carriere, "were conducted according to \nthe prevailing conditions. I will say nothing more in regard to the moral \ncharacter of the prisoner, the question of his gambling or consorting with \nloose women. It has been said that we military men are not clever, and \nare not tactful. Maybe that is so. But we are a simple and upright \npeople, who proceed direct toward our duty, and our acts are always char- \nacterized by good faith." \n\nThe major then proceeded to examine the bordereau, saying that apart \nfrom the question of the handwriting, upon which even the experts fell \nout, he thought that the reference to covering of troops and the artillery \n\n\n\nJOUAUST REFUSES TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF ATTACHES 307 \n\nformation were very significant. Esterhazy, he pointed out, would have . \nhad no difficulty in securing the Firing Manual, therefore he could hardly \nhave written that it was difficult to get; while Dreyfus could not easily \nhave obtained it. \n\nDiscussing the sentence about going to the manoeuvres, which has \ncaused so much controversy, Major Carriere declared that it would have \nbeen impossible for Esterhazy to write it. He referred to the complexity \nof the prisoner\'s character, and proceeded to dilate upon the impartiality \nwith which he had examined the whole case, upon which, he asserted, he \nhad entered with his opinion wholly unformed. \n\n" I said to myself, let us take the bull by the horns. It was Picquart \nwho brought about the revision. Let us study Picquart. I found his case \nperfectly constructed, and for a moment hoped we might acquit and reha- \nbilitate an innocent man. It would have been all to our advantage and no \ntrouble to repair a judicial error of the judges of 1894, whose honor has \nnever been impugned. That would necessarily have pacified the public \nmind. But closer investigations of Picquart\'s case showed fissures. My \nmomentary conviction of the innocence of Dreyfus was transformed into \na stronger belief in his guilt, which has been confirmed by the testimony \nof the witnesses ; and I come here to tell you, on my soul and conscience, \nthat Dreyfus is guilty, and I demand the application of Article 76 of the \nPenal Code." \n\nThe last statement of the Government Commissary caused a great deal \nof excitement in court, which was afterward adjourned for the day. \n\nWhen Major Carriere had concluded, and Colonel Jouaust had ordered \nthe adjournment of the court, Dreyfus rose quickly and apparently not de- \njected. \n\nAs the prisoner was passing counsel\'s table, M. Labori stopped him and \nwhispered, "Courage." Dreyfus smiled and nodded, and, as he proceeded, \nM. Jaures, the Socialist leader, and a number of others seated on the \nbenches before which Dreyfus passed, repeated M. Labori\'s word of en- \ncouragement. \n\nThe most elaborate police measures were to be taken during the last \nday of the trial. Eight gendarmes were to be distributed in the court- \nroom. Twenty gendarmes and a detachment of infantry were detailed \nfor duty in the courtyard ; the cordons of troops and gendarmes in the \n\n\n\n308 JDREYPUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nvicinity of the Lyc^e were ordered tripled and placed farther back; de- \ntachments of gendarmes were to be posted on the squares and bridges of \nthe town, and mounted gendarmes had been instructed to patrol the prin- \ncipal streets of Eennes. Also the garrisons of neighboring towns were \nheld in readiness to be despatched to Eennes at a moment\'s notice. \n\n\n\nPLEADING FOR THE PRISONER 309 \n\n\n\nChapter LL \n\nPLEADING FOR THE PRISONER \n\nThe development of the Dreyfus case on September 8th was marked \nby three distinct matters, namely, the opening of the speech of Maitre \nDemange for the defence ; the decision of Maitre Labori not to make a \nspeech for the defence, as he feared to irritate the judges ; and an of&cial \nstatement from Berlin that German agents never had any relations with \nDreyfus. The latter was issued in the following terms : \n\nBerlin, September 8th. \xe2\x80\x94 The Beichsanzeiger this evening, in the of&cial \nportion of the paper, publishes the following statement: \n\n"We are authorized to repeat herewith the declarations which the \nimperial Government, while loyally observing the reserve demanded in \nregard to internal matters of another country, has made concerning the \nFrench Captain Dreyfus. \n\n" For the preservation of his own dignity and the fulfilment of a duty \nto humanity. Prince von Munster, after obtaining the orders of the Empe- \nror, repeatedly made in December, 1894, and in January, 1895, to M. \nHanotaux, M. Dupuy, and M. Casimir-Perier, declarations to the effect \nthat the Imperial Embassy in France never maintained either directly or \nindirectly any relations with Dreyfus. \n\n"Secretary of State von Buelow, in the Eeichstag January 24, 1898, \nmade the following statement: \n\n" \' I declare in the most positive manner that no relations or connec- \ntions of any kind ever existed between the French ex-Captain Dreyfus, \nnow on Devil\'s Island, and any German agents.\'" \n\nAt Rennes this announcement was not received imtil late in the even- \ning of September 8th. \n\nThe hall of the Lyc^e was crowded at the opening of the session of the \ncourt-martial September 8th. At an early hour a long line of people \nawaiting admission was formed outside the door. Standing-room at the \n\n\n\n310 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nback of the court commanded fifteen and twenty francs for places, and the \ndemand was increasing as the trial approached its end. Among the privi- \nileged persons in attendance was Baron Eussell of Killowen, Lord Chief \nJustice of England, who was conducted to a seat by General Chanoine and \nM. Paleologue, of the French Foreign Office. The chief justice came to \nEennes especially from Paris, where he had attended the sessions of the \nAnglo- Venezuelan boundary arbitration commission, in order to see some- \nthing of the trial. \n\nMaitre Demange at once began his speech for the defence. He pointed \nout the strength of the testimony against Esterhazy, and during the course \nof his remarks he cried : " Do you think if Dreyfus and Esterhazy had \nbeen before the court-martial in 1894, that the court would have con- \ndemned Captain Dreyfus ? " \n\nAs he asked this question, counsel pointed to the prisoner sitting be- \nfore him and added : " No. " \n\nThe voice of M. Demange was beautifully modulated, sometimes soft \nand persuasive and at other times sharply argumentative. Then again he \nfrequently filled the hall with his stentorian tones, as he thundered with \nindignation at the charges against Dreyfus, the shameful weakness of the \nprosecution, and in denunciation of Esterhazy. \n\nCaptain Dreyfus listened to the oration of M. Demange with a mask \nof impassibility resembling his attitude during the first days of the trial. \nWhatever the prisoner\'s feelings were as he heard M. Demange pleading \nfor his liberty, he carefully concealed them. \n\nIt was generally noticed that when Maitre Labori entered the court that \nmorning he spoke to M. Demange in a deprecating tone, and a sharp dis- \ncussion ensued, almost bordering on a dispute. The same thing took place \nduring the usual brief suspension of the sitting. The two lawyers appar- \nently were at loggerheads about the best method of conducting the case, \nwhich, it was said, boded no good for Dreyfus, and nobody was astonished \nwhen it was announced that M. Labori would not address the court in be- \nhalf of the prisoner. \n\nThe following, in substance, was the plea of M. Demange : \n\n" However solemn the occasion may be, I must at the outset protest \nwith all my soul against the allegation which one of the witnesses did not \nshrink from uttering. The witness said that whoever advocated the revi- \n\n\n\nPLEADING FOR THE PRISONER 311 \n\nsion of this case, that is to say, whoever believed in the innocence of \nDreyfus, was working against the army and against the country. I here \ndeclare that he does not know me, and that he does not know Maitre \nLabori. Neither M. Labori nor myself would be here if those statements \nwere true. Let me tell you simply this : The day on which, amid the \nshock of furious political passions, I saw let loose over our country this \ntempest of madness, when I saw everything I had learned to revere and \nlove since childhood imperilled, I, a Frenchman, the son of a soldier, en- \ndured every torture. When I turn my eyes toward Devil\'s Island, where \nwas buried alive one who, from the bottom of my heart, I believe to be a \nmartyr, I began to wonder if Divine justice had not abandoned him. \nSince then I have recovered. I have hearkened to the voice of my con- \nscience, and have pursued an undeviating course, free from anger or pas- \nsion, not heeding hatred or prejudice. I have done my duty. You will \ndo yours, which is to mete out justice." \n\nContinuing, M. Demange said he wished to define clearly the prisoner\'s \nposition. On this subject he said : \n\n"When the case of the revision began, Dreyfus was a convict, and se- \nrious presumptions of his innocence were necessary before the case could \nbe taken up by the Court of Cassation. To-day it is for the Public Prose- \ncutor to prove his guilt. Let no one blame us, therefore, if we have not \nproved the innocence of our client. The task was not incumbent upon \nus. It is for the Government Commissioner to show that he is guilty of \nthe abominable crime imputed to him." \n\nCounsel then protested against the suggestion that an attempt had \nbeen made to put Esterhazy on trial, explaining that all the defence de- \nsired was that the innocence of Dreyfus should appear. M. Demange \nadded that he was satisfied that the judges of 1894 were honest, like the \npresent judges. But if the former had seen Esterhazy\'s handwriting, he \nasserted, they would have pronounced a different verdict. \n\nCounsel then entered into details, dealing with the information col- \nlected regarding the prisoner in 1894, during the course of which he re- \nmarked : \n\n"The only real information is that found in the cries from his soul. \nEven before his conviction, what was his first cry ? \' I will not take my \nlife because I am innocent.\' " \n\n\n\n312 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAITD \n\nProceeding, M. Demange dilated upon the prisoner\'s increasing pro- \ntestations of innocence, and his touching letters to his family, ex- \nclaiming : \n\n" In them you see his soul, which speaks. Alone in his tomb he com- \nmunes with himself. He cherishes the hope of seeing his innocence \nacknowledged. " \n\nAmong the letters of Dreyfus read by M. Demange was one in which, \nafter asserting his innocence, and declaring that he always served the tri- \ncolor flag with devotion and honor, the prisoner complained that he was \ntreated on Devil\'s Island like an ordinary convict. It concluded : " I wish \nto live." \n\n"That is a soldier\'s soul," exclaimed M. Demange, "and it is that man \nyou call a traitor. That is the man who, in your presence, restrains his \nsobs and his emotions. Ah, gentlemen, I would rather defend guilty men \nwho are clever dissemblers, than an innocent man who is too sincere." \n\nAfter this, other letters of the prisoner were read, all breathing the \nsame desire to live to see his honor restored, though the writer was broken \ndown in health and spirit. One letter, written in 1897, appealed to Gen- \neral de Boisdeffre to lend his generous aid in securing for the writer res- \ntoration of his liberty, of which he had been robbed. Writing to his \nbrother, the prisoner said : \n\n" While one or more scoundrels are walking free, it would be a happy \nrelease for me to die. But it would be a disgrace to Lucille and my chil- \ndren." \n\nThe letter concluded urging his brother to find the culprits, while care- \nfully protecting the interests of the country. \n\n" Is not that the cry of an innocent man ? " asked M. Demange, added : \n" Yet, though General de Boisdeffre received the letter, he did not forward \nit to Mathieu Dreyfus. Five Ministers of War pronounced Dreyfus \nguilty, while admitting that it was impossible to produce proofs. Gen- \neral de Boisdeft\'re, General Gonse, and General Eoget also affirmed their \nbelief in his guilt. But, happily, they stated reasons, and, instead of \nproofs, only accumulated presumptions." \n\nCounsel, after pointing out that the generals only studied the case at \nthe very moment when public aberration had reduced the whole question \nto a conflict between Dreyfus and the army, thus making it impossible that \n\n\n\nPLEADING FOR THE PRISONER 313 \n\nthe generals should not be prejudiced, and probabilities and presumptions \nseemed to them to be proofs, said : \n\n" I must acknowledge, however, the honesty and honorable conduct of \nthe generals, who could not have acted otherwise than they have done. " \n\nM. Demange then paid an eloquent tribute to the " honesty of purpose" \nmanifested by the generals. Dealing next with the alleged confessions, \ncounsel read the report of Captain Lebrun-Eenault, of the Eepublican \nGuard, who had the prisoner in custody previous to his degradation, and \nmaintained that the exact words of Dreyfus, which were now known only \nto reflect the ideas which Colonel Du Paty de Clam had previously ex- \npressed to the prisoner, point out that, although Du Paty de Clam main- \ntained the contrary, it was certain that imagination had played a much \ngreater part than reason in his acts. It was also significant, counsel said, \nthat the report drawn up by Du Paty de Clam on the day following his \ninterview with Dreyfus had disappeared. Du Paty de Clam, counsel inti- \nmated, had evidently forgotten his remarks to Dreyfus, as he had forgot- \nten other facts. \n\nM. Demange then said that he was surprised at the attitude of General \nGonse toward the alleged confessions, and marvelled at the fact that Cap- \ntain Lebrun-Eenault, who was sent to the Elys^e palace expressly to re- \npeat the confessions, did not mention them. It was likewise inexplicable \nthat General Saussier and General Mercier took no steps to verify the so- \ncalled confessions, which were lost sight of until M. Cavaignac, as Minis- \nter of War, sprung them upon the Chamber of Deputies as proof of the \nguilt of Dreyfus. The Court of Cassation, the lawyer also said, had justly \ndecided that they were not confessions. \n\nDiscussing the secret dossier, M. Demange examined the documents \none after the other. He said that all interpretations of the document \ncommencing " doubt proof " were hypothetical, but they applied much \nmore easily to Esterhazy than to Dreyfus. It was so with the other docu- \nments. There was nothing to indicate that Dreyfus was concerned any \nmore than any one else. The leakage ascribed to Dreyfus could only refer \nto the plans of fortresses, and this leakage continued until 1897. \n\nThe document containing the words "Cette canaille de D ," \n\naccording to M. Demange, only indicated a "poor devil," and could not be \nascribed to a man whom another letter described as a friend in the Second \n\n\n\n314 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nBureau. No credence could be attached to some of the documents, while \nothers were wholly inapplicable to the prisoner. \n\nCounsel said the sixth document was a letter written from Germany \nby Count von Munster-Ledenburg, the German Ambassador to France, to \nColonel Schwartzkoppen, the military attach^ of Germany at Paris, con- \ntaining the words, "As regards Dreyfus, we are easy," M. Demange \npointed out that the Dreyfus case was the universal topic of discussion \nin Germany at the time, and at first the German officials might have \nbeen uneasy, but had evidently reassured themselves. \n\nM. Demange was indignant at the fact that, because Count von Mun- \nster-Ledenburg had not expressly declared Dreyfus was innocent, the pros- \necution should have deduced from his words an avowal of his guilt. \n\nEeferring to the letters of November 2d and November 11th, sent by \nMajor Panizzardi to his chief, it had been alleged that they proved that \nDreyfus had relations with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, whereas in reality \nMajor Panizzardi merely denied that Dreyfus had any relations with \nItaly. It was impossible to doubt the authenticity of these facts. It \nwas incredible that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi de- \nceived their governments. The omission of Esterhazy\'s name from these \nletters was intentional. \n\nIn concluding his examination of the secret dossier, M. Demange re- \nmarked that he felt compelled to refer to these documents emanating from \nforeigners, as General Mercier relied upon them to support the guilt of \nDreyfus. The statements of the military attaches, that they had no rela- \ntions with Dreyfus, had been confirmed by the statement of the Minister \nof State in the Eeichstag, who could not have been deceived by his attach^ \nat Paris. \n\n"I have finished," then said M. Demange, "my examination of the se- \ncret dossier. All Prance knows the worthlessness of its contents. Yet, \nit is owing to it that the country has been distracted for months, and it \nhas been thought that there were documents and proofs in it which might \nbring Prance to blows with a neighboring power. You are now acquaint- \ned with it. The secret dossier has been exploded. You will pardon me \nthe loss of time I have imposed upon you. I will now take up the cir- \ncumstantial evidence." \n\nM. Demange then discussed the circumstantial evidence adduced in \n\n\n\nPLEADING FOR THE PRISONER 315 \n\n1894. He said the perturbation of Dreyfus at the dictation scene had \nnothing to do with producing the idea of guilt in the minds of those pres- \nent. Colonel Du Paty de Clam, M. Cochefert, chief of detectives, and \nMajor Gribelin were all convinced beforehand of his guilt as a result of \nevidence which they considered unimpeachable; so much so that they \nwished Dreyfus to blow his brains out, but Dreyfus declined because he \nwas innocent. \n\nContinuing, counsel for the defence successively showed the hoUow- \nness of the stories of Mathieu Dreyfus\'s attempt to corrupt Colonel Sand- \nherr, the late Lieutenant- Colonel Henry\'s theatrical denunciation of Drey- \nfus as a traitor ao the court-martial of 1894, and the reports of the detec- \ntives. He pointed out how the prosecution had advanced as proof the \nalleged statements of individuals, who were not in the pay of the War \nOffice, but whom they carefully abstained from producing for examination ; \nespecially dwelling upon Henry\'s statement in 1894 \xe2\x80\x94 which has since been \nadmitted to be false^ \xe2\x80\x94 that a certain War Office employee informed him \nthat Dreyfus was the culprit. \n\nM. Demange then showed the emptiness of the gambling and libertine \ncharges against the prisoner, and said that the simplest actions of Dreyfus \nwere misconstrued, even his legitimate desire to obtain knowledge being \nimputed as a crime. \n\nAfter demonstrating the falsity of the testimony of M. de Beaure- \npaire\'s witnesses, Mueller, Dubreuil, Villon, and Cernuschi, counsel said \nthat the only proof left was the bordereau. Who could have sent it? \nWho wrote it? Complete light could only be shed on it by the produc- \ntion of the notes enumerated in the bordereau. This had been said by \nGeneral Zurlinden himself. But counsel asked the court to remember, \nwith reference to those notes, that all General Deloye could say was that \nit was not impossible that Dreyfus might have possessed them. This \nwas all he could say when it was a question of high treason. M. De- \nmange added: \n\n" You will find this phrase in the mouth of a witness entitled to your \nentire respect, and it is upon the strength of such a statement that Drey- \nfus is to be proved guilty. I will not attempt to obtain such light on the \ndocuments, but since theories have been promulgated I will suggest one. \nI will seek to show that you must put aside even the technical value of \n\n\n\n316 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OP DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe bordereau and the last effort of the prosecution. I will seek to com- \nbat the circumstantial evidence it has invoked." \n\nAt this point M. Demange paused to announce that he would need \nanother two hours and a half to finish his plea, and as it was then already \neleven o\'clock the court adjourned until 7:30 a.m., September 9th, thus \nfixing the opening of the court of that day an hour later than usual. \n\nThe general impression formed was that the speech of M. Demange \nmust have had a certain effect on the judges, as it was a strong effort ar- \ngumentatively. \n\nGreat interest was aroused during the day by the arrival at Eennes of \nMax Eegis, the ex-mayor of Algiers, the notorious Jew-baiter. He was \nattended by a couple of Algerians in native costume, and a crowd of peo- \nple followed him about. He stopped to take some refreshment at the \nprincipal caf^, and the place was immediately invaded by a gaping crowd. \nM. Eegis was present in the court-yard of the Lyc^e during the morning, \nand discussed the situation with the leading anti-Dreyfusards. His pres- \nence was not considered a good omen for the peace of the town. \n\nThe local papers published an open letter from M. Eegis to the Premier, \nM. Waldeck-Eousseau, declaring that he, M, Eegis, intended to preserve \nthe greatest calm, but adding that if an attempt was made to arrest him \nhe would resist. \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 817 \n\n\n\nChapter LII. \n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY \n\nWhen Rennes awoke on September 9th, the appearance of the streets \nleft no doubt that the final crisis of the great trial had been reached. The \nwhole town bristled with soldiers; all the streets near the court were \nguarded at intervals by double lines of infantry ; two companies of infan- \ntry sat on the church steps adjoining the Lyc^e, with their arms stacked \nin front of them, while in the courtyard of the prison and at various \nother points cavalry could be seen in readiness. Every one entering the \ncourt was subjected to the closest scrutiny. Even the few women who \nattended the session were deprived of their small sunshades before being \npermitted to pass. \n\nA larger crowd than usual witnessed the passage of Dreyfus from the \nprison to the Lyc^e. But the crowds were nowhere large, and, aside \nfrom the presence of the military, the town was as tranquil as usual. \n\nThe prisoner looked flushed and in ill health, apparently suffering from \nthe great strain. \n\nM. Demange resumed his speech for the defence, which was interrupt- \ned on September 8th by the adjournment of the court. The audience \nlistened to his remarks with the most serious attention, and he was also \nclosely followed by the judges. In his appeal to them he strongly ac- \ncentuated the words : " Why, you must not say a thing is possible. A \njudge must have proof. No doubt must rest on the conscience of a judge." \n\nIn the second row of the privileged public, facing the judges, sat \nMathieu Dreyfus, brother of the prisoner, whose sunken eyes and careworn \nface reflected his anxiety and anguish. It was evident that he had not \nslept during the night. \n\nThe prisoner sat behind a captain of gendarmes, and as M. Demange \nrefuted the arguments made in the speech of the Government Commissary, \nMajor Carriere, the prisoner continually turned his face toward Mathieu, \n\n\n\n318 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nto watch the effect it had upon him. Dreyfus, however, did not display \nthe intense emotion with which his heart, on this critical morning, must \nhave been bursting. \n\nGendarmes were plentifully sown among the audience, and were posted \nin the gangways around the court-room. There was a pleasant contrast \nin their pretty blue uniforms with white cord trimmings, to the sober \nattire of the majority of the spectators. They kept their eyes roaming over \nthe court, and their hands rested on the black leather cases in which nes- \ntled big army revolvers. \n\nThe silence was only broken by the occasional rustling of a reporter\'s \nnotebook, or the neigh of an artillery horse picketed in a street beside the \nLyc6e. Now and then there was the sound of the rattling of a rifle or the \nclanking of the sword of some officer hastily crossing the court-yard where \nthe troops were stationed. \n\nThe peroration of M. Demange was a splendid piece of oratory. His \nvoice thundered through the court, echoed outside, and the officers and \ntroopers stationed in the court-yard crowded around the entrance hall, \nstanding on tiptoe to catch a glimpse of the speaker, while inside the hall \nmany of the audience were moved to tears. \n\nThe speech was very skilfully arranged, and was devoted to demolish- \ning stone by stone the arguments of the prosecution. Counsel began by \nsaying : \n\n" When yesterday\'s (September 8th) sitting was ended I was about to \ndeal with what is called the direct evidence, namely, the technical value \nof the bordereau. The prosecution, by taking separately each of the notes \ncontaining information supplied by the writer of the bordereau, deduced \nthe opinion that he alone could have communicated information of the \ndocuments. If he had in his possession proof of this, he should have given \nit. It devolved upon the Public Prosecutor to prove that Dreyfus pos- \nsessed this information, and nobody but he. That is how the question \nmust be put. We are before a court of justice, in which suppositions have \nno place. In order to produce proof, I must ask, and we must know, what \nwas the information supplied. Consequently, we must have the notes de- \nlivered. Otherwise we have to deal with a hypothesis. That is my first \nobjection, to which I challenge the Public Prosecutor to reply." \n\nM. Demange, remarking that the hypothesis accepted in 1894 could \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 319 \n\nnot now be maintained, proceeded minutely to examine the theories of the \nHeadquarters Staff, especially General Eoget\'s, whose arguments he refu- \nted seriatim. He similarly analyzed the evidence of General Mercier, \nreiterating the arguments as to the utter improbability of an artilleryman \nemploying the incorrect terms used in the bordereau in connection with \nartillery matters. \n\nHe then reviewed the well-known facts in the case, showing that Col- \nonel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^ at Paris, supplied \ninformation to his government, years before, regarding the " 120-short " \nfield-gun. He said that only the internal construction of the brake of this \ngun remained secret, but Dreyfus knew nothing about it, and never asked \nfor information on the subject from the few officers knowing it. There- \nfore, counsel contended, Dreyfus could not have betrayed this secret. \n\nEegarding the practical tests of the gun, M. Demange continued, Drey- \nfus was similarly ignorant. General Mercier\' s statement that Dreyfus \nattended the trials could be dismissed, as it had been proved that the \nonly leakage resulting from those trials had been furnished by the spy \nGrenier. It was thus apparent into what error all the witnesses support- \ning the prosecution had fallen. Their opinions had been imperfectly \nformed, and the judges must be on their guard against it, honest and sin- \ncere as it doubtless was. \n\nAfter refuting the imputations against Dreyfus based on the Firing \nManual, which he said were purely hpyothetical, M. Demange continued, \nemphatically : \n\n"The prosecution has no right to rest content with hypothesis. We \nare in a court of justice. The defence alone has the right to say it is pos- \nsible or not possible. As General Deloye declared, it is the duty of the \nPublic Prosecutor to produce evidence. But he had adduced none against \nDreyfus." \n\nAfter showing that the prisoner had never seen the " 120-short " field- \ngun fired, counsel read letters from Esterhazy proving that the latter at- \ntended the Chalons camp, and probably attended the trials. \n\n"But the prosecution," M. Demange added, "has not to choose between \nDreyfus and Esterhazy. It has only to prove Dreyfus guilty, and could \nnot do so. On the contrary, we have shown that Dreyfus did not possess \nthe documents communicated nor the information contained in them." \n\n\n\n320 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nDealing with the note referring to the covering of troops, M. Demange \npointed out General Mercier\'s change of front on this subject. In 1894 \nthe general contended that it was in reference to the commands of these \ntroops that the leakage occurred, while he now asserted that it was regard- \ning the mobilization and transport of the troops. The prosecution had \nthus advanced two versions, which must cause the judges terrible search- \nings of conscience, especially as no proofs had been furnished. What right \nhad the prosecution to advance statements without corroboration? Coun- \nsel put it to the conscience of the judges, and he had asked this of Gene- \nral Mercier himself. \n\nContinuing to plead with great warmth and eloquence, and with clear, \nclosely reasoned arguments, which were followed with breathless interest \nby the entire audience, M. Demange declared that he did not believe in \nthe complicity of Henry and Esterhazy, for Henry was honorable and loyal. \nIf he had been the accomplice of Esterhazy, Henry would have destroyed \nthe bordereau. Possibly Henry had inadvertently divulged information \nto Esterhazy, under the impression that he was conversing with an hon- \norable, straightforward man like himself, and, discovering in 1898 that he \nhad placed his hand in a traitor\'s, he committed a crime upon which \ncounsel declined to enlarge, since the perpetrator had already paid for it \nwith his life. What other explanation could be given of the suicide of \nthis man, with whom the whole army sympathized ? Even after the dis- \ncovery of the crime Henry had spoken of scoundrels. Was one of these \nnot Esterhazy and the other Weil, the latter having unconsciously betrayed \ninformation? General Saussier had every confidence in Henry\'s loyalty, \nand Esterhazy might have received information from Henry or Weil, who \nwere unconscious informers. \n\nA loyal soldier, General Billot, had moreover said that the traitor was \nnot alone. In his mind he connected the names of Esterhazy and Drey- \nfus. Counsel did not profess to clear up the matter, but he wished it to \nbe cleared up. It must be proved that Dreyfus knew Esterhazy and Weil. \nM. Demange did not fear whatever light could be thrown on the case. \nThree men were in the Intelligence Department \xe2\x80\x94 Henry, Esterhazy, and \nWeil. Esterhazy had even placed the others under pecuniary obligations, \nand all these were closely bound together. \n\nEeplying to tho hypothesis deduced in the note relating to the modifi- \n\n\n\n\'ffw^T^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI isi \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'^I^^.M^ \n\n\n\n-V \n\n\n\nCAPTAIN DREYFUS: "THAT I AM ALIVE TO-DAY I OWE TO MY WIFE." \n\n\n\ni \n\n\n\n\nTHE TRIAL AT RENNES : COLONEL JOUAUST READING THE ARRAIGNMENT AT \n\nTHE BAR. \n\n\n\n\n>H \n02 \n\nm \nH \n\n02 \n\n"A \nO \n\nO \n\nI\xe2\x80\x94 I \nH \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nrts^^mAitiiiim0f\'\'^\'"\'sgssi^\' \n\n\n\n1^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMAITEE DEMANGE ADDRESSING THE COURT IN BEHALF OF DREYFUS. \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 321 \n\ncation of the artillery, M. Demange pointed out that the information could \nhave been obtained by Esterhazy at the Chalons camp, while, regarding \nthe Madagascar note, Dreyfus had naver had possession of it, though one \nof his most bitter prosecutors, Colonel Du Paty de Clam, had it in his \noffice. \n\nEetuming to the Firing Manual, counsel showed how Esterhazy se- \ncured a copy of it, and pointed to the fact that his government had asked \nColonel Schwartzkoppen for supplementary information, which showed \nthat the original intelligence was incomplete, and supplied by an in- \ncompetent person, not an artilleryman. The memorandum to Colonel \nSchwartzkoppen asked for the Firing Manual, which must, therefore, have \nbeen offered, and to the graduation bar, which Esterhazy had obtained from \na friend and kept. \n\nHad all these proofs existed against Dreyfus, how strong would have \nbeen the case for the prosecution ! But their hypotheses were not even \nprobable, while the theories of the defence were all supported by docu- \nments culled from the secret dossier. \n\nDealing with the last line of the bordereau, " I am going to the man- \noeuvres," counsel produced a note, written by Dreyfus, proving that he \nknew in May, 1894, that he would not attend the manoeuvres with his \nregiment. \n\nCounsel dwelt upon the importance of the fact that the probationers \nabsolutely knew they would not attend the manoeuvres, though certain \nindividuals cherished the hope that exceptions might be made in their \nfavor. Only one actually applied to General de Boisdeffre for permission, \nbut the latter did nob promise anything. M. Demange protested against \nthe Government Commissioner\'s assertion that it had been agreed that the \nprobationers should attend the manoeuvres as officers of the Headquarters \nStaff, and said he wished to know if Major Carriere adhered to his state- \nment on the subject. \n\nMajor Carriere recalled that General de Boisdeffre had declared that \nhe had promised to do his best to satisfy the probationers. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 And you call that an agreement? \n\nMajor Carriere \xe2\x80\x94 Certainly. \n\nM. Demange \xe2\x80\x94 Then we do not agree as to the meaning of the word \n\nin the French language. \n21 \n\n\n\n322 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nContinuing, M. Demange exclaimed: \n\n" Hear what the author of the bordereau writes : \' I am going to the \nmanoeuvres.\' Is that only a belief ? Isn\'t it rather a certainty? Well, \ngentlemen, I have shown you that Dreyfus could not have written that. \nOn the contrary, Esterhazy\'s regiment was at the manoeuvres, regarding \nwhich information was supplied. Was Esterhazy there? I do not know. \nBut what is certain is that Dreyfus, if he was the author of the bordereau, \ncould not have written at the end of August : \' I am going to the ma- \nnoeuvres,\' since he knew the probationers were not going, I think I have \nshown that when all the points of the accusation are examined they van- \nish. So much for the technical value of the bordereau, I have argued \nfoot by foot with my honorable friends on the other side, and I have \nshown the fallacy of the mental process whereby they reached the point \nthat they were able to affirm on their soul and conscience that Dreyfus \nwas guilty. I might therefore say with pride that I have demolished the \ncase of the prosecution. But I am not entitled to do so. I merely say \nto the court, be careful. You must be certain, and before you can say \nDreyfus is guilty you must, on your souls and consciences, be able to de- \nclare that there is no doubt that no one but he had the documents enu- \nmerated in the bordereau. But you do not know what the documents are. \nThat is my last word on this portion of the case. I have now to deal \nwith the material evidence." \n\nCounsel next dissected the handwriting evidence, and reminded the \ncourt of the groans with which M. Scheurer-Kestner was greeted when ha \ndisplayed the handwriting of Esterhazy in the tribune of the Senate. \n\n" \'Is that all you have? \' disdainfully asked the Senators. To-day the \nprosecution has no more." \n\nReferring to M. Bertillon, M. Demange said he did not understand his \nconclusions. "He produced in court a monumental work," said the law- \nyer. " But I am convinced, and hope to prove, that M. Bertillon\'s system \nis false. But, I must do him the justice of saying that when the Prefect \nof Police applied to M. Bertillon he appealed to a man of genius who, by \nthe creation of the Anthropometric Department, conferred upon society an \ninestimable benefit. Still, I can only say, \' You have fallen into error \nwhich may be fatal to an innocent man.\' " \n\nProceeding, M. Demange demolished M. Bertillon\'s theories, dealing \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 823 \n\nat great length with the different contentions, admitting that some of them \nmight content certain scientific minds. But, he added, it must not be for- \ngotten that genius had a dangerous neighbor. It did not do to have too \nmuch genius, and M. Bertillon\'s work was liable to land the judges in se- \nrious error. The statements of scientists, the evidence of common sense, \nand the declarations of M. Bertillon himself showed that the experts had \nnot proved the guilt of Dreyfus. If the handwriting of the bordereau was \ndisguised, how could Dreyfus\'s exclamation, "This handwriting has a \nfrightful resemblance to mine," be explained? \n\nCounsel said he was convinced that the bordereau was written, in his \nnatural hand, by Esterhazy. The paper on which it was written also con- \ndemned Esterhazy. \n\nM. Demange next examined at length the theory that Esterhazy was \na straw-man, and showed this was rendered quite untenable by every ac- \ntion of Colonel Picquart, who was accused of trying to effect the substitu- \ntion. How, if Esterhazy was a straw-man, could he have lost his head \nat the moment of his arrest to such an extent that he contemplated sui- \ncide? The lawyer contrasted the lives of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, saying \nthere was nothing but idle tales against the former, while the latter was \nalways in search of a five-franc piece. When the time arrived for the \njudges to say whether the bordereau was in the handwriting of Dreyfus, \nthey would have to remember that all the experts admitted that it was \nnot, while all of them admitted that it showed traces of Esterhazy\'s \nhandwriting. They would also have to compare the demeanor of Drey- \nfus during the past five years with the demeanor of Esterhazy to-day : \nOne, on Devil\'s Island, constantly turning his eyes toward France and \nappealing to General de Boisdeffre against his conviction, demanding only \njustice ; the other full of recriminations and bitter abuse, writing insulting \nletters to the generals. \n\nM. Demange, after reverting briefly to the charges in connection with \nthe Eobin shell, protested against General Mercier\'s refusal to discuss \nmotives, as being merely a psychological question, while it was in \nreality a question of common sense. There was an entire lack of mo- \ntive in the case of Dreyfus, while there was every motive upon the \npart of Esterhazy. Dreyfus was rich and happy, he had two children \nwho were his pride and joy, and a wife of whose devoted courage all \n\n\n\n324 DREYFUS: THE PRISONEE OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwere aware \xe2\x80\x94 everything a man could desire. Why should he have \nrisked all that? \n\n"Believe me," added M. Demange, "my conviction comes from an \nhonest heart. I am convinced that the judges, with the doubt which \nwill remain in their minds, will find it impossible to declare the prisoner \nguilty, for they will rather turn their eyes to the men hiding on the other \nside oi: the Channel. I ask you once more whether the noble, dignified \nbearing of the prisoner since 1894 is not that of an honest, loyal soldier? " \n\nAfter this, M. Demange, with his voice broken with emotion, tears \nstreaming down his face, and hands trembling, concluded his brilliant \nflight of oratory. \n\n"Ah, gentlemen," said he, "I must now close in order to restore you \nto your well-earned repose, for I have now been addressing you for two \ndays. But, there is one thing which detains me. When I have finished, \nthe last word of the defence will have been said, and you will go to your \nprivate room to consider your verdict. Once there, what are you going \nto ask yourselves ? If Dreyfus is innocent ? That is not the point. But \nis he guilty ? You will ask yourselves, \' Are we going to say he sent \nthese documents when we do not even know what they contain ? \' and \nwhen you say to yourselves, after having heard that the defence is power- \nless, it is true, to throw complete light on the matter \xe2\x80\x94 but, believe me, \nspeaking from sincere, honest conviction, we do not know what he sent. \nAnother may have given these documents ; but he, no, no ! These were \nthings he could not have given \xe2\x80\x94 " when you say to yourselves further that \nthis writing is not his, when you say to yourselves that there is over there \non the other side of the Channel a man of whom we have to say, \' It is \nhe,\' \xe2\x80\x94 will there be, gentlemen, no doubt in your minds? That doubt will \nbe sufficient for me. That doubt will mean his acquittal. It will not \npermit honest, logical consciences to say this man is guilty. Very well, \ngentlemen, I ask only one thing, and that is that at this moment you cast \none more backward glance. Eemember what the prisoner was on Devil\'s \nIsland. Eemember how, for five years, this man, in spite of the most \nhorrible sufferings, notwithstanding the most cruel torture, was never for \na single moment alone, a guard with him night and day, and never allowed \nto exchange a syllable with a fellow-creature. I am not speaking of the \ntorture of his being placed in irons ; I am speaking of the terrible mental \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 325 \n\ntorture to which he was subjected. Well, gentlemen, the spirit which \nthese sufferings, these tortures could not curb, that spirit which remained \nproud and high, I ask you, is it the spirit of a traitor? I ask you if it is \nnot that of a loyal, tried soldier? I ask if the man who only lived for his \nchildren, that they may bear an honored name, this man here who has the \ncult of honor in his family, I ask if you can believe him to be a villain \nand a traitor to his motherland ? No, I have no need to proclaim his in- \nnocence. I say your verdict will not be a verdict of guilty, for you have \nbeen enlightened. The judges of 1894 had not been so enlightened. They \nhave not before them Esterhazy\'s writing. But you had it. That is the \nconducting wire, as God has permitted you, gentlemen, to have it. \n\n" My task is now accomplished. It is for you to do yours. I pray \nGod," exclaimed counsel, lifting his arms toward Heaven \xe2\x80\x94 "I pray God \nthat you will restore to our France the concord of which she had so much \nneed ! " Then, turning to the audience, in which every eye was fixed upon \nhim, M. Demange added, in conclusion: \n\n"As to you, whoever you may be. Frenchmen, be you with me or \nagainst me, finding inspiration in the sublime idea of M. Mornaud before \nthe Court of Cassation, I say to all, we are Frenchmen. Let us then be \nunited in the common sentiment of love of country, love of justice, and \nlove of the army." \n\nAs he reached this climax, the counsel\'s voice swelled like the tones \nof an organ, and the close of his impassioned peroration was followed by \nan outburst of applause, which was immediately suppressed by the presi- \ndent. \n\nM. Labori then said he did not desire to speak. \n\nMajor Carriere, however, claimed the right to reply. \n\nWhen the court resumed its session after a brief adjournment, the \nGovernment Commissary began his reply. He promised to be brief, and \nsaid he desired to submit to the court-martial a simple observation : \n\n" Weigh the importance of the two categories of witnesses, those for \nand those against the prisoner. Weigh their importance, and judge, in all \nthe independence of your character and all the strength of soldiers. Proof \nis everywhere. The hour of supreme decision has sounded. France \nanxiously awaits your judgment. I also await it, confidently and fully \nmaintaining the conclusions already announced. I demand the applica- \n\n\n\n326 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ntion of Article 76 of the Penal Code and Article 267 of the Military \nCode." \n\nThe demand of the Government Commissary caused a sensation in \ncourt. \n\nM. Demange rose to reply, with his voice hoarse from fatigue. He \nsaid: \n\n" The Government Commissioner, in reminding you of the text of the \nlaw, has also reminded us of what we already knew \xe2\x80\x94 namely, that you \nare only answerable to your consciences and God for your verdict. This \nis my last word in this case. I feel that as men of honor and loyalty \nand as military judges you will never admit as proofs the hypotheses and \npresumptions advanced here; consequently my last word is the samel \nspoke this morning. I have confidence in you because you are soldiers." \n\nColonel Jouaust, president of the court, asked Dreyfus if he had any- \nthing to add in his behalf. The prisoner rose, and in a voice choked with \nemotion declared he had only one thing to say, but of that he was per- \nfectly assured. He said : \n\n" I affirm before my country and before the army that I am innocent. \nMy sole aim has been to save the honor of my name, the name borne by \nmy children. I have suffered five years of the most awful torture. But, \nto-day, at last, I feel assured that I am about to attain my desire, through \nyour loyalty and justice." \n\nColonel Jouaust \xe2\x80\x94 Have you finished, Dreyfus? \n\nDreyfus \xe2\x80\x94 Yes, Mr. President. \n\nThe court then retired to deliberate, and the prisoner left the hall, \nnever to return, as, in accordance with the law, the verdict was rendered \nin his absence. \n\nAfter about two hours\' deliberation, the court, by a vote of five to two, \nfound the prisoner "guilty, with extenuating circumstances," and sentenced \nhim to ten years\' detention. \n\nThe text of the judgment was as follows : \n\n"To-day, the 9th of September, 1899, the court-martial of the Tenth \nLegion Army Corps, deliberating behind closed doors, the president put \nthe following question : \n\n"\' Is Alfred Dreyfus, brevet captain Fourteenth Eegiment of Artillery, \nprobationer on the General Staff, guilty of having in 1894 entered into \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 327 \n\nmachinations or held relations with a foreign power, or one of its agents, \nto induce it to commit hostility or undertake war against Trance, or pro- \ncure it the means therefor, by delivering the notes and documents men- \ntioned in the document called the bordereau, according to the decision of \nthe Court of Cassation of June 3, 1899? \n\n" The votes were taken separately, beginning by the inferior grade and \nyoungest in the last grade, the president giving his opinion last. \n\n" The court declares on the question, by a majority of five votes to two, \n\'Yes,\' the accused is guilty. \n\n"The majority agreed that there are extenuating circumstances, in \nconsequence of which and on the request of the commissary of the Gov- \nernment, the president put the question and received again the votes in \nthe above-mentioned form. \n\n"As a result, the court condemns, by a majority of five votes to two, \nAlfred Dreyfus to the punishment of ten years\' detention." \n\nThe judgment then quotes the Code and the Constitution under which \nthe sentence was delivered, with the article of the law enjoining the Gov- \nernment Commissary to have the judgment immediately read in the pres- \nence of the prisoner, before the assembled guard, under arms, and to notify \nhim that the law allowed a delay of twenty-four hours in which to lodge \nan appeal. \n\nThe silence was immediately broken by a rush of the reporters to drop \ntheir previously prepared telegrams into the letter-box in the street, where \na gendarme received them and gave them to the respective messengers for \ntransmission by wire. \n\nThe noise called forth a stem cry of " Silence ! " and again all sound \nwas hushed until Colonel Jouaust finished speaking. He concluded by \nsaying the court would remain sitting until the room was cleared. He \nasked the audience to go out quietly and not to raise a shout of any sort. \n\nThe gendarmes then closed around the audience 9,nd pressed them out- \nside. Not a cry or a word was raised by any one. Everything passed off \nwith complete calm. \n\nAs the people emerged the gendarmes kept them moving away from \nthe court. The small crowd outside cheered. \n\nThe pent-up feelings of the audience were expressed in a long, deep- \ndrawn "Oh!" when Colonel Jouaust reached the word "guilty." The \n\n\n\n328 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nword was pronounced under his breath. Owing to the threat of vigorous \npunishment for uttering any cry there was no outburst, but the faces of the \nmajority of the spectators reflected an expression of anguished surprise. \n\nMaitre Labori heard the verdict with a pallid visage, while Maitre \nDemange fell back in a chair as though horror-stricken. Colonel Jouaust \nread the judgment without a tremor of his voice and apparently unmoved. \n\nAfter the verdict M. Demange said : \n\n" Terrible ! Unbelievable ! It was the most awful shock I ever received \nin my life. I am trying to put myself in those men\'s places and view \nthe problem as they did. Try as I may, I cannot grasp how they reasoned \nit out." \n\n" It is as I expected," said M. Labori. " I was convinced from the first \nthat we were dealing with an unconscionable set, and I handled them ac- \ncordingly. My views were not fully supported, and I consented to yield. \nNow it is not for me to speak. The fight was not carried on as it would \nhave been if I had been in full charge. \n\n" Now we must bend all our energy to secure a reversal and obtain a \nnew revision. I am leaving with M. Demange at twelve to-night to pre- \nsent an appeal in Paris. Monira alone stays here to get the signature of \nDreyfus on certain papers." \n\nZola telegraphed to M. Labori, saying : \n\n"You were right, we were wrong. Your plan of making this crime \nimpossible by disqualifying thoroughly all the military witnesses showed \nyou had penetrated them more than we. Henceforth count me as a most \ndetermined partisan for a vigorous fight, and no mercy to the foe when we \nhave him down. From this day I re-enter the arena, never again to \nleave it." \n\nM. Clemenceau also telegraphed to M. Labori. He said : \n\n" Congratulations, nevertheless. You know what I think and how I \nfeel now. "We must never rest till the five men now branded before an \noffended world are securely lodged in a penitentiary for wilful abuse of \nsacred laws trusted to their hands." \n\nMax Nordau said : \n\n" No words would fitly express my indignation. " \n\nM. Jaures, the Socialist leader, said : \n\n" Military tribunals must be abolished, and will be. They are a sur- \n\n\n\nAGAESr FOUND GUILTY 329 \n\nvival of mediaeval prejudices. All citizens must be equal before the law. \nThe danger of allowing one caste to consider itself separate from the rest \nof the nation and above common law was vividly exemplified in to-day\'s \nmonstrous decision." \n\nOctave Mirabeau said : \n\n" This marks the beginning of a protracted political convulsion. Either \nwe shall sink to the insignificance of Spain or rid our country of the cleri- \ncal obscurantism which does not pervade the army alone, but a large por- \ntion of our people." \n\nM. Marcel Prevost, the able correspondent at Eennes of the New York \nHerald, cabled to his paper: \n\n"Dreyfus is condemned. You will read the new conditions of the \nsentence he has to undergo. They extenuate a little the rigor of his \nformer judgment. But he is condemned. He is going to be degraded once \nmore. \n\n" This sentence was received with death-like stupor. Alas ! for sev- \neral days I have foreseen it only too clearly, but my conscience refused \nto believe it possible. \n\n"Don\'t ask me for any comment on such an event as this. My heart \nas a man and a Frenchman is too full of grief. It seems to me as if my \ncountry had just heard a condemnation pronounced upon it." \n\n"Counsel for Dreyfus immediately prepared an appeal, which the pris- \noner signed at noon, September 10th. \n\nAfter the verdict the health of the prisoner failed steadily, and it was \nsaid he was only able to take the very lightest nourishment, eggs and \nmilk. But, sustained by the loving and wise counsels of his wife, who \nwas allowed to see him in prison daily, Dreyfus bore up, and his friends \ncontinued their efforts in his behalf. \n\nOn September 19th, it was announced from Paris that the Council of \nMinisters had decided to pardon Dreyfus "in principle," and that the par- \ndon would take effect a few days later. It was also announced that Drey- \nfus had relinquished his appeal for a reversal of the judgment of the court- \nmartial. This was in accordance with the advice of his friends, who \nwere anxious to secure his release, almost at any cost, in view of his fail- \ning health. But, it was added, this did not by any means indicate that \nthe efforts to establish clearly the innocence of Dreyfus, and find the \n\n\n\n330 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nreally guilty man, would be abandoned. On the contrary, it was said that \nthe search for the real culprit would be continued until Dreyfus was \ncleared of all suspicion of treason. \n\nDreyfus was released from his prison at Eennes at three o\'clock on \nthe morning of September 20th, and proceeded to Vern, with his faithful \nbrother, Mathieu Dreyfus, where he took a train bound for Nantes. At \nNantes the two brothers took a train for Bordeaux and Carpentras, in the \ndepartment of Vaucluse, sixteen miles northeast of Avignon, where he \ntook up his residence at the home of his brother-in-law, M. Valabregue, a \nwell-known cloth-merchant, who has been established there for over a \nquarter of a century. There was no demonstration at Carpentras when \nDreyfus arrived there. \n\nCarpentras is situated on the Eiver Auzon, in a fertile district at the \nfoot of Mont Ventoux. The town is surrounded by walls, flanked by \ntowers, and has four gates. Outside the walls is a broad esplanade planted \nwith trees. In 1313 Pope Clement V. fixed his residence there, and made \nit the seat of the Pontifical See. The present walls were built by Pope \nInnocent VI., fifty years after that event. The principal public buildings \nof Carpentras are the cathedral, a Gothic edifice; a museum, the Porte \nd\' Orange; the Palace of Justice; a Eoman triumphal arch; the hospital, \nerected in 1751; the theatre, prisons, and a library containing 25,000 vol- \numes, 6,000 medals, and various antiquities. The aqueduct, a massive \nstructure which crosses the valley of the Auzon by forty-eight arches, \nwas finished in 1734. Carpentras has a population of about 10,000 \nsouls. \n\nWhen Dreyfus first met his children, on September 23d, the Saturday \nafter his arrival at Carpentras, the liberated man stood outside the garden \nat the end of the carriage drive leading to the Valabregue villa. On see- \ning him his little boy and girl, Pierre and Jeanne, jumped out of the car- \nriage which was bringing them, with their grandparents, M. and Mme. \nHadamard, from the railway station whence they had arrived from Paris, \nand ran toward their father. Pressing them both in his arms, Dreyfus \nkissed them passionately, and pressed them again and again to his heart, \ntears of joy coursing down his face as he did so. He was overwhelmed \nwith emotion and unable to speak a single word. This first interview \nwith his children, after five years\' separation, affected him so deeply that \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 331 \n\nhe remained completely prostrated with nervous exhaustion during the \nrest of the day. \n\nOf course the verdict of the court-martial alone practically established \nthe fact that the charges against Dreyfus had not been proved, therefore \nthe light sentence and the rider of "extenuating circumstances." This \nwas confirmed by the action of the Cabinet Council in deciding to pardon \nthe prisoner. Dreyfus, although condemned, was, to all intents and pur- \nposes, shown not to have been guilty as charged. \n\nThe future efforts in behalf of this seeming martyr and apparent vic- \ntim of French military incompetency will be watched with the greatest \ninterest throughout the world. \n\nIt is sad to add that, on the very day it was announced from Paris that \nthe prisoner was to be pardoned, there came at exactly the same hour an- \nother despatch from the French capital saying that M. Scheurer-Kestner, \nthe former Vice-President of the Senate and great champion of the cause \nof Dreyfus, was dead. He had been suffering from typhoid fever for \nsome days previously, and expired without the consolation of knowing \nthat his great work had triumphed. \n\nDreyfus was deeply grieved when informed of the death of his cham- \npion, M. Scheurer-Kestner. He was especially grieved that M. Scheurer- \nKestner did not live long enough to receive his thanks. One of Dreyfus\'s \nfirst acts after he was freed was to order a wreath for M, Scheurer-Kestner\'s \ncoffin. \n\nDreyfus wrote the following letter to M. Marcelin Pellet, son-in-law \nof M. Scheurer-Kestner, on September 21st: \n\nSir : \xe2\x80\x94 My first thought immediately after my liberation was for M. \nScheurer-Kestner. What, therefore, was my profound grief on learning \nyesterday en route the great sorrow which has befallen you. I was impa- \ntiently awaiting the moment when I should be able to pay to M. Scheurer- \nKestner the respectful homage of my admiration for his character, his \nloyalty, the generous ardor with which he took in hand the cause of an \nAlsatian innocent of the abominable crime for which he had been con- \ndemned. I beg you to be so kind to express this homage to all the mem- \nbers of his family, and to assure them how deeply I share with them their \naffliction. I shall never forget all I owe to M. Scheurer-Kestner. I shall \nteach my children that if honor has been rendered to their father it is \n\n\n\n332 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthanks to his admirable devotion, and I shall teach them to love and TBn- \nerate his memory. \n\nAlso the same day and about the same hour came a trumpet note from \nCardinal Vaughan, the great English prelate, who, in a public letter on \nthe Dreyfus case, published in London, said the Eoman Catholic Church \ncondemned the persecution of the Jews and of every other race. He \nadded : \n\nIf Jews or Christians practise usury and extortion, or do any other \nhurtful thing, let laws be passed, not against Jews, but against the mal- \npractices complained of, and let the law strike Jew or Gentile with equal \nseverity. \n\nIt is unjust to identify the Catholic Church with the act of injustice, \nwhereby Dreyfus was condemned at Eennes without clear evidence of his \nguilt. The case has been, from beginning to end, a state affair of military \ninterest and of state treason, in which the Church has had no place. \n\nI do not wish one word I write to be taken as an approval of the \nEennes verdict. On the contrary, I share the indignation expressed \nagainst it, because it was unjustified by the evidence, and it is within the \nright of any man in any country to say that upon the evidence before him \nthe verdict is infamous; but, having denounced the judgment pronounced \nby the officers, it is simply monstrous that foreigners should at once rush \nin and, before the judgment has been considered by the supreme authori- \nties of the state, denounce the whole nation as savages. \n\nThe Figaro said : " Dreyfus will devote the rest of his life to the re- \ncovery of his honor. He is afraid, however, that he will die before this \ncan be accomplished." \n\nMme. Dreyfus received hundreds of telegrams of congratulations on \nher husband\'s pardon. Most of these messages came from Great Britain \nand the United States. \n\nThe anti-Dreyfus newspapers were frantic over the prisoner\'s pardon. \n\nThe Eclair said it had hopes that the country would be spared this \ndisgrace. \n\nThe Gaulois said : " Nothing can justify the pardon. Public opinion \nmay not understand it, but the army will, for it had its revenge at \nEennes." \n\n\n\nAGAIN FOUND GUILTY 333 \n\nThe Journal said : " Dreyfus is a traitor, and his pardon will not alter \nthat fact." \n\nThe Intransigeant said it proved that " if Dreyfus was a traitor Presi- \nden Loubet was another." \n\nThe Petit Journal remarked that it is merely a sop to the " Triple \nAlliance Syndicate." \n\nThe Aurore said the Government has shown its " horror a-t the denial \nof justice by the Eennes court-martial," \n\nThe Eclair stated that a monster petition from Jewish people, headed \nwith the names of the Eothschilds, had been presented to President Loubet \nasking for Dreyfus\'s rehabilitation. \n\n\n\n334 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter LIIL \nINDIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD \n\nThe announcement of the second verdict in the Dreyfus case caused \na wave of indignation to sweep around the world. \n\nParis heard the news calmly. But the general opinion was that it \nwas only the end of another chapter in the history of this famous case, and \nthat the bitter fight would be continued. \n\nM. Drumont, in the Libre Parole, said the members of the court-martial \npresented a beautiful spectacle. They are warriors, without fear and \nwithout reproach. Nothing could disturb them, neither outrages nor flat- \nteries which were still more insulting. Nor did the Government\'s black- \nmail succeed in extracting by force the acquittal of the most flagrant of \ntraitors. \n\nThe Petit Journal said : " The guilty officer struck down tries to con- \ntinue the agitation despite his promises to respect the court-martial\'s \nverdict. " \n\nThe Croix declared that the verdict confirmed Prance\'s military justice. \nIt was dealt without fear or favor, and without passion except such as was \ninspired by justice. \n\nThe Courier du Soir demanded that everybody accept the verdict. It \nprayed the Government to accord mercy to the prisoner on account of the \nexpiation he has already made. It added that only extremists would \npersist in agitation, which, in any case, would henceforth be without nour- \nishment. \n\nThe Eclair reminded the country of President Loubet\'s declaration \nthat he would bow before the judgment of the court-martial. It said that \nno organized society can live without respect for the decisions of justice. \n\nThe Temps contrasted the calm manner in which the verdict was re- \nceived in Paris with the excitement it caused in foreign countries, which, \nit says, are giving the matter far greater importance than it deserves. \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 335 \n\nThe Soleil declared that nobody will contest the impartiality of the \njudges\' verdict, which must be accepted. \n\nM. Jaures said in the Petite Bepubliqite Francaise that the verdict is \na monstrous defiance of conscience and reason. \n\nThe Gaulois congratulated the court-martial on its victory against the \nenemies of the army and France. \n\nThe officers of the Litre Parole, Intransigeant, Le Soir, Petit Journal, \nand other anti-Dreyfus organs were decorated with flags and brilliantly \nilluminated. \n\nThe verdict caused a sensation throughout France, especially in Lyons, \nBordeaux, Nice, Nancy, Marseilles, and Lille, where the public crowded \naround the bulletin boards. \n\nIn Berlin the Dreyfus verdict caused a feeling almost of stupefaction. \nIt had been hoped that the statement of the Beichs-Anzeiger , as emanating \ndirectly from Emperor William, would have rendered impossible the repe- \ntition of what is described as "one of the greatest judicial and political \ncrimes of any age." \n\nIt was universally agreed that the second verdict is a grave political \nblunder, a violation of the laws of civilization, and an act of moral cowar- \ndice which the world will find it difficult to pardon. \n\nThe German press unanimously described the verdict as cowardly and \nimpolitic, not to say criminal. \n\nThe Cologne Gazette said : \n\n" It is a cowardly verdict, in the barbarous spirit of the Middle Ages. \nBy this crime the judges have imposed a line of demarkation between \nFrance and the rest of the world, which, although it will not prevent dip- \nlomatic intercourse or stay the common exchange of products, will, accord- \ning to all the notions of right, justice, honor, tolerance, and ethics which \nthe civilized world bears with it in the twentieth century, form a barrier \nonly to be removed by time and laborious effort." \n\nThe other leading journals commented upon the verdict in similar \nstrains. \n\nIndignation was evoked throughout Great Britain. Special prayers \nwere offered throughout Saturday, September 9th, in all the London syna- \ngogues on behalf of Dreyfus, and as soon as the verdict was known Jews \n\n\n\n336 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nand Jewesses were seen at every street comer, expressing execration, and \nmany sobbing bitterly. \n\nAt the music halls, especially the Palace Theatre, where cinemato- \ngraph pictures of the incidents and leading actors of the Dreyfus affair \nwere exhibited, the news was greeted with groans and hisses. \n\nIn almost all the London places of public worship pulpit references \nwere made on September 10th to the verdict. Canon Scott-Holland, at \nSt. Paul\'s Cathedral, said: \n\n" A nation is on its trial. France stands at the judgment bar. All \ncivilization is waiting to know whether to-morrow\'s news may add anj- \nthing to qualify the naked cruelty of a bare telegram, anything to relieve \nstaggered conscience. " \n\nThe Eev. Hugh Price Hughes, the well-known Wesleyan divine, \npreaching at St. James\'s Hall, said : \n\n" Five unhappy judges have already taken their places, in the judg- \nment of the human race, beside Judas, Pilate, Judge Jeffries, and other \nfoul creatures. They have sentenced their victim to a decade of imprison- \nment, but they have decreed themselves forever to the scorn, derision, and \nexecration of the human race. Unless France shakes off this infamy, \nshe will be left without an ally or a friend." \n\nThe Eev. Arthur Eobins, chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, preach- \ning at Holy Trinity, Windsor, said: \n\n"The civilized world is aghast at this great crime of five abject judges." \n\nThe Daily Mail said : \n\n" Eennes is France\'s moral Sedan. " \n\nTJie Daily Graphic said : \n\n" The Eennes verdict will live forever as the supreme effort of human \nwrong-headedness. " \n\nTJie Daily Chronicle said that Mercier issues from the case one of the \nblackest scoundrels in history. \n\nThe Daily News remarked : \n\n"It is no longer Dreyfus, but France herself that is on trial." \n\nThe Morning Post declared that " the mitigation of the sentence will \nbe interpreted all the world over as evidence that the judges who con- \ndemned Dreyfus really believe him innocent." \n\nThe Daily Telegraph said : \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 337 \n\n"This infamous judgment disgraces France, dishonors her army, insults \nthe Kaiser, and offends the best principles of humanity. There seems \nnothing left for France but a revolution and a war that will reduce her to \nthe level of Spain." \n\nThe Standard said : \n\n" We are watching by the sick-bed of a great nation, none knowing \nwhat new and deadly form the malady may assume." \n\nThe Times observed : \n\n"We do not hesitate to pronounce it the grossest and most appalling \nprostitution of justice the world has witnessed in modern times. All the \noutrageous scandals which marked the course of the trial pale into insig- \nnificance beside the crowning scandal of the verdict." \n\nEven the Eussian press joined in the chorus, although perhaps the \nJews are nowhere more hated than in Eussia. The judges were every- \nwhere described as criminals, and gloomy speculations were indulged as to \nwhat future is in store for France. \n\nPapers of all nationalities began to fall in with the idea of boycotting \nthe Exhibition. \n\nAt Budapest, Hungary, the following semi-official statement was is- \nsued : \n\n" A movement is on foot against sending exhibits to the Paris Exposi- \ntion of 1900. Many intending exhibitors have withdrawn their notices \nof participation on the ground that the present state of things in France \nrenders it unsafe to send exhibits," \n\nThe Cathedral Chapter of Grau, capital of the county of the same \nname, on the Danube, and the residence of the Catholic Primate of Hun- \ngary, has cancelled its decision to send exhibits, giving as a reason its un- \nwillingness to endanger works of art worth millions of florins. \n\nIn the United States the feeling was intense. \n\nPlymouth Church, Brooklyn, following its time-honored custom of \ntaking definite action with regard to all great public questions, considered \nthe Dreyfus case on September 10th, and adopted resolutions condemning \nhis sentence and expressing sympathy for the unfortunate captain and his \nfamily, and sorrow for France. The famous old church was crowded to \n\nthe doors, and every sympathetic reference to Captain Dreyfus made by \n\n22 \n\n\n\n338 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nthe speakers, among whom was Dwight L. Moody, the evangelist, was \nreceived with warm applause. There was a particularly enthusiastic \ndemonstration when a communication from the representatives of the \nCongregational churches of Great Britain, who have just arrived here to \nattend the International Coimcil in Boston, was read. \n\nMr. Moody, after the close of the opening service, said : \n\n" Our friends who are going to the council in Boston, having learned \nof Captain Dreyfus\'s fate on their arrival here, want to express an opinion \non the great Dreyfus trial in France and to offer their sympathy for that \nunfortunate man. Fortunate, rather, for he is suffering for his race. I \nam glad that they have the opportunity to express that opinion." " \n\nThe Eeverend Horace Porter, assistant pastor of Plymouth, then intro- \nduce G. W. Cowper Smith, one of the delegates, who read the following \ncommunication from himself and his associates : \n\n"That we, the undersigned, representatives of the Congregational \nchurches of Great Britain, deputed to attend the International Council in \nBoston, having learned on our arrival in the United States of the fresh \ncondemnation of Dreyfus, hereby record our amazement and sorrow at the \nverdict, imsustained as it is by public evidence, and express our fervent \nhope that a sense of justice may yet be aroused among the people of \nFrance that will lead them to repudiate the decision of a military court, \nand thus vindicate the rule of national righteousness." \n\nMr. Smith then said : \n\n" I thank you for this opportunity of being able to introduce in historic \nPlymouth Church, which has so many happy associations with the Eng- \nlish people, the expression of opinion which I have just read." \n\nMr. Porter, in behalf of Plymouth Church, read the following resolu- \ntion, which was unanimously adopted : \n\n"We who are here for Christian worship would remember with sym- \npathy the undeserved suffering of Alfred Dreyfus and his family, and de- \nclare our sorrowful surprise at the manner of his recent trial and renewed \ncondemnation, which we trust and pray may yet be overruled by higher \nauthority, acting for the honor of France, for the love of justice, and in \nthe fear of God." \n\nMr. Moody prefaced his sermon, as he had done at the morning ser- \nvice, by a sympathetic reference to Dreyfus and his family. \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 339 \n\nA mere glimpse of the handsome red and blue uniform of a French \narmy officer on the stage of the Criterion Theatre during the evening of \nSeptember 9th, the day of the verdict, drove one of the most fashionable \naudiences of the season to fury, and caused one of the greatest pro-Dreyfus \ndemonstrations that has occurred in New York. Reserved and good-man- \nnered men and women suddenly assumed the deportment which might be \nexpected of an audience at a Bowery melodrama. Men in evening dress \nsprang to their feet, deriding the French army, and women hissed in scorn. \nCries of " A bas 1\' arm^e ! " " Shame on France ! " and " Long live Drey- \nfus ! " were heard all over the house. People in the orchestra and boxes \nwere as demonstrative as those in the gallery. The confusion lasted fully \nthree or four minutes, during which the play was interrupted. \n\nAt Louisville, Ky., about twenty-five citizens met at the office of Dr. \nP. G. Trunnell, on September 10th, to perfect the organization of what is \nto be known as the "Dreyfus Sympathizers." Dr. Trunnell, one of the \norganizers, said that the object of the organization was to interest the \nUnited States Government in the case of Captain Dreyfus, who, they \nbelieve, had been wrongfully punished. \n\nA resolution was offered to the effect that the organization appeal to \nthe Congress of the United States asking that body not to make any fur- \nther appropriation for the Paris Exposition, and an amendment was offered \nappealing to the citizens of the United States who champion Captain Drey- \nfus\'s cause, to avoid France in every way possible, and thus administer a \nrebuke to that nation for the injustice to one of its subjects. The minis- \nters of all denominations in Louisville were asked to assist in promoting \nth\xc2\xab interests of the body. \n\nThe Marion Club, of Indianapolis, consisting of one thousand Repub- \nlicans of that city, put itself on record on September 10th, as in favor \nof boycotting the Paris Exposition. The following telegram was sent by \nthe officers to Senators Beveridge and Fairbanks and Representative Over- \nstreet, all of whom belong to the club : \n\n" The Marion Club, as a club which is a lover of justice and fair play, \nurges you, as a just rebuke to military despotism, which has convicted \nCaptain Dreyfus, an innocent man, to use your influence with President \nMcKinley to get him to withdraw the American Commissioner to the \nParis Exposition." \n\n\n\n340 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nIn Philadelphia the verdict was condemned on every side. \n\nFormer Postmaster-General John Wanamaker said : \n\n" While the Dreyfus episode is the business of France, the widespread \ninterest in the case makes it impossible not to hold an opinion upon it. \nThe larger jury of the people throughout the world will not agree with \nthe verdict rendered, unless it is intended that the pardoning power will \npromptly remit the unexpired portion of the ten years\' sentence. " \n\nFormer District Attorney George S. Graham said : " I am not surprised \nat the finding of the court-martial, but, in my opinion, it is the most un- \njustifiable verdict ever rendered in any civilized community." \n\nDr. Solomon Solis-Cohen : " To my mind the Dreyfus question is not \na Jewish one. Dreyfus was never identified with his people, either racially \nor religiously, prior to his persecution. The fact of his Hebrew birth has \nbeen used by his enemies and those of justice and the republic to intensify \nthe prejudice against him, and effect his condemnation. The Dreyfus \naffair is in no sense a Jewish matter, but involves the liberty and con- \nscience of all mankind." \n\nMorris Newburger, president of the Jewish Publication Society of \nAmerica: "The condemnation of Dreyfus was a foregone conclusion. \nEvery one realized that the trial from its beginning until its ending was a \ntravesty upon justice." \n\nEalph Blum : " I have always felt that poor Dreyfus was made the \nvictim of a conspiracy, because he was bom a Hebrew." \n\nChicago was equally indignant. \n\nL. B. Wright, of Wright\'s Iron Printing Company, said : \n\n" I have discharged all the Frenchmen in my employ, for one of them \nsaid Dreyfus should be hanged. The judges violated every principle of \nlaw and justice." \n\nClarence Buckingham, a prominent member of the Stock Exchange: \n"The verdict is an outrageous one, and every one in the United States \nthinks so. Those who prosecuted Dreyfus are smirched." \n\nFrank O. Lowden, a lawyer and representative of the George M. Pull- \nman estate: "A republic can do more injustice than a kingdom or an em- \npire." \n\nGeorge Gibault: "It is a perversion of justice." \n\nTheodore Prouix: "The French papers have printed everything unfa- \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION" THKOUGHOUT THE WORLD 341 \n\nvorable, and the American papers all that was favorable, to Dreyfus. \nThree-fourths of the French people believe him guilty. There will be a \nrevolution in France, but the army will suppress it." \n\nFrench Consul Henri Merou : " The verdict will have no effect upon \nthe Exposition." \n\nE. G. Keith, President of the Continental National Bank : " The ver- \ndict is unfair. " \n\nEabbi E. G. Hirsch, of the Sinai Congregation : " I expected this ver- \ndict. It was necessary to prevent the overthrow of the republic, but the \narmy now will save it. Franco has passed through a dangerous crisis, \nbut the republic will stand. This verdict is an infamous one, but it de- \ncides the question of a republic, a kingdom, or a royalty. For a time at \nleast the republic is safe. " \n\nEli B. Elsenthal : " There was no evidence of guilt whatever. The so- \ncalled honor of the army of France was placed above truth and justice." \n\nLevy A. Eiel: "There was no evidence against Dreyfus." \n\nB. J. Eosenthal: "French judges do not consider evidence." \n\nA. M. Eothschilds: "It was simply an outrage of justice." \n\nA. J. Nathan: "This verdict is infamous." \n\nBoston was not behind in expressing its indignation. \n\nGeneral William A. Bancroft said the whole trial had been remarka- \nble for the kind of testimony accepted as evidence. The judge were mili- \ntary. Civil judges might have decided otherwise. \n\nColonel Melvin O. Adams said : \n\n" If such judgments as this in the Dreyfus case can stand in a coun- \ntry, safety of the individual is a mere name. I have no opinion whether \nDreyfus be in fact innocent or guilty, but his condemnation by such means \nis monstrous." \n\nIn the Hebrew quarter of Boston the opinion is summed up as follows : \n\n" Of course, Dreyfus is not guilty. If he were they would shoot him, \nand the fact that they have given him a ten years\' sentence shows that he \nis innocent." \n\nJay Hunt, recently in Paris, says : \n\n" The verdict was to uphold the government and army. The president \nof the court was prejudiced from the start." \n\nUpon learning the verdict of the Dreyfus court-martial Assistant Dis- \n\n\n\n342 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ntrict Attorney Maurice B. Blumenthal, of New York, took steps for the \norganization of a committee of citizens, irrespective of religious belief, and \nincluding clergymen of different denominations, to hold a mass meeting to \nprotest against the conviction of Captain Dreyfus. A representative com- \nmittee was appointed to wait upon President McKinley and petition him \nto appeal to the President of France to pardon the unfortunate victim. \n\nThis extraordinary outcry of all Christendom against the heinous out- \nrage done to justice and humanity at Rennes was classed as "The Fifth \nAct " in a powerful contribution to the Aurore, signed by Emile Zola, on \nSeptember 10th. The article read as follows: \n\nTHE FIFTH ACT. \n\nI am in mortal fear. It is not anger, avenging indignation, the need \nto proclaim the crime and demand its punishment in the name of truth \nand justice that I feel now; it is terror, the sacred terror of the man who \nsees the impossible being realized, the rivers flowing back to their sources, \nthe earth turning without the sun ; and what I fear is the distress of our \ngenerous and noble France. My dread is of the abyss into which she is \nfalling. \n\nWe had fondly imagined that the Eennes court-martial was the fifth \nact of the terrible tragedy which we have been living for close upon two \nyears past. All the dangerous stages seemed to us to have been passed. \nWe thought we were approaching a " d^noument " of pacification and con- \ncord. After the dreadful battle the victory of right became inevitable ; \nthe play must end happily, with the classic triumph of the innocent. \n\nAnd we have been deceived ! A new stage opens before us, and that \nthe most unexpected \xc2\xa3.nd the most terrifying of all, still further darkening \nthe drama, prolonging it and urging it toward an unknown termination, \nbefore which our very reason trembles and grows weak. \n\nThe Eennes trial was only the fourth act, and, great God ! what will \nthe fifth act be? What new tortures and sufferings will it bring? To \nwhat supreme expiation will it force our people? For is it not certain \nthat the innocent cannot be twice condemned, and that such an ending \nwould blot out the sun and arouse the nations ? \n\nAh ! that fourth act ! that trial at Eennes ! In what mortal agony did \nI not live through it, in that solitude where I had taken refuge in order to \ndisappear from the scene like a good citizen desirous of giving no cause \nfor passion and disorder ! With what a tightening of the heart did I not \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION THEOTJGHOUT THE WOELD 343 \n\nawait telegrams, letters, papers ; and what revolt and what pain did their \nperusal not cause me ! The days of that splendid month of August were \nblackened, and never have I felt the gloom and chill of mourning under \nskies so glorious. \n\nAssuredly, for two years past, I have had my share of suffering. I \nhave heard the mob shouting death at my heels. I have seen at my feet \nan ignoble mire of insult and menace. For eighteen months I tasted the \ndespair of exile. Then there were my two trials \xe2\x80\x94 lamentable spectacles \nof villainy and iniquity. \n\nBut what are my trials in comparison with the trial at Eennes ? Idyls, \nrefreshing scenes where hope flowers. \n\nWe had been witness of monstrous things \xe2\x80\x94 the prosecution of Colonel \nPicquart, the inquiry into the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassa- \ntion, the " loi de dessaisissement " which resulted from it. But all that \nseems childish now. The inevitable progression has followed its course. \nThe Eennes trial stands out above all like the abominable flower growing \natop of all these heaped-up dunghills. \n\nWe have seen the most extraordinary collection of attempts against \ntruth and justice \xe2\x80\x94 a band of witnesses directing the course of the trial, \nmaking their plans every night for the cowardly ambush of the morrow, \npressing the charge, in place of the Public Prosecutor, with lies ; terroriz- \ning and insulting those who contradicted them, imposing with the inso- \nlence of their stripes and their plumes upon a tribunal knuckling down \nto this invasion of their chiefs, visibly annoyed at seeing them in crimi- \nnal posture, acting in obedience to a peculiar mental process ; a grotesque \nPublic Prosecutor, who enlarges the bounds of imbecility and leaves to \nfuture historians a charge whose stupid and murderous emptiness will be \nan eternal cause of wonder; a man of such senile and obstinate cruelty \nthat it seems to be irresponsible, bom of a human animal not yet classed ; \na def\xc2\xabice which it was at first endeavored to assassinate, which was after- \nward made to sit down every time it became troublesome, and which \nfinally was refused permission to produce the decisive proof which it de- \nmanded, the only witnesses who know. \n\nAnd this abomination lasted for a whole month, in face of the innocent \n\xe2\x80\x94 that piteous Dreyfus, the poor shreds of whose humanity would make \nthe very stones weep. And his former comrades came and kicked him, \nand his former chiefs came and crushed him with their rank so as to save \nthemselves from the galleys. And there was never a cry of pity, never a \nthrob of generosity in those shameful souls ! \n\nAnd it is our sweet France that has given this spectacle to the world ! \n\n\n\n344 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nWhen the complete report of the Eennes trial is published there will \nexist no more execrable monument of human infamy. This is beyond all. \n\nNever will a document of such wickedness have been furnished to \nhistory. Ignorance, folly, cruelty, falsehood, crime are displayed there \nwith an impudence that will make future generations shudder. There are \nin that collection avowals of our baseness at which human nature will \nblush. \n\nAnd it is this that makes me tremble, for in order that such a trial \nshould have been possible in a nation, that a nation should lay itself open \nto the world for such a consultation upon its social and intellectual condi- \ntion, it must be undergoing a terrible crisis. \n\nIs it death that is approaching ? And what bath of truth, of purity, \nof equity will save us from the poisonous mud in which we are agonizing? \n\nAs I wrote in my letter to the President of the Republic after the scan- \ndalous acquittal of Esterhazy, it is impossible for a court-martial to undo \nwhat a court-martial has done. That would be contrary to discipline, and \nthe judgment of the Eennes court-martial \xe2\x80\x94 that judgment which in its \nJesuitical embarrassment has not the courage to say yes or no \xe2\x80\x94 is the \nplain proof that military justice is powerless to be just, since it is not free, \nsince it defies evidence almost to the point of again condemning an inno- \ncent man rather than cast doubt upon its own infallibility. Military jus- \ntice is seen to be nothing more than a weapon of execution in the hands \nof the commander. Henceforward it can but be an expeditious form of \njustice in time of war \xe2\x80\x94 it must disappear in time of peace. The moment \nit showed itself incapable of equity, of simple logic, and of mere common \nsense it condemned itself. \n\nHas thought been given to the atrocious situation in which we are \nmade to stand among the civilized nations ? \n\nA first court-martial, deceived in its ignorance of the law and its want \nof skill in sifting evidence, condemns an innocent man. A second court- \nmartial, which likewise was deceived by a most impudent conspiracy of \nlies and frauds, acquits a guilty man. A third court-martial, when light \nhas been thrown on the matter, when the highest magistracy of the coun- \ntry consents to leave to it the glory of making reparation for an error, \ndares to deny the full daylight, and a second time finds the innocent \nguilty. \n\nThis is irreparable. The last crime has been committed. Jesus was \ncondemned but once. \n\nBut let final ruin come, let France fall a prey to faction, let the coun- \ntry be aflame and perish in the embers, let the army itself lose honor \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 345 \n\nrather than confess that some members of it made a mistake, and that cer- \ntain generals were liars and forgers. The ideal shall be crucified; the \nsabre must remain king ! \n\nAnd so we find ourselves in this glorious condition before Europe, be- \nfore the world ! The whole world is convinced of the innocence of Drey- \nfus. If a doubt had remained in the minds of some far-away race the \nblinding glare of the Eennes trial would have carried the full light there. \nAll the courts of the Powers that are our neighbors are well informed, \nknow the documents, have proof of the worthlessness of three or four of \nour generals and of the shameful paralysis of our military justice. \n\nA moral Sedan has been lost \xe2\x80\x94 a Sedan a hundredfold more disastrous \nthan that other one where only blood was spilt. \n\nAnd I repeat, what fills me with dread is that this defeat of our honor \nseems irreparable, for how are we to quash the judgments of three courts- \nmartial ? Where shall we find the heroism to confess our fault, to march \nonward with head uplifted proudly? Where is the government with \ncourage to be a government of public safety ? Where are the chambers \nthat will understand and act before the inevitable final crash? \n\nThe worst of it all is that we have come to a reckoning day of glory. \nFrance desires to celebrate its century of labor, of science, of struggle for \nliberty, for truth and for justice. No century that has passed has been \nmarked by more superb effort; this will be seen later on. And France \nhas called together in her capital all the peoples of the earth to glorify her \nvictory, liberty won, truth and justice promised to earth. \n\nThus, a few months hence the peoples will come ; and what they will \nfind will be the innocent twice condemned, truth trampled upon, justice \nassassinated. We have fallen beneath their contempt; and they will \ncome and laugh at us in our very faces. They will drink our wines, they \nwill kiss our maid-servants, as people do in the low-class inn which is \nnot above that sort of thing. \n\nIs all this possible ? Are we going to allow our Exhibition to be the \nfoul, despised place where the whole world is willing to seek its pleasures \nonly? \n\nNo ! a thousand times no ! We must have, and that at once, the fifth \nact of the monstrous tragedy, even if we have to lose our flesh and blood \nin the effort. We must have our honor restored before we salute the \nvisiting peoples in a France healed and regenerated. \n\nThis fifth act haunts me, and I am ever recurring to it. I am work- \ning on it; I build it up in my imagination. \n\nHas it been noticed that this Dreyfus affair, this gigantic drama which \n\n\n\n346 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OP DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nmoves the universe, seems to be staged by some sublime dramatist desirous \nof making it an incomparable masterpiece? I will not recall the extraor- \ndinary incidents that have stirred our souls. At every fresh act passion \nhas swollen, horror has grown more intense. In this living piece it is \nFate that has genius. Destiny is there, actuating the players, determining \nthe incidents under the tempest it unchains ; and assuredly it wants the \nmasterpiece to be complete, and is preparing for us a fifth act \xe2\x80\x94 a super- \nhuman act which will make France glorious once again and replace her in \nthe forefront of the nationis. \n\nFor you may be sure of this \xe2\x80\x94 it was Fate that decreed the supreme \ncrime \xe2\x80\x94 the second condemnation of the innocent. The crime had to be \ncommitted for the sake of the tragic grandeur, the sovereign beauty, the \nexpiation, perhaps, which will allow of the apotheosis, the final transfor- \nmation scene. \n\nAnd now that we have sounded the uttermost depths of horror, I \nawait the fifth act, which will end the drama by delivering us, by restor- \ning us to health and fresh youth. \n\nI will now speak plainly of my fear. It has always been, as I have \nallowed it to be understood on several occasions, that the truth, the deci- \nsive, overwhelming proof should come to us from Germany. We must \nlook the possibility of Germany bringing out the fifth act of the drama in \na thunderclap squarely and courageously in the face. \n\nHere is my confession. \n\nPrevious to my trial, in January, 1898, I learned with certainty that \nEsterhazy was the traitor; that he had supplied M. de Schwartzkoppen \nwith a large number of documents ; that many of these documents were in \nhis handwriting, and that a complete collection of them was to be found \nin the War Office at Berlin. \n\nFrom that time on I have, as a good Frenchman, been in constant \ndread. I thought with terror that Germany, our enemy of to-morrow, \nwould perhaps slap us in the face with the proofs in its possession. Ac- \ncordingly, with Labori, I decided to cite as witnesses the foreign military \nattaches. We were well aware we were not likely to bring them to the \nbar, but we desired to let the Government know we knew the truth, in the \nhope that it would take action. \n\nNo heed was taken. Mock was made of us. The weapon Germany \nhas in her hands was left there, and matters remained unchanged up to \nthe time of the Eennes trial. \n\nOn my return to France I hurried to see Labori. I insisted, with the \nenergy of despair, on steps being taken to bring the matter before the Cab- \n\n\n\nINDIGNATION^ THEOUGHOUT THE WORLD 347 \n\ninet, to demonstrate the dreadful character of the situation, and to ask if \nthe Government would not intervene, so as to obtain the documents for us. \nThat was certainly a most delicate matter. Then there was that unfortu- \nnate Dreyfus to be saved, so that we were prepared to make every conces- \nsion for fear of irritating public opinion, already at a high pitch of excite- \nment. If the court-martial acquitted Dreyfus, it thereby deprived the \ndocuments of their nocuous virus ; it shattered in the hands of Germany \nthe weapon she might have used. The acquittal of Dreyfus meant the \nrecognition of an error and its reparation. \n\nMy patriotic torment grew more intolerable when I felt that a court- \nmartial was about to aggravate the danger by again condemning the inno- \ncent \xe2\x80\x94 the man whose innocence would one day be cried aloud by the pub- \nlication of the documents in Berlin. \n\nThat is why I have never ceased to act, begging Labori to demand the \ndocuments, to cite M. de Schwartzkoppen, who alone can throw full light \non the matter ; and the day that Labori took advantage of the opportunity \ngiven him by the accusers bringing to the bar an unworthy foreigner, the \nday he arose and demanded that the court-martial hear the man from \nwhom a single word would close the affair, he did his duty. His was the \nheroic voice that nothing can reduce to silence. His demand has survived \nthe trial, and must inevitably reopen it and end it once for all by the only \npossible solution \xe2\x80\x94 the acquittal of the innocent. \n\nThe demand for the documents has been made. Their ultimate pro- \nduction is a certainty. \n\nYou see the awful, intolerable danger in which the president of the \nEennes court-martial has put us by refusing to use his discretionary power \nto prevent the publication of the documents. Never was anything more \nbrutal ! Never was the door so wilfully shut upon the truth ! And a \nthird court-martial was added to the two others, in which the error was so \nblinding that the denial from Berlin would now condemn three iniquitous \nsentences. \n\nThe Ministry forgot that government is foresight. If it does not wish \nto leave to the good pleasure of Germany the fifth act, the " d^noument, " \nbefore which every good Frenchman should tremble, it is the Government\'s \nduty to play this fifth act without delay in order to prevent its coming to \nus from Germany. The Government can procure the documents. Diplo- \nmacy has settled greater difficulties than this. Whenever it ventures to ask \nfor the documents enumerated in the bordereau they will be given, and \nthat will be the " fait nouveau " which will necessitate a second revision \nbefore the Court of Cassation, which will be this time, I hope, fully in- \n\n\n\n348 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nformed, and would quash the verdict " sans renvoi " in the plenitude of its \nsovereign majesty. \n\nBut if the Government still hesitates, the defenders of truth and justice \nwill do what is necessary. Not one of us will desert his post. Invinci- \nble proof we shall finally end by obtaining. \n\nOn November 23d, we shall be at Versailles. My trial will recom- \nmence, inasmuch as it is to recommence in all its fulness. If, meanwhile, \njustice is not done we will again have to do it. My beloved, my valiant \nLabori, whose honor has but increased, will pronounce at Versailles the \naddress which he was unable to pronounce at Eennes. And thus, as you \nsee, nothing will be lost. He will merely have to tell the truth, without \nfear of injuring me, for I am ready to pay for it with my liberty and my \nblood. Before the Seine Assize Court I swore to the innocence of Drey- \nfus. I swear to it before the entire world, which now proclaims it with \nme; and I repeat, truth is on the march. Nothing will stop it. At \nEennes it has just made a giant\'s stride. \n\nI no longer have any fear except that I may see it arrive in a thimder- \nclap of the avenging Nemesis. Emile Zola. \n\n\n\nVn^DIGATION 349 \n\n\n\nChapter LIV. \nVINDICATION \n\nMathieu Dreyfus, in an interview, in Paris, September 11th, was \nquoted as saying: \n\n" Yesterday, before leaving Eennes for Paris, I talked for two hours \nwith my brother. Captain Dreyfus. He is a marvellous man. After all \nthese years of suffering he is as strong to-day in declaring his innocence \nas he was on the Champ de Mars, when first condemned. \n\n" Those who spread rumors that he intends to commit suicide know \nnot that an indomitable spirit animates his attenuated frame. When I \nheard the horrible report in Paris this morning that he had committed \nsuicide, I could not help thinking one of his bitter enemies had circulated \nit in the hope that it might reach his ears, and that he would act upon the \nsuggestion, as weakened men sometimes do. But his enemies will never \nhave that grewsome pleasure. He is full of hope and looks fearlessly to \nthe future. \n\n" He does not need to-day the soothing voice of Mme. Dreyfus to in- \nduce him to continue to live. Mme. Dreyfus is similarly hopeful. \n\n" Maitres Demange and Labori, both of whom have gone to the country \nfor some much needed repose, have given the whole family much encour- \nagement. I, who have been charged by my brother with the rehabilita- \ntion of our name, have firm faith in the near future. \n\n" The recent trial practically rehabilitates him. Outside a very limit- \ned circle his name is as fair as though the Eennes court-martial had \ndeclared him innocent. Suppose the son of Captain Dreyfus were to travel \nin the United States when he grows up to manhood, do you think there is \none throughout the length and breadth of the land who would point to him \nas the son of a traitor? On the contrary, they would say, \' This is the \nyouth who for years was unjustly robbed of his father,\' and they would \nhonor him as the son of a martvr. \n\n\n\n350 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONEE OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" My brother\'s innocence is believed by everybody outside of France \nand by most people in France. " \n\nMaitre Labori has been resting at Sammois, a short distance from \nParis. He said, in an interview : \n\n" We have won a great deal, considering that the most important evi- \ndence was excluded. Imagine where we are to-day, as compared with two \nyears ago. If you ask me what do I think the most important gala of all \nin this fight for justice, I should answer, \'It is the world\'s awakening to \nthe justice of our cause.\' \n\n" The great newspapers of all lands have taken such a keen interest in \nthe question, and caught such a thorough grasp of it, that they are sure to \ncontinue speaking in the name of humanity and civilization. For it is \npot the cause of Dreyfus alone which is at stake ; it is the cause of hu- \nmanity and civilization. The great newspapers have already given ample \nevidence that they understand this, and if they follow up their broad and \ngenerous grasp of the question by reminding the Emperor of Germany \nthat he owes a duty to humanity and to civilization, he is not the kind of \na man to shirk it. That duty is to deliver to the French Government the \ndocuments mentioned in the bordereau. As soon as this responsibility, \nnot to an individual, but to humanity and civilization, is made clear to \nhim, the German Emperor is man of spirit and heart enough to act up to it. \n\n" The verdict as it stands is neither yes nor no. Obviously the court \nhad little knowledge of law, and less of evidence. \n\n" We have gained much in other ways. His first condemnation was \nfor twenty years, his second for ten ; his first, to Devil\'s Island, permitted \ncruel and inhuman treatment; his second permits communication with \nthe outer world ; his first condemnation was unanimous : his second is \ngiven in such a way that even the five who declared him guilty showed \nthey were not sure. \n\n"Dreyfus\'s name is no longer stained before the civilized world, and \nin a short time there will be fewer still who believe him guilty." \n\n\n\nFIRST FREE UTTERANCES OF DREYFUS 351 \n\n\n\nChapter LV. \nFIRST FREE UTTERANCES OF DREYFUS. \n\nThe Figaro, of Paris, secured the first interview with Dreyfus after his \nrelease from arrest. It was printed in the New York Herald, on Sep- \ntember 2 2d, and read as follows: \n\n" I do not know where to begin the story of emotion which I have \njust lived through, so much has the flood overflowed my mind and my \nheart. It has been given me to share for twenty-four hours \xe2\x80\x94 all that is \nbest in me \xe2\x80\x94 in the most terrible suffering that it is possible to imagine in \nthe destiny of a human being with whose fate the elite of the civilized \nworld has united itself for two years, and against whom all the ignorance \nand malice of men have been leagued. This being, whom one would say \nwas accursed, is my brother, whom my saddened thoughts went out to \njoin and compassionate across the seas ; he is there in the presence of my \nreal deep sympathy. \n\nEvery precaution had been taken for Dreyfus to leave Eennes without \ninconvenience. Advised in the evening, he had passed his time \xe2\x80\x94 being \nunable to sleep \xe2\x80\x94 in packing his trunk. At half-past two in the morning \nM. Viguie, directeur de la surete g^n^rale, accompanied by one of his \ncontroleurs, came to fetch him in a carriage at the gate of the Manuten- \ntion, and they went to the station of Vem, situated ten kilometres from \nEennes. \n\n" Nothing suspicious had been seen in the neighborhood of the prison, \nbut after a few hundred yards had been traversed M. Viguie, leaning out \nof the window of the landau, noticed a red lantern following, evidently \nthat of a journalist. How was he to throw the intruder off the scent? \nThe driver whipped up his horses, which broke into a gallop. They thus \ncame to within four hundred metres of the station of "Vem, and it was \nperceived they had a big start of the man who was following. \n\n" The carriage stopped at the comer of the road. The passengers got \n\n\n\n352 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nout quickly and hid themselves behind a house by the roadside, and the \ncarriage, which now contained only the chef de cabinet of the prefect of \nlie et Vilaine, rolled on into darkness. \n\n" This stratagem escaped the notice of the man following. His car- \nriage soon passed by the invisible group, and followed the other landau at \nfull speed. Then they walked quietly to Vem Station, and got into the \n4:36 A.M. train from Eennes to Chateaubriand. The latter place was \nreached at 6 :14 a.m. \n\n"The travellers changed carriages and arrived at Nantes at seventeen \nminutes past eight o\'clock. I was on the platform at the arrival of the \ntrain. It would take too long to relate how I was able to foresee this \nitinerary. Nevertheless I was not without uneasiness as to the success of \nmy plan. The platform was deserted. Had I made a mistake? I soon \nsaw two men dressed in black approaching, and I immediately recognized \nthem. They were Mathieu Dreyfus and his nephew, Paul Valabregue. \n\n"My tips were good. My mind was relieved. Should I go up to \nMathieu Dreyfus, whom I knew well, or should I hide to follow him at \nleisure ? I hesitated between these two alternatives, and watched the two \nmen. They looked to right and left, as though they were afraid of being \nrecognized. \n\n" I made up my mind at once and approached. What was the stupe- \nfaction, I may almost say the distress, of Mathieu Dreyfus, when I ap- \nproached him ! I quickly understood his fears and quieted them. I \nassured him that the train that was about to carry his brother away would \nhave only one more passenger, and that no indiscretion on my part would \ninterfere with the success of their journey. \n\n" He begged me to keep my vow, and I have kept it. \n\n" At this moment Captain Dreyfus is hidden in the midst of his own \npeople. I may now relate this touching Odyssey, all the details of which \nwill remain forever fixed in my memory. \n\n" Here is the train from Chateau Briant coming. It [stops, the door \nopens, some men get down. \n\n" Mathieu Dreyfus stands aside. Then when they are twenty metres \noff he follows them. I go with him. \n\n" \' Did you see? \' he asked. \n\n" I saw nothing but a group of four or five persons carrying bags and \n\n\n\nFIKST FREE UTTERANCES OF DREYFUS 353 \n\nrugs, and it would have been impossible for me to recognize Captain Drey- \nfus among them. \n\n" \' Look ! \' said his brother, \' there he is with that rug.\' \n\n" I saw a bowed back, dressed in black, making its way to the buffet \nof the station. \n\n" In a moment we entered. Already the passengers are at the tables. \nIn a small room at the further end Captain Dreyfus is seated eating. His \nbrother draws near. He rises. His mouth opens in an affectionate smile, \nand the brothers meet with a long embrace, without speaking a word. No \none but myself witnessed this scene, so touching in its melancholy sym- \npathy. \n\nMathieu introduced me to his brother. Captain Dreyfus holds out \nhis hand. I press it and speak of the profound joy which his freedom will \ngive to so many beings to whom it will be like a personal deliverance. \nHe wears a navy blue suit and over it a black overcoat, the collar of \nwhich gapes behind, and on his head a soft, black felt hat. \n\n" \' It is in order not to be recognized,\' he says, smiling, \' but it annoys \nme. I am not used to it, and I see nothing in it.\' \n\n"\'Make haste,\' says his brother, \' for we are going to start.\' He seats \nhimself again obediently, and empties his cup of milk, for his stomach \ncannot bear anything else. \n\n"During this time M. Viguie has reserved seats in two compartments, \nfor at present the service of surveillance is composed of three inspectors, \nchosen from among the best men of Hennion\'s brigade, who accompanied \nhim to Kennes, and on whom falls the heavy responsibility of the long \njourney we are about to make. \n\n" Captain Dreyfus enters the sleeping-car compartment with M.\'Mathieu \nDreyfus, M. Paul Valabregue, his nephew, and myself. \n\n"M. Viguie has just made his last suggestions, for he goes no further. \nCaptain and Mathieu Dreyfus congratulate him on the skill and prudence \nhe has displayed since their departure from Eennes, and the common wish \nis expressed that the rest of the journey may pass off equally well. \n\n" The train moves at two minutes of nine. I am seated facing Captain \nDreyfus. I never remove my eyes from him for an instant. I am sur- \nprised at the effect he produces on me. I expected, whatever my senti- \nments might be as to his case, to find myself confronted by a being who \n23 \n\n\n\n354 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nawakened no sympathy. He has been described as a haughty and disa- \ngreeable person, with a harsh voice and wandering eyes. I had imagined \nhim as hard, mistrustful, gloomy, if not bearing hate at least bitter; and \nI own that I was ready to forgive him all those things. I find before me \na man with fine, regular features, with a calm and mild expression. He \nis pink of face, which would give him an expression of extreme youth if \nthe top of his head were not absolutely bald, and if the hair on each side \nwere not quite gray. This being is enfeebled by anaemia, and what blood \nthere is left in him flows toward the head, the last refuge of his prodigious \nvitality. His neck is thin, his hands are long and bony, and the knees \nare pointed like nails through the blue cloth of his trousers. \n\n" His chest is hollowed, his entire body is that of a vanquished being \nbut for the energy of the mouth, the square jaw, and the will expressed in \nthe look of his eyes. They are blue, charming and mild, limpid and \nclear. Far from shunning one\'s look, he fixes his eyes on you with assu- \nrance behind his eye-glasses, and his look is not that of a man of whom \na monster of hypocrisy has been made, of whom one scoundrel has said \nthat \' he sweated treason.\' \n\n" The train rolls on toward Bordeaux. M. Mathieu Dreyfus looks at \nhis brother with tender eyes. \n\n"\' Well,\' he asks, \' are you comfortable? You are not cold?\' \n\n"\'Oh, no! I am well covered up with my flannel vest, two wool \nshirts, my coat and overcoat. I am very well \xe2\x80\x94 and then you forget the \nfreedom. It is good to feel free, free, free ! Not to feel people everlast- \ning round you spying each movement, each gesture. That, mind you, is \nthe odious, insupportable thing. To be shut up one can bear, though it is \npainful after a long time ; but the eye of that man whose hostile examina- \ntion of the smallest movements of your body you have felt every minute \nfor five years \xe2\x80\x94 oh ! it is horrible ! \' \n\n" \' Do not tire yourself too much,\' observed Mathieu, paternally. \n\'You must be very tired.\' \n\n"\'Let me alone,\' replied fhe captain, \' I feel the want of speaking. \nJust think that I have not spoken for five years. Then I feel so well \xe2\x80\x94 no \nfatigue, no pain \xe2\x80\x94 excitement probably \xe2\x80\x94 and to-morrow I shall suffer for \nit, but to-day I mean to do what I please.\' \n\n"He smiles, with a fine and thin smile which is far from being one \n\n\n\nFIEST FREE UTTERANCES OF DREYFUS 355 \n\nof gayety, but which has rather the air of an unbending of the nerves of \nthe mouth, which have so long been contracted. \n\n" Laugh ? How could Captain Dreyfus ever laugh ? His life, suddenly \noverwhelmed under the deluge of adversity and catastrophe, under the \nterrible chaos of misfortune, will always retain the crushing weight of \nsadness. His impoverished blood will never again course joyously \nthrough his cold veins, and between happiness and him will always inter- \nvene the black muslin of melancholy. \n\n" Already it sufficed to make sadness suddenly appear in his eyes that \na name should be pronounced \xe2\x80\x94 that of General Mercier, mentioned by \nchance in the conversation. \n\n" \' Mercier,\' I asked Dreyfus ; \' what impression did his depositions \nmake upon you ? \' \n\n" Said he sharply : \' He is a malicious man and a dishonest man, but I \ndo not think he is conscious of the extent of the evil he has done. He \nis too intelligent for me to be able to say that he is unconscious, but if he \nis mentally conscious, he is morally unconscious. He is a man without \nmoral sense.\' \n\n" The train rushes on through the fertile land of this admirable coun- \ntry of the Vendean Bocage. Captain Dreyfus looks at the country. \n\n" \' How pretty this country is ! \' he says. \' Look at that little village, \nthose cocks, those hens, those fine trees, outlined by the mist ! Think \nthat during a year I have seen only the sky and sea, and during four years \nthe sky only, a square of brilliant blue, metallic, hard, and always alike, \nwithout a cloud ! And, when I came back to France, you know how it \nwas \xe2\x80\x94 by night in the midst of a terrible storm, taken from a ship into a \nboat, from the boat into a carriage, thence into a wagon, to arrive at last \nat a prison at dawn. So these are the first trees I have seen.\' \n\n" The landscape unfolds itself. Here is a sparkling stream, bordered \nwith poplars, a large wood, fresh and green, more pine spaces out on the \nslopes. An old woman is washing linen on the banks of a pond. White \nsteeples and red steeples, golden ricks, ruins, a peaceful little village, \nwhich seems half in mourning with its white house-points and slate \nroofs, sad meres full of reeds and faded water-lilies, and, suddenly, wide \nbarren spaces with a few meagre pines and brambles growing between the \nrocks. \n\n\n\n356 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONEE OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n"Captain Dreyfus looks at all these as if they were indeed something \nnew to him. He devours them with his eyes. \n\n"\' I should be as pleased as a child,\' he says, \' to run about in those \nmeadows and amuse myself with nothing. I am like a convalescent com- \ning back to life.\' \n\n" Since the start he had never left off smoking. \n\n" \' You smoke too much, \' said his brother. \n\n"\' Let me smoke; let me talk. It is so long since.\' \n\n" We talk of the death of Scheurer-Kestner. He told us the infinite \nsorrow he had felt at the thought that he would never be able to thank \nhim, that he would never see the man who had done so much for him, \nand to whom he owed his liberty. He seemed to dream for a moment. \nThen he said : \n\n" \' What fine characters have displayed themselves in this affair ! \' \n\n" \' Have you written many letters since you returned ? \' I asked. \n\n" \' None ; I have not had time, but now I am going to write those that \nI ought to write. Think ! I have received more than five thousand since \nmy return to France, without counting those that my wife has received on \nher side \xe2\x80\x94 very humble testimonials, besides very high ones. Oh, it has \ndone me good ! Officers, even on active service, have written to me and \nsigned their names. One of my comrades in promotion wrote me the \nsimple words, "Glad at your return; glad at your approaching rehabilita- \ntion." That consoles me for many desertions and for the unexpected hos- \ntility of many of my comrades. ^^ \n\n" \' Ah ! What I suffered from those depositions in which they came \nspontaneously to say things which had no connection with the trial, but \nwhich they thought might injure me ! And, mind you, I do not think it \nwas out of malice against me \xe2\x80\x94 no, it was merely to please the chiefs. \nAh! there are natures which conserve a very strange idea of duty. In- \nstead of understanding by discipline obedience on the field of battle or in \nbarracks, they extend it to the degradation of reason and moral liberty. \n\n" \' For me, I never could bend myself to such discipline, and I never \ncould have believed that it was possible for officers to do so.\'" \n\n\n\nEXPLAINS ANIMOSITY AGAINST HIM 357 \n\n\n\nChapter LVL \n\nEXPLAINS ANIMOSITY AGAINST HIM \n\n^ "\'How do you explain this animosity against you since 1894 in the \noffices of the General Staff ? \' " continued the correspondent. \n\n" \' I think that the cause of it is rather complex. First, and above all, \nI was believed to be guilty. It could never have been suspected that they \ncould have plunged so lightheartedly into error. Then there was anti- \nSemitism in a latent state. Lastly, my manner may perhaps have had \nsomething to do with it. Yes, it was rather curt, but only with my \nchiefs, for, of^\' course, I strove to show as much consideration as possible \nto my inferiors. I scarcely associated with any one, and when I entered \nthe General Staff I had paid no visit to any one. I contented myself with \nsending cards by my orderly to the chief and sub-chief of the General Staff \nand the chief and sub-chief of my office, and that was alL ._, \n\n" \' In my dealings with my chiefs I always retained my outspokenness \nand independence. If a plan or any piece of work seemed to me to be \nbadly conceived, I did not hesitate to say so aloud, instead of considering \nmyself obliged to approve everything in advance, as I saw done all around \nme, when it was a chief who spoke or acted. \n\n" \' I know that people don\'t like that. Colonel Bertin Mourot said \nsomething with deep meaning at Eennes, speaking of that admirable man, \nthat hero. Colonel Picquart. It was felt that this officer did not walk be- \nhind the chiefs. That is their psychology and all their morality.\' \n\n" \' Walk behind the chiefs as if it were in war or at the manoeuvres ? \' \n\n" \' Yes, certainly, but when it is a question of honor and duty is there \nany need to walk behind any one? Has one not one\'s own conscience?\' \n\n" The hour for luncheon was approaching. We reach La Eoche-sur- \nYonne. They brought us some well-stocked baskets, containing hard- \nboiled eggs, cold meat, two biscuits, some chocolate, white wine, mineral \nwater, and two little flasks of cinchona and rum. All these were carefully \npacked in tiny boxes or wrapped up. \n\n\n\n358 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" Mathieu wanted to prevent Alfred eating the meats. \' You know \nquite well that Delbet forbade you.\' \n\n" \' What does it matter for once ? To-morrow I will be good, but to- \nday is a holiday. Be easy ; I feel so well. It is like a new life \' \xe2\x80\x94 and \nMathieu Dreyfus agrees to everything like a good-natured parent to a loved \nchild whom he wishes to restore to health. \n\n" The conversation now rolled on everything at haphazard. \n\n" And Esterhazy \xe2\x80\x94 what do you think of him ? \' \n\n"In quiet, measured accents, slightly doubtful, even like a savant \npropounding an hypothesis, he replied : \n\n" \' I think he is a swindler, a chevalier d\'industrie, who has swindled \nhis country \xe2\x80\x94 it is not even his country \xe2\x80\x94 just as he swindled his cousin \nand his tradesmen, but without in the least realizing that he did so. He \nwanted money. That was the motive, for,\' he continued with animation, \n\'for every crime there must be a motive.\' \n\n" \' TVliat could it have been in my case ? No one ever saw me touch a \ncard, so I was not a gambler. It was said that I had led a fast life. How \ncan you explain, then, that I took the ninth place on leaving the college? \nDon\'t people know what arduous work these examinations mean? How \ncan work be allied with debauch ? \n\n" \' General Mercier said that the search for a motive for a crime be- \nlonged to the domain of psychology, and that we were on the judicial do- \nmain. What does that mean ? I was never in the law, but it seems to \nme that the first thing to be done when one suspects a criminal is to dis- \ncover the motive for his crime. That is what I call soimd sense.\' \n\n"He shrugged his shoulders, and his grave voice rose high in the si- \nlence of the stopped train. Then, lowering his voice, he repeated several \ntimes, accentuating each word, \' Sound sense. Simple, sober sense.\' \n\n" The train started, and the captain went on : \n\n" \' As to the theory of the court-martial upon the extenuating circum- \nstances, it is just like this : Treason against his country is the greatest \ncrime a human being can commit. A murderer, a thief may find some \nexcuse for themselves ; their crime is one against an individual. Treason \nis a crime against a collectivity. There are no extenuating circumstances. \nIt is a monstrosity.\' \n\n"* What effect did the verdict have upon you? \' \n\n\n\nEXPLAINS ANIMOSITY AGAINST HIM 359 \n\n" The voice was at once lowered, and sadly he said : \' It was first of all \nintense anguish, then stupefaction, then very comforting when I learned \nthat two officers had had the courage to declare me entirely innocent. I \nswear that those two brave officers were right.\' \n\n" In speaking Dreyfus uses two gestures. When he reasons his thumb \nand first finger touch, forming a circle. When he is impassioned or car- \nried away his hand opens out with the fingers apart, as in the case of all \nsincere and frank persons. \n\n"His brother now questions him. \n\n" \' What is exactly the climate over there ? \' \n\n"Forty to fifty degrees [Centigrade = 104\xc2\xb0 to 122\xc2\xb0 Fahrenheit] by \nday, and never below twenty-five [77\xc2\xb0 F.] at night. That is the most \nterrible and most exhausting thing about it, for at a stretch one can bear heat \nprovided one breathes a little fresh air from time to time; there \xe2\x80\x94 never.\' \n\n" \' And you never knew anything of what was being done in France for \nyou? \' I asked. \n\n" \' Never a word ; not a single word. From time to time the rigors \nwere redoubled. I know now that that coincided with the declarations of \nthe Ministers of War. Every time one of them ascended the rostrum and \ndeclared that I had been justly and legally condemned, I felt the effects \nthrough the medium of my jailers. They cut off my food, or my reading, \nor my work, or my walk, or the sight of the sea, and, finally, moving about \nwith the aid of the double \' boucle.\' \n\n" \' M. Mathieu Dreyfus regarded his brother with emotion. \n\n" \' Is it not awful ? \' he said. \' Happily, we knew nothing about it \nhere, for our efforts would have been hampered thereby. If we had known \nthat every step toward the truth brought him suffering, perhaps our ardor \nwould have been diminished. But what pretext did your jailers give you? \' \n\n" \' None, and I did not ask for any. I did not wish to be beholden to \nthose people in any way. Besides, I did not wish to discuss my sentence \nor its execution in any way, for to discuss it would have implied to recog- \nnize it.\' \n\n"These words were said with extraordinary firmness, almost with \nharshness. \n\n" \' Yet one day,\' he went on, \' the day when they put irons on my \nfeet, I asked the reason of the barbarous treatment. They replied, " Pre- \n\n\n\n360 DKEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ncautionary measure." It was the day following that when a denial had \nbeen given of the bogus attempt to escape. \n\n" \' Ah, I well remember that night. It was not nine o\'clock. I was \nin bed, when I heard musketry fire and a great commotion all around me ; \nI sat up in bed and cried, "What is it? Who is there? " No one replied; \nmy guard was silent. I did not stir, thanks to I know not what instinct. \nIt was a good thing I did not, for I should have been instantly shot.\' \n\n" \' And so you imagined that General de Boisdeffre was looking after \nyour interests ? \' \n\n" \' Yes. I see now that I was mistaken.\' \n\n* \' Would you re-enter the army if legally you had the right? \' \n\n"\' No; I will resign the very evening of my rehabilitation.\' \n\n" \' In short, do you think it has been an error or a conspiracy ? \' \n\n" \' I think that at the beginning, up to the time of the court-martial \nof 1894 \xe2\x80\x94 that is to say, toward the end of this investigation \xe2\x80\x94 they be- \nlieved \xe2\x80\x94 at least, the majority of the persons connected with it \xe2\x80\x94 that I was \nguilty, but at the court-martial it was different. I am certain that from \nthat moment, as they felt they had made a mistake, they were afraid of \nbeing accused of carelessness, and they accumulated against me all kinds \nof machinations. The proof of this has been given by Captain Freystaetter. \n\n" \' They have provided behind my back documents that they knew \nwere false, in order to secure my condemnation. When Captain Erey- \nstaetter said this at Eennes, and uttered the words " Panizzardi despatch " \nin his calm tones, I shuddered in all my being. How could they do such \na thing as that ? \' \n\n" In telling me this Captain Dreyfus\'s eyes opened wide with a fright- \nened kind of stare, and he moved toward me as if the better to impress on \nme the horror that he felt. \n\n" I questioned him again : \n\n" \' You speak in certain letters of your fear of madness. How, indeed, \ninactive as you were, ill in body and mind, without books and not knowing \nwhat your fate would be \xe2\x80\x94 how did you succeed in warding off insanity ? \' \n\n"\' In 1896 and 1897, as I had resolved to live, I removed from my \ntable the photographs of my wife and children, the sight of whom made \nme suffer and weakened me. I no longer wished to see them, and I ended \nby only regarding them as symbols without the human figure, the thought \n\n\n\nEXPLAINS ANIMOSITY AGAINST HIM 361 \n\nof which unnerved me too much. I did not want to weaken. When one \nhas a duty it must be accomplished to the end, and I wanted to live for \nmy wife and children. It was the same during the trial at Eennes. \nWhen I was in so much need of strength \xe2\x80\x94 well, I would not re-read my \ndiary of Devil\'s Island, so as not to unnerve myself and to preserve my \nenergy, for (and he repeated this several times) when one has resolved to \ndo one\'s duty one must go on to the end.\' \n\n" His fist strikes the seat, giving emphasis to his words. \n\n"\' Do you know,\' he continued, \' what is most fatiguing in struggles \nlike mine? It is a passive resistance. To have struggled like my brother \nfor five years is indeed exhausting, but at least the effort leads to result. \nYou move, go here and there, cry, but you act; while a passive resistance \nwhich mine had to be is more exhausting, and still more depressing be- \ncause it exacts the effort of every minute in your life without resting a \nsingle minute. It is that, together with the lack of fresh air, which has \nexhausted me most.\' \n\n" \' But you must have had terrible nightmares ? \' \n\n"\'Oil, yes. I wrote them down in my diary afterward, but I could \nnot recall them at present. When the guard heard me talking aloud in \nthe night he would come to the foot of my bed to listen to my words, in \norder to report them next day in his report to the governor.\' \n\n" We were nearing Bordeaux. The captain once more looked out on \nthe country. \n\n" \' Oh, the beautiful vineyards ! \' he exclaimed, and continuing he said : \n\' It is so sweet, so quieting. When evening falls just see what charm \nthere is about those light mists encircling the trees.\' \n\n"\'What are you going to do now, captain? \' I asked. \n\n"\'To live alone with my wife and children henceforth. My children \nare my greatest joy on earth. The elder, it seems, remembers me. The \ngirl was only a few months old in 1894, so I do not know her. I did \nnot wish to see them at Eennes in order not to leave the sad impression \nof the prison on their young minds. One should not darken a child\'s \nimagination; but I am going to see them with great joy in two days\' \ntime. I want to bring them up myself, and in common with their mother \nto supervise their instruction and education, because I am opposed to \nboarding schools. \n\n\n\n362 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OP DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" \' When my children were small it was a holiday for me to talk with \nthem, to form them from their earliest age. Unfortunately, events did not \npermit it, but I hope to catch up.\' \n\n"Bordeaux \xe2\x80\x94 Is the journey going to last thus to the end? Not quite. \nAlas ! the Gironde had received from Eennes a despatch announcing that \nCaptain Dreyfus had left for Nantes, and local men inferred therefrom \nthat he was going to alight at Bordeaux. \n\n"Here they are indeed trying to recognize the captain, but we pass \nquickly through the crowd, and Mathieu Dreyfus alone is recognized. \nWe at once enter the Hotel Terminus, which adjoins the station, and go \nupstairs for a wash. We are spotted. All the hotel knows about it \nstraightway, as we can tell by the faces of the servants scrutinizing us. \nStill, we must dine and continue our route. We have the meal served in \na salon, and dine with some gayety under the curious eye of the head- \nwaiter, who is j&ustered. The captain is in good spirits. He asks me \npoint-blank : \n\n" \' Do you wish to know my opinion on the " affaire " ? \' and as we all \nlaugh over this outburst, he says to me, half serious, half gay : \n\n" \' Well, the fact is, I do not yet understand how they could accuse me \nof such a crime.\' \n\n" The agents of the detective department send us word that they are in \nwaiting. Our tickets are taken for Cette. \n\n" The station master is informed that we are going there to embark for \nSpain, and we hope he will spread the news, in order to lead the curious \noff the track. But all is in vain. A himdred people are stationed on the \nquay in front of the Hotel Terminus. \n\n" The detectives decide to have us go into the street and go on to the \nplatform by a public entrance, which is now deserted. This is what we \ndo, and the surprised crowd has barely time to see us shut ourselves in \nour compartments without being able to distinguish the object of its curi- \nosity. Five minutes more we stay there. The crowd does not utter a \nsingle cry. What a sign of calmer days ! \n\n"Then at thirty-eight minutes after seven o\'clock the train starts with- \nout the shade of a murmur. Fifty yards away a railway employee cries, \n\' Bravo ! \' while on the other side of the platform a voice cries, \' Down with \nDreyfus ! \' \n\n\n\nEXPLAINS ANIMOSITY AGAINST HIM 363 \n\n" Captain Dreyfus, who hears both cries, makes a reflection worthy of \na mathematician that equals things up. \n\n" From now on it was known that the train had Captain Dreyfus on \nboard, and calmly stretched out by the side of his brother Mathieu, in a \nsleeper, the blinds of which were drawn, the captain was trying to sleep \nfor the first time as a free man. \n\n" The night passed off well, and when in the morning at five o\'clock we \nsaw the captain again, he seemed rested, content and happy, as on the \nnight before, even happier at the approach of the final goal. I have not \nyet said that this goal was Carpentras, where the Valabregue family owns \na beautiful place, well situated and surrounded by other friendly families, \nand where Mathieu Dreyfus and Mme. Lucie Dreyfus had decided to shel- \nter the captain directly he was liberated. \n\n" The day breaks. The sun rises amid purple clouds on the horizon. \nI go forward to say farewell to the captain, who is watching the marvel- \nlous spectacle through the carriage window. I had a few words from him \nas to the present state of his mind. He says to me : \n\n" \' I have been the victim of ideas. I feel no bitterness, I nourish no \nhatred for those who have wronged me so deeply. I feel only pity for \nthem. What we must know is that never again can such misfortune be- \nfall any man.\' \n\n" I ask him : \' Are you aware of the intensity of feeling that your mis- \nfortune has aroused ? You know that people hate you, but you know that \nthere are many others whose hearts have bled for your sufferings.\' \n\n" \' I cannot take it myself. I represent in the eyes of sensitive people \npart of the human suffering, but part only, and I understand perfectly that \nit is the kindness of my fellow-beings which moved them at this symbol \nthat I personify.\' \n\n" \' Do you intend to live at Carpentras ? \' \n\n" \' Yes, until my health is restored and I have completely rested. I \nwould not go abroad as I was asked to do. The reception I might have \nhad would have had the air of reprisals against the country, and I could \nnot make up my mind.\' \n\n" We had not spoken of the pardon. It was time to do so, \n\n" \' I did not ask for the pardon,\' he said, \' but I accept it as an ac- \nknowledgment of my suffering and that of my wife, for we both need a \n\n\n\n364 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nlittle respite, but this pardon in no way affects my resolution to seek my \nrehabilitation. I will not know either insult or menace, but I will know \nno weakness \xe2\x80\x94 I mean mental weakness. Must not the soul dominate \nover the body ? \' \n\n" Avignon. The train stops. We all get off. In twenty paces we go \nout of the station. Two landaus are in waiting. A servant takes the \nluggage. The captain, M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and M. Paul Valabregue get \ninto one carriage, the detective and inspector into the other. \n\n" We exchange a last shake of the hand through the window, and the \nhistoric procession quickly disappears around the great trees. \n\n" Carpentras is twenty kilometres from Avignon. This morning the \nprefect of Vaucluse telephoned to the mayor of Carpentras to inform him \nthat Captain Dreyfus was within his walls, and to beg him to order police \nmeasures to be taken for his security and for keeping order. \n\n" The mayor replied that he was sure of the sentiments of the majority \nof the population in regard to the Valabregue family, and that he would \nbe answerable for quiet and order." \n\n\n\n"THE INCIDENT IS CLOSED" \xe2\x80\xa2 365 \n\n\n\nChapter LVIL \n\n\'\'THE INCIDENT IS CLOSED\'\' \n\nThe Aurore, the Petite Repuhlique, and the Steele, of Paris, published \non September 21st the following declaration from Captain Dreyfus: \n\nThe Government of the Eepublic restores me my liberty. It is noth- \ning to me without honor. From this day forth I shall continue to seek \nthe reparation of the judicial error of which I am still the victim. I wish \nthat France as a whole should know by a final judgment that I am inno- \ncent. My heart will not be at rf st until tliere is no longer a Frenchman \nwho imputes to me the abominable crime which another has committed. \n\nAlfred Deeyfus. \n\nThe report of the Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, to \nthe President of the Republic proposing the pardon of Dreyfus was as fol- \nlows : \n\nMonsieur le President: \xe2\x80\x94 On September 9th the court-martial of \nEennes condemned Dreyfus, by five votes against two, to ten years\' deten- \ntion, and by a majority it granted extenuating circumstances. After ap- \npealing to the Council of Eevision Dreyfus withdrew his application. The \nverdict has become definitive, and henceforth it partakes of the authority of \nthe law, before which every one ought to bow. The highest function of \nthe Government is to enforce respect for the decisions of justice without \ndistinction and without reservation. Resolved to fulfil this duty, it ought \nalso to take into account what clemency and the public interest counsel. \nThe verdict of the court-martial itself, which admitted extenuating cir- \ncumstances, and the desire immediately expressed that the sentence might \nbe mitigated are so many indications that ought to solicit attention. As \nthe result of the judgment pronounced in 1894 Dreyfus has undergone five \nyears\' transportation. This judgment was annulled on June 3, 1899, and \na penalty less severe both in its nature and its duration has been applied. \nIf one deducts from the ten years\' detention the five years served on the \n\n\n\n366 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONEE OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nA \n\nHe du Diable \xe2\x80\x94 and it cannot be otherwise \xe2\x80\x94 Dreyfus will have undergone \nfive years\' of transportation, and ought to undergo five years\' of detention. \nIt has been suggested whether it was not possible to assimilate transporta- \ntion to solitary confinement in a prison, and in that case he would have \nalmost completely purged his sentence. Legislation does not seem to per- \nmit this. It follows, therefore, that Dreyfus ought to undergo a higher \npenalty than that to which he has been actually condemned. \n\nIt results from information obtained that the health of the condemned \nman has been seriously compromised, and that he could not, without the \ngreatest peril, bear a prolonged detention. Apart from considerations of \na nature to arouse anxiety, others of a more general order tend to the \nsame conclusions. A higher political interest \xe2\x80\x94 the necessity of calling up \nall their powers always exacted from governments after difficult crises and \nin regard to certain orders of facts \xe2\x80\x94 suggests measures of clemency or of \noblivion. The Government would ill respond to the desire of a country \ndesirous of pacification if, by the acts which it behooves it to accomplish, \nwhether on its own initiative or by a proposal to Parliament, it did not \ntake steps to efface all traces of a painful conflict. It is for you, Monsieur \nle President, by an act of supreme humanity, to give the first pledge of the \nwork of pacification which public opinion demands, and which the welfare \nof the Eepublic dictates. \n\nFor these reasons I have the honor to propose for your signature the \nfollowing decree. \n\nGeneral de Gallifet, Minister of War. \n\nThe decree in question was thus worded : \n\n"Article 1. \xe2\x80\x94 There is accorded to Alfred Dreyfus remission of the \nrest of the penalty of ten years\' of detention pronounced against him by \ndecree of the court-martial of Eennes dated September 9, 1899, and also \nof military degradation. \n\n"Aeticle 2. \xe2\x80\x94 The Minister of War is charged with the execution of \nthe present decree." \n\nGeneral de Gallifet also sent to the military governors of Paris and \nLyons, as well as to army corps commanders, the following general order: \n\nTo THE Army: \xe2\x80\x94 The incident is closed. The military judges, the \nobject of universal respect, have delivered their verdict in complete inde- \npendence. We have, without any sort of reservation, bowed down before \ntheir decree. We shall likewise bow down before the act which a senti- \n\n\n\n"THE INCIDENT IS CLOSED" 367 \n\nment of profound pity has dictated to the President of the Eepublic. It \nis impossible that any question of reprisals of any sort whatever should \nhenceforth arise. So I repeat, the incident is closed. I ask you, and if \nneed be I should order you, to forget the past in order to think only of the \nfuture. With you, who are all my comrades, I cry heartily "Vive \nI\'armee ! " the army which belongs to no party but only to France, \n\nGallifet. \n\nGermany, on the whole, was pleased at the news of the compromise \narrived at in the Dreyfus case. It was recognized with deep regret at \nBerlin that the unfortimate officer, by withdrawing his notice of appeal, \nabandoned, for the time being, his hope of securing a legal and formal vin- \ndication of his innocence, but the opinion was held that the trial at Eennes \nconvinced all who were open to conviction, and that the main things to be \nconsidered after the trial were the tranquillity of France and the health of \nthe prisoner. \n\nThe clerical Kolnische Volks-Zeitung, which had regarded the Dreyfus \ncase with almost complete indifference, considered that it was an act of \npatriotism on the part of Dreyfus to accept the pardon. There were not \nwanting voices, however, which denounced the compromise as cowardly \nand even unwise. \n\nThe Cologne Gazette regarded the pardon as "an ofi&cial recognition \nof the cowardly and disgraceful judgment at Eennes as the scornful an- \nswer of a common court-martial to the plain order of the court of highest \ninstance in the country," and as "a victory of the military party over the \ncivil institutions." \n\nThe Vossische Zeitung thought that the only excuse for the action of \nthe French Government was that it was anxious to place the person of \nDreyfus in safety as soon as possible, for fear of the consequences if an \nanti-Dreyfus ministry should come into power. \n\n\n\n368 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter LVIIL \n\nIS THE " INCIDENT ^^ CLOSED? \n\nWhen the French Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, \nannounced that the Dreyfus " incident " was closed, he probably believed \nhe was stating the truth. But he differs in this respect from the famous \nParis correspondent of the London Times, M. de Blowitz, who, under \ndate of September 24th, telegraphed to his paper as follows : \n\n" For the honor of humanity and of France we must not fancy that, \nas General de Gallifet has said in a phrase which would seem to have \nbeen written on a drumhead, \' L\'incident est clos.\' No; the heat of the \nbattle, perhaps, is over, but the incident is not ended, for the simple reason \nthat it is not an incident but a colossal chapter the episodes in which are \nstages in the history of civilization, and which is bound to continue if hu- \nmanity does not intend to abdicate its right to progress. For the foreigner \nas well as for France the sacred interests of justice, which are our com- \nmon patrimony, are at stake. Whoever deals an arbitrary blow at justice \nis nothing more nor less than a malefactor. He is like a man who fells \nan immense tree across a railway line to stop the progress of the train at \nthe risk of killing all the passengers. No; neither for the foreigner nor \nfor France is the incident ended. The foreigner, it is true, has not him- \nself to aim at reprisals, but in his shoulder-to-shoulder advance with the \nrest of humanity he has certain rights and certain laws to defend. It \nwould be to our common shame if after these five years of anxiety and \ndoubt, if after these two years of anguish and of battle, we were to say \ncalmly to one another, seated in the shadow of the beech- trees, \' Now that \nthe prisoner is at liberty let us wash our hands of the whole matter and \ntake breath.\' No, let us not lie down in idleness, content with the work \nalready done. \n\n"In the first place, Alfred Dreyfus, although no longer in prison, still \nremains condemned in the eyes of the law, mortally wounded in his honor. \n\n\n\nIS THE "INCIDENT" CLOSED? 369 \n\nand, whatever the disdain manifested by public opinion throughout the \nworld for the verdict of these Eennes judges, who had not the slightest \nidea that their mission was to rehabilitate before civilization and history \nthe honor of military justice, Dreyfus has, nevertheless, come forth from \nEennes gravely touched in his honor, \' sans lequel,\' as he said, \' la liberte \nne m\'est rien.\' The foreign Press, to be sure, has not to intervene in the \nefforts of Dreyfus to obtain the annulling of this verdict. Such a result, \nalthough not admitted by his peers, would efface the judicial stain which \nstill remains upon his honor, and, as for his military judges, it is perfectly \nclear that their mental attitude is so utterly different from that of other \nreflecting beings that it is futile to appeal to them in the hope of obtaining \na verdict in conformity with the ordinary principles of human justice. \nIt is, nevertheless, necessary for the greater good of civilization that human \nsociety as a whole should draw from this event, which General de Galli- \nfet calls an incident, such conclusions as will hasten our common progress \nand remove from the path all the obstacles in the way. It is, further- \nmore, imperative that history should treasure up the names of those who \nhave with such effrontery conspired against truth, and have succeeded in \ntransforming Justice into a strumpet obedient to their every hest, instead \nof allowing her to remain the virgin, haughty and serene, \' who renders \nverdicts and not services.\' \n\n" I venture to hope that my readers will not blame me for not taking \nmy ease in the tranquillity of a work well done, and that they will allow \nme to point out to them that in France, as elsewhere, the men ready to \ndefend insulted justice and outraged truth are still numerous and alert. \nThis morning\'s Figaro contained a letter from M. Jonnart to M.Corn^ly, \nand I extract from it certain passages which may serve as the eloquent \nconclusion of what I have been saying, for M. Jonnart, a liberal-minded \nman, enamoured of justice, belongs to the group of a chosen few, to the \nband of young public men who are the hope of the Eepublic, those in \nwhom the encroachments of ambition have not yet had time to stifle the \nvoice of the heart, which makes itself heard simultaneously with that of \nreason. Although still young, M. Jonnart has already climbed well to \nthe top in political life. It is he who, as one of the members of the com- \nmittee of the Progressist section of the Centre, wrote to M. M^line a few \ndays ago a very plain-spoken letter in reply to the ex-prime minister\'s \n24 \n\n\n\n370 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\neffort to add one more embarrassment to those in which France is now in- \nvolved. M. M^line desired the immediate convocation of the Chamber, \nhoping to pile up a few ruins, on the summit of which he would take his \nplace as master of the situation with his portfolio under his arm. \n"Let me give now certain extracts from M. Jonnart\'s letter: \n" \' The incomprehensible verdict of the Eennes court-martial, against \nwhich good sense, logic, and the law itself protest, becomes the most strik- \ning justification of your articles, and condemns those whom it pretends to \nsave. For three years I have been unable through ill-health to ascend the \ntribune of the Chamber, and I am quite unable to express how much I \nhave suffered at not being able to tell in public all my anxieties, my pro- \nfound pain and distress, and at not being able to put my political friends \non their guard against the indifference or the want of foresight of their \nchiefs. There have been moments when I have ardently desired that \nDreyfus should be found guilty. I have read everything, studied every- \nthing, examined everything, with the hope of finding the proof of his \nguilt. I refused to believe in the odious machinations in this abominable \ncrime. This proof I have not found ; it does not exist. I was then seized \nwith a poignant doubt, and then, when my conviction had been formed \non the documents themselves so that it could not be shaken, I felt that \nsomething had given way within me, and an evil wind seemed to be car- \nrying away the ideals of my youth. For I am a Eepublican and always \nhave been so. I believe in the Eepublic \xe2\x80\x94 that is to say, in justice and in \nliberty. I have fought for these ideas in a modest place in the Eepubli- \ncan ranks, but with a passionate sincerity, with a joyous spirit and enthu- \nsiasm no longer known to the young men of to-day, buoyed up by the in- \ndomitable hope of a better humanity. \n\n" \' Alas ! does not what has taken place during the last three years in \nour unfortunate country make one doubt the progress of the human spirit? \nFor me it is the shattering of certain illusions which had remained persis- \ntent amid the agitations of my political life. The barbarians who con- \nducted the savage campaign which has led up to the verdict of Eennes \nmay make merry, their joy will not be long. I have written this to a few \nfriends many a time ; you have said the same for yours in marvellous arti- \ncles in which you blended all your heart with all your talent. The Drey- \nfus affair is only an incident, but the audacious enterprise for which it \n\n\n\nIS THE " INCIDENT " CLOSED ? 371 \n\nhas served as a pretext will have political consequences as to which the \nmoderates of the Conservative and the Eepublican parties have made the \ngreat mistake in not concerning themselves. They will not say in excuse \nthat they could not anticipate them. Ah no ; these shortsighted politi- \ncians have been sufficiently warned. ... \n\n" \' . . . The insensate persons who have revived in this country the \nracial and religious wars cherish the illusion of keeping the conflagration \nwithin bounds. The sectarian fools who tremble with joy at the cry \n" Mort aux juifs ! " and let loose civil war with the secret hope of stopping \nit at the exact point where their appetites and rancors were satisfied, have \nsown the wind to reap the whirlwind. And I note with painful surprise \nthat Denys Cochin and many another Catholic like him whom I like and \nfor whom I have a profound respect, did not utter in the thick of the bat- \ntle, I will not say a cry of indignation \xe2\x80\x94 that we did not ask of them \xe2\x80\x94 but \neven a cry of pity. The religious bodies dispersed in 1880 have been re- \nestablished almost everywhere, that of the Jesuits in particular. Only \na short time ago a bill intended to enforce the famous decrees, and this \ntime to apply them seriously, would have disturbed nobody and would \nhave piteously failed. Now, you may imagine, it will have some chance \nof success. And, indeed, what force is given by recent events and by the \npropaganda of the Libre Parole and of the monkish leaguers of the Croix \nto the arguments of those who consider that the Eepublic, like the mon- \narchy, cannot permit to thrive in its midst certain unauthorized religious \nbodies, certain rich and powerful associations, unrecognized by the State, \ncompletely outside its control, and constantly conspiring against its secu- \nrity and public order \xe2\x80\x94 incorrigible conspirators, beaten on May 16th, \nbeaten with Boulanger, beaten always, yet always returning to the assault \nof Eepublican institutions with the same sophisms, the same pretensions, \nthe same ambitions, and the same weapons \xe2\x80\x94 defamation and falsehood.\' " \n\n\n\n372 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nChapter LIX. \n\nTHE HOPE OF FEIANCE \n\nA HisTOEY of the Dreyfus case would be incomplete without a sketch \nof General the Marquis de Gallifet, the Minister of War at the time of the \nKennes court-martial, and "the Hope of France." This combination of \nEoyalist and Eepublican, gallant soldier and aristocrat, stem disciplinarian \nand statesman, was born in Paris, on January 25, 1830. He entered the \nFrench army in April, 1848, and reached the rank of sub-lieutenant De- \ncember 30, 1857. He was promoted captain in 1860, major of cavalry \nin 1863, lieutenant- colonel in 1867, and general of division in 1875. \nDe Gallifet (whose name, in some books of reference, is spelled Galliffet) \nserved with great distinction in the Crimea, before Sebastopol, where he \nwas commended for his bravery. The general was badly wounded by the \nexplosion of a shell at Puebla, in 1863, during the Mexican war, and \ndistinguished himself in the Algerian campaigns of 1860, 1864, 1865, and \n1868. \n\nIn the Franco-Prussian war General de Gallifet served with the Army \nof the Ehine, and won the admiration of the invaders of France while at \nthe head of the Fifth Eegiment of African Hussars. He was captured by \nthe Prussians at the battle of Sedan and was imprisoned in Germany. \nAfter the Franco-Prussian War, De Gallifet was made a general of brigade, \nand took a most active part in the second siege of Paris, then held by the \ntroops of the Commune, and in the suppression of the Communards. \nUpon that occasion he acted with the greatest severity, but the circum- \nstances seem to have justified him in so doing. When his victorious \ntroops entered Paris, he caused thousands of Communards, caught red- \nhanded, to be shot on the spot, and restored order by the unlimited use of \nrifle, bayonet, and rapid-fire gun. Any man of the Communards caught \nwearing a uniform, part of a uniform, or even military shoes, was promptly \nexecuted, and the hands of all the prisoners captured were examined for \n\n\n\nTHE HOPE OF FRANCE 373 \n\npowder marks. If such traces of resistance to the troops of the Versailles \nGovernment were found, the curt order, "Shoot him," was issued, and a \nfew minutes later the man so condemned was dead. \n\nIn 1871 General de Gallifet was sent to Africa, and took a prominent \npart in the pacification of the insurgent tribes. He commanded the \nEl-Goliah expedition, and, overcoming the most serious obstacles in the \nway of the transportation of troops, he executed a rapid march through \nthe desert and vanquished the Arabs. \n\nLater, De Gallifet, who had become a great friend of M. Gambetta, \nwas appointed to command the Eighth Army Corps; in 1875 he was \nmade general of division, and in 1879 he was given the command of the \nNinth Army Corps. He was promoted to the command of the Twelfth \nArmy Corps in 1882, and in 1885 was made a member of the Supreme \nCouncil of War. \n\nDuring the autumn of 1891, General de Gallifet conducted his part \nof the army manoeuvres so brilliantly that the Military Medal, a high \ndistinction in France, was conferred upon him. After conducting the \nfall manoeuvres of 1894, the general retired from active service. \n\nGeneral de Gallifet was decorated with the cross of the Legion of \nHonor in 1855, was made officer of the Legion of Honor in 1863, com- \nmander of the Legion of Honor in 1873, grand officer of the Legion of \nHonor in 1880, and grand cross of the Legion of Honor in 1887. He \nhas also been inspector-general of many army corps. \n\nDe Gallifet succeeded M. do Freycinet as Minister of War on June 22, \n1899, becoming part of the non-partisan Cabinet formed to handle the crisis \nin France caused by the agitation for and against Dreyfus. His advent \nupon the scene apparently calmed the passions of all parties. Although \noriginally a Eoyalist, De Gallifet is above all a loyal soldier, and all par- \nties, remembering his extreme severity, to put it mildly, in suppressing \nthe Commune, recognized that for once France had the right man in the \nright place, a man who might be counted upon fearlessly and relent- \nlessly to uphold law and order, even if he had to make the gutters of the \nFrench capital, for the second time, run with human blood. \n\nAs to his Eoyalist leanings, it is an open question as to whether the \nkid-gloved but iron-handed soldier would not handle the followers of the \nDuke of Orleans, if they attempted a revolutionary movement, as roughly \n\n\n\n374 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nas he handled the Communards in the past. In any case an officer and a \ngentleman in every sense of the words, De Gallifet is counted upon by his \nadmirers to uphold the regularly constituted authorities in France at all \ncosts. \n\nWith supreme confidence in his own nerve, De Gallifet looked with \nquiet scorn upon the turbulent parties of France, and openly defied the \nanti-Dreyfusites after the verdict, by promptly promoting Captain Frey- \nstaetter and Major Hartman, the two officers who gave the most fearless, \noutspoken testimony in favor of Dreyfus, and in announcing that after \ninvestigation he had found no ground for suspicion of Colonel Picquart\'s \nconduct of the Intelligence Department. This was practically saying that \nFreystaetter and Hartman had, in the general\'s firm opinion, testified to \nthe truth, and that Picquart was an honest man. \n\nIt is said, in addition, that the general\'s private relations with ambas- \nsadors and others enabled him to convince himself that Dreyfus was \ninnocent. \n\nThis firm stand of the general won him the respect, at least, of his \nworst enemies, and people throughout the world began to look toward him \nas likely to be the Moses capable of leading France out of the wilderness \nof corruption, incompetency, and general rottenness into which she had \ndrifted, step by step, with open eyes, during past years. France, her best \nfriends know, needs a strong man at the helm of State \xe2\x80\x94 a brilliant man, \na man who can excite the admiration of the world, a man who can com- \nmand respect at home and abroad. Such a man is General the Marquis \nde Gallifet. As Minister of War he has proved very successful. Will \nFrance recognize this by bestowing further honors upon him? Let us \nwait and see what the future has in store for the gallant soldier-statesman. \n\n\n\nWHAT EUROPE THOUGHT OE THE "PAEDON" 375 \n\n\n\nChapter LX. \n\nWHAT EUROPE THOUGHT OF THE \'^ PARDON\'\' \n\nThe " pardon " extended to Dreyfus was considered by a large section \nof the Austrian public to be a not unworthy counterpart to the verdict of \ntreason with extenuating circumstances given by the Eennes court-martial. \nIt was classed in Vienna as a compromise of a not particularly elevated \nor manly character, which went to show that the ministerial champions of \njustice in Paris had at least one point in common with the instruments of \nmilitary violence at Eennes. Both were lacking in the courage of their \nopinions. The general feeling on the subject in Austria found unreserved \nexpression in the Fremdenblatt, which remarked that the compromises \neffected involved a grave depreciation of moral dignity for all the princi- \npal factors concerned, adding : \n\n" The Government in adopting this expedient proved that it had not \nthe courage to take the straight road and proceed to the revision or cassa- \ntion of the sentence. It remains to be seen whether the advantages of \nthat expedient will outweigh the danger of such a confession of weak- \nness," \n\nIn the opinion of the Vienna semi-official organ, the main object of \nthe French Cabinet was to detach the army from the enemies of the Ee- \npublic, also saying that it was concerned for the fate of the Exhibition, \nwhich it did not wish to see prejudiced or endangered by subversive \nmovements. \n\nIn Eome, the liberation of Dreyfus was hailed with general satisfac- \ntion, and was interpreted as an official disavowal of the iniquitous sentence \nof Eennes. \n\nThe London Times, otherwise the "Thunderer," commenting upon the \nrelease of Dreyfus, said: \n\n" The release of Alfred Dreyfus from his long and barbarous captivity \n\n\n\n376 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nwas accomplished yesterday, not as a public act of reparation, but as if it \nwere something of which the Government that \'pardoned\' him might pos- \nsibly be ashamed. In the early hours of the morning M. Dreyfus was \nremoved from his prison at Eennes, and, in company with his brother, \nwho has stood by him so faithfully all through this cruel ordeal, left for a \ndestination that is at present unknown. The persecution of an innocent \nman \xe2\x80\x94 practically declared to be so by the inept judgment of the Eennes \ncourt-martial and by the action of the chief of the State \xe2\x80\x94 has thus been \nexhibited, st last, to the world in its scandalous unrighteousness. It be- \ngan in illegal methods of procedure, adopted, as the inquiry at Eennes has \nshown, to secure the conviction of the accused, and carried out by illegal \nmethods of physical and moral torture from which even mediaeval brutali- \nty might have recoiled. It is to be hoped, for the sake of France herself, \nthat the victim of a plot as base and odious as any recorded in history will \nnow have at least a chance of recovering a certain measure of health and \nstrength in retirement and seclusion. Whether or not M. Dreyfus will \nproceed to an appeal before the Court of Cassation for the annulling of the \nEennes verdict we cannot say. The moral effect of that pitiable decision \nhas already been destroyed, not only by the force of public opinion, but \nby the resolution of the French Government not to act upon it. At the \nsame time it is felt that justice is outraged when an innocent man has to \nslink away under cover of a \'pardon, \' while the vile conspirators who did \ntheir best to send him back to Devil\'s Island are even now swaggering \nabout in their uniforms and their cassocks as if they had the fortunes of \nFrance in their polluted hands. \n\n" France will bitterly regret the apathy with which she has treated the \nmost abominable of crimes, the systematic perversion of justice to secure \nthe ruin of an individual. She has displayed the backwardness of her ju- \nrisprudence and the weakness of her moral fibre. In an interesting letter \nSir Herbert Stephen points out that France is still in the stage out of \nwhich this country passed hundreds of years ago, when a trial was based, \nnot on evidence, but on \'compurgation.\' Unfortunately, the moral basis \nof compurgation, the truthful backing of a man by his honest neighbors, \ndoes not exist in a corrupt modem society. \n\n" The effect of what has been said and done at Eennes on the minds of \nindependent foreigners is strikingly shown in a letter from M. Zakrevsky, \na well-known Eussian jurist and a member of the Imperial Senate, which \nis the High Court of the Empire. M. Zakrevsky has studied the proceed- \nings at Eennes, and is appalled to see what they mean. The conclusion \nhe draws from \' this unheard-of spectacle \' is that \' modern French society \n\n\n\nWHAT EUEOPE THOUGHT OF THE "PARDON" 377 \n\nlias definitely fallen from the rank it occupied among civilized peoples. \nWhere the sentiment of justice is atrophied by the intensity of political \nand religious passions grafted on to a monstrous national vanity passing \nitself off for patriotism, there is, I contend, no room left for the moral ele- \nments indispensable to a well-ordered form of society.\' Nor will M. Za- \nkrevsky admit that only the five unjust judges of Eennes and their chiefs \nshould be held responsible \' for the iniquitous acts which have revolted \nthe whole world.\' He dwells, not without force, on the lamentable want \nof moral courage displayed by the nation. \' Take one instance amongst \nmany. See how men who call themselves statesmen, who belong to the \ncream of society, like the Casimir-Periers, the Freycinets, when called \nupon to give evidence, to tell the whole truth, instead of throwing light \nupon important facts, are content to fence, or make oracular speeches. \nThey think above all of themselves ; their chief anxiety is not to depreci- \nate their own value in the eyes of their great audience, \xe2\x80\x94 i.e., of the coun- \ntry which listens to them.\' Just as little does the Russian jurist mince \nhis words concerning the motives which have led France to seek the alli- \nance of his own coimtry : \' Unable in her vanity and thirst for prestige to \nrecognize in her defeats of 1870-71 all that was irremediable and even \njust, protesting that she would never accept the Treaty of Frankfort as \nfinal, prating of her re-vindications, of her hopes, without venturing to \nstrike a blow, France has gradually cut herself adrift in the helplessness \nof political disorder from the other Western nations, to which, with their \ngreat liberal traditions, the ties of centuries united her, and she has sunk \namorously into the arms of Russia, of a country which represents and \npractices more than ever principles entirely opposed to those which France \nboasts of holding. From the Russian alliance she has inevitably and logi- \ncally drifted into anti-Semitism, into anti-Protestantism, into oppression of \nthe weak, into a recrudescence of brutal militarism, and, finally, into the \nDreyfus affair, crowned by the proceedings at Rennes.\' \n\n" No critics in this country or elsewhere have written anything so cruel \nand crushing as these and other even more uncomplimentary messages, for \nwhich we prefer to refer our readers to the French text. Yet it is plain \nthat these views, so decidedly in unison with those of the great majority \nof Germans, Austrians, and Italians, as well as of Englishmen and Ameri- \ncans, are shared by Russians of every school. M. Zakrevsky is a Liberal ; \nbut a very eminent representative of old Russian ideas, M. Pobiedonost- \nzeff, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, has come to the same conclusion \nabout the Dreyfus case. He has said that \' for all impartial observers the \nproceedings at Rennes proved the innocence of Captain Dreyfus,\' and has \n\n\n\n378 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nexpressed his agreement with the contention of The Times, borne out by \nmany independent testimonies, that the root of the mischief lies in the false \neducation of the young in France. Even the most rabid anti-Dreyfusards \nwill hardly contend, we suppose, that the Russians have also joined the \ngreat \' cosmopolitan syndicate of treason.\' " \n\n\n\nECHOES OF THE TRIAL 379 \n\n\n\nChapter LXL \n\nECHOES OF THE TRIAL \n\nThere were many remarkable exhibitions of feeling throughout the \nworld after the second conviction of Dreyfus, and a number of strong state- \nments were made on the subject. \n\nArchbishop Ireland, at St. Paul, Minn., said in an interview Septem- \nber 13th: \n\n" It is my belief that public meetings in America such as it is proposed \nto hold for the purpose of protesting against the sentence of the Rennes \ncourt-martial are untimely, unfair to France, and likely to breed regretta- \nble ill-feeling between that country and our own. \n\n" I shall not deny that I have always had in my heart deep sympathy \nfor the unfortunate officer who has been under trial in Eennes, and that I \nhad wished and hoped that the sentence of the court would have been one \nof acquittal. \n\n" But it is another question to face the verdict of the court the moment \nthat verdict has been declared with the assertion that it is plainly against \ntruth, and that the court from which it issues is guilty of base injustice \nand sacrilegious perjury. And it is, still more so, another question to lay \nupon France the crime of the verdict, if crime there be in it, and throw at \na whole people and at their Government insulting epithets. Let us wait. \n\n" This whole matter belongs to the internal life and to the internal ad- \nministration of France, and international courtesy as well as justice bids \nus talk about it very carefully and very slowly. France is a proud, sensi- \ntive nation. She will deeply resent, as it is her right, undue criticism \nand hasty judgment of her acts by a foreign people, and especially will \nshe resent, as it is surely her right, any uncalled-for interference with her \ninternal administration and any imprudent challenging of her national \nhonor. \n\n" France has been our friend for ages. She was our friend when no \nother nation befriended us. She is our friend to-day. She is a sister \n\n\n\n380 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nrepublic. We should pause long and seriously before blaming, suspecting, \nor offending France. \n\n" I can well understand the present happenings in America. The \nAmerican people are most easily roused to sentiments of justice and hu- \nmanity. Prudence, however, is the queen of all virtues, and we should \nstrive to make it ours. \n\n" In what I say I speak as an American, for what I believe the good \nof America. I make no plea for France, although, because I know France, \nI love her despite her faults, and I hope for her, despite her perils." \n\nGovernor Theodore Roosevelt, of the State of New York, in a speech \nat Walton, N. Y., September 13th, remarked: \n\n" Something recently happened which I want to speak about. I think \nit a rare thing for the whole nation to watch the trial of a single citizen of \nanother nation. We have watched with indignation and regret the trial \nof Captain Dreyfus. It was less Dreyfus on trial than those who tried \nhim. We should draw lessons from the trial. It was due in part to bit- \nter religious prejudices of the French people. Those who have ever wa- \nvered from the doctrine of the separation of Church and State should pon- \nder upon what has happened. Try to encourage every form of religious \neffort. Beware and do not ever oppose any man for any reason except \nworth or want of it. You cannot benefit one class by pulling another class \ndown. " \n\nIn Washington, September 12th, a mass meeting was held at the Ma- \nsonic Temple to protest against the verdict of the Rennes court-martial \nin the Dreyfus case. The speakers included men of all creeds \xe2\x80\x94 Jews, \nProtestants, and Catholics. The meeting adopted a set of resolutions \naffirming belief in the innocence of Dreyfus, condemning the proceedings \nof the court-martial, and pledging those present to use every lawful and \nproper means to prevent the co-operation of this country in the Paris \nExposition. The resolutions, after expressing sympathy with Dreyfus and \nhis family, continued : \n\n" Remembering all the ties and traditions that bind us to France, and \nnot forgetful of the glorious days of Lafayette and Rochambeau and of \nthe gallant efforts of Picquart, Zola, Labori, and Demange, we do not de- \nspair of final victory for justice. We invoke all American citizens to co- \n\n\n\nECHOES OF THE TRIAL 381 \n\noperate to the end that justice may finally be done and the sentiments of \nthe American people brought home to the Government and the citizens of \nFrance. In the mean time we will take measures as citizens to emphasize \nby word and act our deliberate intention not to co-operate in the Paris \nExposition of next year, and do whatever is legal and proper to prevent \nour Government from ofi&cial recognizing said Exposition." \n\nThe resolutions concluded by calling on the President of the United \nStates to convey to the French Government, in whatever form he might \ndeem proper, the views of the American people on the Dreyfus verdict, as \nvoiced by that country and other meetings throughout the country. \n\nEeference was made in one of the resolutions to the testimony of ex- \nMinister Lebon before the court-martial, in which he said that the rigor- \nous treatment of Dreyfus was due in part to the understanding that there \nwas a plan on foot to rescue the prisoner by a party of Americans. The \nresolution called upon Secretary of State Hay to obtain an official copy of \nthis testimony " in order to refute this slander. " \n\nPresident McKinley did not take any action in the matter, as it was \nimpossible for him to do so, as pointed out at the time by the New York \nTimes, which said, editorially : \n\n" If France were to suffer some national calamity, as she did in the death \nof her president\xe2\x80\x9eit would be quite proper for Mr. McKinley to express the \nsorrow and sympathy that we should all feel or to forward through our \nAmbassador the resolutions of any public bodies. But when it comes to \ncriticism and protest our people must content themselves with individual \nutterance or with the utterance of and through the press. It is an ac- \ncepted rule in all the relations of governments with each other that each \nis entirely independent in the conduct of its internal affairs, and none is at \nliberty to comment officially thereon unless prepared to take the conse- \nquences of an unfriendly act. There must always be a distinct reason in \nthe peculiar interests of the criticising power to make criticism even plaus- \nible, and the power criticised need make no excuse for resentment. \n\n" Our Government has no opinion as to the Dreyfus case, and has no \nright to any, any more than France would have a right to an opinion in \nregard to something that might arise in this country to offend the moral \nsense of its people \xe2\x80\x94 the lynching of colored men, for instance, or the \nwhitewashing of the late Secretary of War. It does not by any means fol- \nlow that the American people are not entitled to have a perfectly clear \n\n\n\n382 DREYFUS: THE PEISONER OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nopinion on the subject and to express it in any form they choose, except \nthrough the Executive. As a matter of fact the American people have \nformed and expressed an opinion to which France will in its own way and \nin its own time listen. At the moment it is not pleasant to hear, but it \nis inspired by a sense of justice and it is not really unfriendly. There is \nno reason why we should conceal it. There is every reason why, soberly \nand temperately, we should express, explain, and enforce it. In the long \nrun it will have its effect, and the effect will be salutary." \n\nIn New York City there was much indignation against the verdict of \nthe Rennes court-martial, and the Municipal Assembly, September. 12th, \nadopted the following resolution unanimously : \n\n" Whereas, Since the last session of the Municipal Assembly the intel- \nligent people of the world have been startled by the report of the convic- \ntion of Captain Alfred Dreyfus ; and \n\n" Whereas, We feel that his conviction was unjust, and not sustained \nby the reported facts and testimony \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n"Resolved, That the Municipal Assembly of the city of New York ex- \ntends to Captain Dreyfus its profound sympathy, and that in the interest \nof justice and humanity and of republican institutions this Assembly ex- \npresses its hope that this great injustice be corrected by the French Eepub- \nlic to the end that truth and justice may yet prevail." \n\nLiberty Hall, East Houston Street, New York City, was crowded on \nSeptember 12th with Jewish residents of the East Side, gathered under the \nauspices of the Englander Family Society, a benevolent and charitable \norganization, to protest against the verdict rendered in the Dreyfus trial. \n\nThe president of the society is J. Spero, and the secretary Irving Kline. \nOsias Mailer presided at the meeting. A letter was read from Alexander \nS. Rosenthal, ex-United States Consul to Italy, in which he wrote : \n\n"France has committed a crime by her unjust verdict rendered against \nCaptain Dreyfus. The entire civilized world is convinced that the verdict \nis based on bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice." \n\nThe following resolutions were adopted by a unanimous vote : \n\n" Resolved, That through the United States Ambassador in France we \nappeal to the President of the French Republic, that he right the wrong \n\n\n\nECHOES OF THE TRIAL 383 \n\ndone to an innocent man, not by pardoning Captain Dreyfus, but by inter- \nvening to secure for him a new trial; and should this request be refused, \n" Resolved, That we appeal to President McKinley that he should take \nmeasures to prevent the forwarding of any national exhibits by the United \nStates at the French Exposition in Paris in 1900." \n\nThe Central Eepublican Club, of New York City, at a meeting Septem- \nber 12th, unaniomusly passed the following resolution: \n\n" Whereas, In common with the whole civilized world, we have ob- \nserved with amazement the extraordinary trial concluded at Eennes and \nits final judgment, and since it is the sacred interest of ail men to defend \nand maintain courts for the administration of justice in any country which \nis frequently visited by foreigners, that lives and property may be secure \nunder the full intercourse of our times, we declare our unqualified censure \nof the hateful methods of injustice which were employed to obtain the \nsecond unrighteous condemnation of Alfred Dreyfus by a French court- \nmartial, and we declare that such methods and such tribunals are a per- \nversion of justice and are more fitted for barbarous lands than for a coun- \ntry boasting to possess the civilization of the French Eepublic.\'\' \n\nA copy of the resolutions was mailed to Mme. Dreyfus. \nThe State G.A.E. reunion of Nebraska, September 13th, adopted the \nfollowing resolution: \n\n" Resolved, As a convention of soldiers who have fought in wars under- \ntaken in the interests of a common humanity^ having for their object the \nredress of wrongs perpetrated on the weak and defenceless, we desire to \nexpress our abhorrence of a verdict, \xc2\xa3[s in the case of Captain Dreyfus, \nthat consigns an innocent man to ignominy, shame, and pain, and that be- \nspeaks the spirit of a bigoted past rather than that of an enlightened pres- \nent." \n\nThe following message was sent to President McKinley by the Episco- \npal clergy of San Francisco, September 12th : \n\n"The clericus of the Protestant Episcopal Church of San Francisco, \nprofoundly moved by the verdict in the Dreyfus case, most earnestly re- \nquest your excellency to take such action toward a reversal of the sen- \ntence as is possible and compatible with the diplomatic relations existing \nbetween the two nations." \n\n\n\n384 DKEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nThe following message of sympathy was telegraphed to Mme. Alfred \nDreyfus at Eennes by the summer residents of Northeast Harbor, Maine : \n\n" Madame : The heart of the whole world is toward you. The trial has \nmade evident the innocence and the noble character of your husband, and \nthe great public, which has followed this struggle with anguish, now ren- \nders to him and to his children the honor for which he has struggled till \nnow, for which he is still struggling in France." \n\nThe message was signed by William Croswell Doane, Bishop of Al- \nbany; S. K. Doane, Eliza G. D. Gardiner, Winthrop Sargent, Aim^ Sar- \ngent, Ellen W. Boyd, Margaret Condit, Marguerite Junod, Theodora W. \nWoosley, B. W. Frazier, Arthur Hugh Frazier, the Eev. Dr. W. R. Hun- \ntington, Rector of Grace Church, New York ; K. F. Gray, James T. Gar- \ndiner, Andrew L. Wheelwright, Sarah C. Wheelwright; A. de Viti de \nMarco, Professor of Finance in the University of Rome , E. de Viti de \nMarco, Katherine Dunham, Ellen Vaughan, George W. Folsom, Etheldred \nFolsom, L. L. M. Limoges, Helen Ellis, and Dr. Theodore Dunham. \n\nAs a result of the feeling of sympathy with Dreyfus at Wichita, Kan- \nsas, Miss Sadie Joseph, a beautiful Jewish girl, was nominated, September \n13th, for Queen of the Flower Parade at the Fall Carnival. In a few \nhours votes enough were cast for Miss Joseph to put her in the lead of the \nother candidates. Voting for other candidates was almost stopped, and \nenthusiasm for Miss Joseph ran over the city like wildfire. \n\nIn London, England, the Dreyfus Movement Auxiliary Society was \norganized soon after the Rennes verdict became known, about one hundred \nprominent Jews becoming members. Dr. A. Zuhn was elected president, \nand committees on subscriptions and speakers for mass meetings were ap- \npointed. \n\nThe London correspondent of the Manchester (England) Guardian, \ntelegraphed to his paper, September 11th: \n\n" I have known the East End ghetto many years, yet I never saw it \nexhibit such evident signs of woe and bereavement. The very mourning \nworn by both men and women seemed to indicate that they were suffering \ngreat personal sorrow. The news arrived about an hour before the termi- \nnation of the Jewish Sabbath. In that hour there was a great outpouring \nof people, all of whom expressed sympathy with the prisoner. A venera- \n\n\n\nECHOES OE THE TRIAL 385 \n\nble rabbi assured me that he had never seen the community, rich and poor \nalike, so moved. \' This/ said the rabbi to me, \' is the bitterest day of \nmodern Judaism.\' " \n\nEsterhazy, in an interview in a London afternoon paper, September \n11th, was quoted as saying: \n\n"Dreyfus was justly condemned, as the inevitable result of the evi- \ndence collected by General Mercier. This bore conviction to the minds \nof the judges, and the court-martial, following the previous finding, declared \nDreyfus guilty and I innocent. I believe the sentence was in accordance \nwith an understanding with the Government. Dreyfus is in a position \nto claim a reduction of his sentence by one-half. The whole business was \na farce, arranged in advance, and doubtless he will soon be liberated." \n\nThe Jewish Day of Atonement was celebrated on September 14th, in \nLondon, with Dreyfus demonstrations, especially in the East End. A \nprocession with a banner inscribed " Dreyfus, the Martyr. All the Civil- \nized World Demands His Instant Release," marched through Spitalfields. \n\nThe Great Synagogue in London, September 14th, presented a striking \nspectacle. It was crowded from morning until night, and thousands were \nunable to enter. \n\nDr. Adler, the chief rabbi, delivered a sermon referring to the Dreyfus \ncase. He said what was morally wrong could not be politically right. \nRight, justice, honor, and mercy belonged to the immutable law. False- \nhood and injustice might prosper for a time, but certain retribution would \nfollow those who forsook the path of right and justice. It had been so \nwith the colossal empires of antiquity, and with Spain in our day. \n\nDr. Adler declared that Saturday was not, as had been said, the bitter- \nest day in the history of modern Judaism on account of the Dreyfus ver- \ndict. It was a memorable penitential Sabbath, ever to be remembered \nwith the keenest disappointment, in which all felt the deepest pity for the \nprolonged agony of Dreyfus and his wife, but it was not a day of unalloyed \nbitterness for Jews. To France it was a day more disastrous than Water- \nloo, more humiliating than Sedan. France, which first allowed to the \nJews the rights of citizenship, had defiled the golden vessels of God\'s tem- \nple, and branded an innocent man as an odious traitor to the country he \nloved so well. Even in France every one had not been hypnotized by the \nunholy blend of clericalism and militarism. \n25 \n\n\n\n386 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n"Let the majesty of the law be vindicated," he concluded, "and let \nthem not seek a pardon, which should be rejected with scorn ; for where \nno crime was committed, how can a pardon be granted ? " \n\nThroughout New York City, the news of the pardon of Dreyfus was \nhailed with satisfaction. This was particularly so on the east side and in \nthe French quarter. \n\nThe feeling in favor of Dreyfus has always been strong among the \nFrench residents in New York, and the rejoicing over the prisoner\'s par- \ndon was general. \n\nAt Temple Emanu-El, after the services of the Feast of Tabernacles, \nEabbi Gottheil, in his sermon, commenting on the fact that this was one \nof the three Jewish festivals on which it was a divine duty to " be happy \nand rejoice," deplored the misfortune of Captain Dreyfus, whose situation \nprevented him from fulfilling the divine behest. He fervently hoped, \nhowever, that justice would soon prevail. \n\nAt this point his associate, Dr. Silberman, handed Rabbi Gottheil a \ncablegram which contained the news of Dreyfus\'s pardon. Rabbi Gottheil \nread the message to the congregation, who demonstrated their satisfaction \nby loud applause. \n\nDr. Gottheil uttered a prayer of thanks and praise to God. Continu- \ning his address he said : \n\n"Among all those who have been roused in all parts of the world to \nrighteous indignation by the injustice, none have shown such unpreju- \ndiced sympathy for and implicit belief in the innocence of Dreyfus as have \nthe press of this country. They were among the first to proclaim their \ncertainty of his innocence, and they were fearless and indefatigable in \ntheir advocacy of him." \n\n\n\nPROPOSAL TO BOYCOTT THE PARIS EXPOSITION 387 \n\n\n\nChapter LXII. \n\nPROPOSAL TO BOYCOTT THE PARIS EXPOSITION \n\nOne of the outcomes of the Dreyfus verdict was a pretty general pro- \nposal to boycott the Paris Exposition of 1900. A sort of "holy alliance " \nagainst France was even suggested, but wise counsels prevailed and the \nmatter was dropped. The New York Herald, referriag to the boycott \nsuggestion, said in an editorial September 15th: \n\n" The newspapers are filled with threats of a sort of \' holy alliance \' \nagainst France and of boycotting the great Exposition of 1900. This \nwould be more than a mistake ; it would be a gross injustice. Foreigners \nare perfectly free to criticise the affairs of France, just as Frenchmen have \na right to express their opinion on anything that takes place in no matter \nwhat country. \n\n" To criticise and condemn is one thing, but it is another and very \ndifferent matter to interfere in the internal affairs of a country, as the \nwould-be boycotters threaten to do. Any one can think what he pleases \nabout the Dreyfus case. Everybody is privileged to discuss the Rennes \ndecision and to approve it or stigmatize it. But to go far beyond that by \nthreatening to punish Frenchmen and injure France because of an unsat- \nisfactory verdict by a court-martial for whose action neither France nor \nthe French people are to blame is pushing matters to an extreme beyond \nall right, justice and reason. \n\n" \' You cannot indict a people,\' said Edmund Burke. No more can \nyou with any show of reason or justice boycott or indiscriminately con- \ndemn a nation or a people. Those who are so zealous in fomenting this \nabs\'.ird agitation must remember that they are striking as well at all those \nwho have been battling in behalf of Dreyfus. To boycott the Exposition \nwould be to boycott France, whose highest court annulled the condemna- \ntion of 1894 and may yet annul that of 1899, whose Government is known \nto have desired an acquittal, whose press in large measure has protested \nagainst the conviction, and many of whose people condemn the Rennes \nverdict. \n\n\n\n388 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n" It is these agencies in France \xe2\x80\x94 the government, the judiciary, the \npress and the people \xe2\x80\x94 that brought about revision, and it is these that are \nstill desirous of attaining what they believe to be truth and justice. \n\n" The threatened boycott is, moreover, as foolish as it is unjust, since \nit would be as detrimental to the interests of the boycotters as to those of \nthe boycotted. \n\n"The movement to boycott the Exposition is already losing ground \nin Germany. The proposed resolution by the Municipal Council that \nthe city of Berlin should not send any special exhibit to Paris has been \nabandoned. The Tagehlatt in an article on the subject reminded German \nexhibitors that by staying away from the great Exposition they would \nonly be giving an advantage to their competitors. \n\n" The effort to get up a mass meeting in this city to boycott the expo- \nsition has been also abandoned by its advocates, as the prominent citizens \nthey approached refused to participate on the ground that it was ill-advised. \n\n" Fortunately there is reason to expect that all ill-advised newspaper \nmanifestations will pass away like a fit of bad humor, and that the Exposi- \ntion of 1900 will have the great success it merits in view of the prodigious \nefforts it has called forth and the world-wide benefit it must prove. Both \nthe United States and the German governments have refused to lend any \nofficial countenance to the foolishly threatened boycott, and we trust their \ncommendable example will be followed by every nation represented in the \ngrand enterprise." \n\nThe English press devoted columns of space daily to the telegrams from \nall parts of the world relating to the proposed boycott of the Paris Exposition. \nGermany, Austria, and Italy also came to the front. But the German \ngovernment organs were quick to issue a warning against the proposal. \n\n"Germany has no occasion to take the lead in this matter," says the \nCologne Gazette. " She ought to leave this to other States, which, perhaps, \nwould not consider it undesirable that Germany, of all powers, should adopt \na hostile attitude toward France in this matter." \n\nAccording to the The Daily Mail, of London, which was a strong ad- \nvocate of a general boycott of the Paris Exposition as a protest against the \nEennes verdict. Baron Suffield, president of the Article Club, an organiza- \ntion including in its membership the Colonial Agents General and repre- \nsenting commercial firms with an aggregate capital of \xc2\xa3-2,000,000,000, \nfavored a boycott. \n\nThe English papers were fuU of letters from individuals and several \n\n\n\nPROPOSAL TO BOYCOTT THE PAEIS EXPOSITION 389 \n\nfirms announcing their withdrawal from the Paris Exposition, and urging \nthe Government to do likewise, but the British Government never con- \ntemplated taking such a step. \n\nM. Max O\'Eell (Paul Blouet) wrote a letter to The Daily Chronicle of \nLondon, saying that a public expression of sympathy would go against \nDreyfus, adding: \n\n" For God\'s sake, use your influence to stop it. But for the universal \nsympathy shown for Dreyfus, whom I personally believe to be innocent, \nin England and Germany, he would have been acquitted. It is a terrible \nthing to say, but I say it and am not afraid of contradiction. " \n\nSir Charles Dilke, M.P., a well-known authority on foreign affairs, in \nan interview in London, September 13th, deprecated the expression of re- \nsentment by foreigners in regard to the Dreyfus verdict. Such action. Sir \nCharles said, was likely to make the situation worse for Colonel Picquart \nand other Dreyfus witnesses. \n\nThe secretary of the British Commission to the Paris Exposition said \nthe same day that intimations of withdrawal had been received from only \ntwelve intending exhibitors, while nearly 2,000 applications for space had \nbeen received from individuals and firms in Great Britain, India, and the \nBritish Colonies. \n\nIn many parts of the United States steps toward a boycott of the Paris \nExposition were taken. Many Western firms and individuals who had \ncontemplated making exhibits at the Paris Exposition changed their plans \nfor a time. Among the concerns which were said to have cancelled their \norders for space were the California Canneries of San Fiancisco, the big- \ngest fruit-canning concern on the Pacific coast, w^hich is controlled by an \nEnglish syndicate, and the North El Paso and ISTortheastern Railway of \nNew Mexico, which planned a fine mineral exhibit. It was also reported \nthat the feeling on the Dreyfus case was so strong in Los Angeles that a \ndemand would be made for the repeal of the act passed by the last legisla- \nture appropriating $130,000 for the California exhibit. \n\nThe Boston School Board at its session September 13th passed an order \nwhich practically meant the boycotting of the Paris Exposition, for which \na large school exhibit was planned. But this was subsequently revoked. \n\nMany manufacturers of Troy, N. Y., who had made application for \nspace for exhibits at the Paris Exposition decided for a time to take no \n\n\n\n390 DBEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\npart whatever in it. William Conners, proprietor of the Troy Paint and \nColor Works, had made preparations for an elaborate display, while collar, \ncuff, and shirt manufacturers had in process of manufacture many speci- \nmens that were to comprise a special department at the French metropolis. \nThe result of the Dreyfus court-martial caused a cessation of preparations, \nbut they were subsequently resumed. \n\nThe United States Commissioner-General to the Paris Exposition, Mr. \nFerdinand W. Peck, said in an interview at Chicago, September 13th, \nthat notwithstanding the newspaper statements that merchants in several \nparts of the country had refused to send exhibits to the Paris Exposition \non account of the Dreyfus verdict, none had indicated to him any desire \nto do so. When asked if he would refuse information if any of the exhib- \nitors should withdraw. Commissioner Peck said he was not ready to answer \nthat question, but he said he did not think it was right for him to disclose \nanything about the American exhibitors until their exhibits were installed. \nSome two hundred persons have applied to him for lists of the American \nexhibitors, but he has refused to furnish them. As he has refused to dis- \nclose the names of those who have taken space, he thought he ought also \nto refuse to tell if they relinquish it. \n\nEabbi Joseph Leucht, of Newark, N. J., was quoted as saying on Sep- \ntember 13th: \n\n" The punishment for this outrage will surely come. France is on the \nverge of revolution to-day ; a bloody day of rebellion is not far off. As \nfar as the Jews in this country are concerned, I do not think any concerted \naction will take place to resent the dastardly deed. France will have to \nmeet the outburst of indignation of the whole civilized world. \n\n" People are now questioning whether they should visit the exhibition \nof a land where human rights are trampled upon, and possibly governments \nwill reconsider their participation in the affair. I hope, at least, that free \nAmerica will take some official act to register its disapproval of this crying \nshame. \n\n" The Jews of this country will stay away from the Paris Exposition, \nand if some of them disregard this warning they will speedily rue it when \narriving there. The cry " A has les Juifs ! " will greet their ears wherever \nthey go. As for poor Dreyfus himself, this trial has brought him a \ngreater vindication than he could ever hope for." \n\n\n\nDREYFUS TEIAL REPORTING 391 \n\n\n\nChapter LXIII^ \nDREYFUS TRIAL REPORTING \n\nThe correspondent of the New York Sun, Mr. H. E. Chamberlain, \nwho described the Dreyfus trial for his paper, writing from Eennes under \ndate of September 11th, described the strange experiences of the army of \nnewspaper correspondents there. He said : \n\n" It is for the pleasure of writing something from Eennes which shall \ninclude nothing about Dreyfus and his cause that I am sending this letter. \nFor five long weeks the three hundred newspaper men assembled here \nfrom all parts of the world where a public press exists have seen, heard, \nthought, dreamed, discussed, written \xe2\x80\x94 nothing but Dreyfus. Two or three \ntimes, while driving or cycling within a few miles of the Breton capital, I \nhave come across intelligent, contented peasants who had never heard the \nname Dreyfus, and I envied and congratulated them. In an hour or two \nI shall leave Eennes, never, I hope, to return, but before I go I want to \ntell what a nice town it is and describe for them two or three odd incidents \nwhich have added a touch of comedy to the serious business of our mis- \nsion here. \n\n" As for Eennes, most guide-books tell ua that it is the cleanest if not \nthe healthiest city in Europe. One\'s eyesight tends to confirm the claim. \nThey even skim the surface of the almost stagnant river in the centre of \nthe town every morning. One\'s nostrils suggest doubts on the subject, \nand one\'s experience of existence in so-called first-class hotels yields only \ncynical incredulity. I will not dwell upon the matter beyond remarking \nthat scarcely any of those whose duties compelled them to remain in \nEennes during the whole five weeks escaped one or more sharp attacks of \nillness. \n\n" As for the people of Eennes (always excepting two or three of the \nprincipal hotel-keepers) their visitors have words only of grateful acknowl- \nedgment of kindness, courtesy, and most patient forbearance. American \n\n\n\n392 \n\n\n\nDREYFUS; THE PEISONEE. OE DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\n\n\nreaders will not appreciate the significance of the latter phrase. Here is a \nprovincial capital, outside the line of tourist travel, inhabited by a sturdy, \nhonest, intensely religious but narrow-minded people. They saw their \ntown almost taken possession of five weeks ago by a small army of for- \neigners and Jews. They hate each of these classes with the ignorant but \naccumulated hatred of generations. Moreover, they believed these inva- \nders had come for the purpose of overthrowing a just judgment. Any other \nverdict than that given yesterday would have been an outrage upon justice \nin their ignorant eyes. And yet for five weeks the people of Eennes tol- \nerated the presence of these unwelcome visitors, saw thsir streets, and caf& \nand public institutions almost monopolized by them, and said no word of \ninsult, discourtesy, or resentment \xe2\x80\x94 except in their newspapers. I prefer \nto believe that the newspapers of Rennes, which in several instances \nheaped vile abuse and obscene invective, especially upon the correspon- \ndents of the foreign press, represent only the low, venal minds of their \nwriters, who, alas, typify only too faithfully the degeneration of journal- \nism in France. \n\n" It is not often that the professional side of a newspaper correspon- \ndent\'s work becomes a matter of public interest, but perhaps this unique \nexperience here at Eennes is entitled to rank as an exception. No pre- \nvious event in the world\'s history has called together a corps of chroni- \nclers so representative in its scope. None, it should be remembered, came \nby invitation, as at the coronation of the Czar or the crowning of the little \nQueen of Holland. Even the Queen\'s Jubilee in London failed to draw \nsuch an international gathering of journalistic clans. Papers in Japan and \neven in Turkey sent correspondents to tell this story at Eennes. A paper \nwhich I had never heard of in Norway spent $100 a day to give its read- \ners an account of the trial, and a single journal in Vienna expended \nmore than $20,000 in telegraph tolls at \'urgent\' rates during the five \nweeks. \n\n"Every disposition to facilitate the work of the correspondents was \nshown by the authorities. We learned after a few days that each one of us \nhad been quietly photographed, and full descriptions, with all that could \nbe learned of our antecedents, had been sent to Paris in a special dossier \nby the omnipresent \' agents of the State \' ; but nobody could object to this \nharmless and flattering attention. Neither could we find any fault with \n\n\n\nDREYFUS TRIAL REPORTING 393 \n\nthe assignment of places in the trial hall, which relegated the foreign cor- \nrespondents to the seats most distant from the stage, where the testimony \nof many witnesses was inaudible. After all, the case to be heard was pri- \nmarily a domestic French affair, and I doubt if in any other country on \nearth the same consideration would have been shown to foreign newspaper \nmen, whose presence the great majority of Frenchmen regarded as an \nintrusion. \n\n" I explained in one of my earlier despatches that each foreign corre- \nspondent received half a ticket to the Lyc^e. This was an immense con- \ncession from Colonel Jouaust\'s first dictum, which was : \'Assign one ticket \nto each group of ten. That will enable each man to attend one session in \nten, and it will be quite enough for him.\' Fortunately, the French mili- \ntary idea of journalistic needs did not prevail, and the committee of the \n\' Presse Judiciare \' was able to induce the doughty president to take a more \nliberal view of the situation. Even the half -ticket regulation was modi- \nfied to some extent, and each morning admission was granted to as many \nof the banished moiety of foreign correspondents as there remained empty \nseats after the ticket holders had entered. Finally the difificulty in hear- \ning the evidence was partially overcome by securing reports of the testi- \nmony sheet by sheet from French reporters near the witness-stand, and \nthus the actual proceedings in the court-room were prepared for readers \nabroad. \n\n" The authorities of Rennes provided also a great hall with a special \ntelegraph office, for the use of visiting correspondents. The Bourse du \nCommerce was transformed into a vast editorial room. One hundred and \nfifty writing tables, nailed to the floor to prevent noise and confusion, \ncomfortable chairs, pens, ink, and paper, and courteous attendants were all \nat the disposal of French and foreign writers during the five weeks. \n\n" The problem of quick communication with the outside world was an \never-present difficulty from the first day of the trial until the last. There \nwere available six telegraph and four telephone wires from Rennes to \nParis, two wires to Brest, the landing-place of the French Cable Com- \npany\'s lines to America, and one wire to Havre, where the Commercial \nCompany\'s cables touch. The best apparatus and most skilful operators \nin France were assembled at Rennes for the tremendous task of conveying \nthe news of the trial to the four quarters of the world. Considering the \n\n\n\n894 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nfacilities available, the result was probably the best accomplishment in \ntelegraphy in this or any other country. On the first day more than \n650,000 words were transmitted by telegraph alone. This quantity was \nexceeded on the day Labori was shot, and on other days it varied between \nthe maximum and a minimum of 350,000 words. \n\n" It would be unfair, perhaps, to criticise the quality of the work in \nview of its overwhelming quantity. And operator who sends at highest \nspeed long messages in any of half a dozen languages which he does not \nunderstand can hardly be blamed if the despatches fail to arrive letter per- \nfect at their destination. I confess I groaned in anguish of spirit when \ncopies of The Sun reached Eennes containing my despatches sent during \nthe early days of the trial. There was great improvement later \xe2\x80\x94 the \nFrench operator would probably be imkind enough to say this was due \nsolely to my painstaking attempts to write a legible hand. When it is \nconsidered, however, that nearly one-half the matter sent over the wires \nfrom Eennes was written in English, German, Italian, Eussian, Spanish, \nor Swedish, it must be admitted that the accomplishment of the Rennes \ntelegraph corps was something stupendous. \n\n"There were some amusing incidents in connection with the sending \nof the news of the trial, and one or two will bear repeating. The corre- \nspondent of a London evening paper rushed to the telegraph office on the \nafternoon of the day Labori was shot, and handed in a despatch of about \nnine hundred words. All correspondents had deposited in advance ample \nfunds to cover the cost of telegrams in order to avoid the delay of frequent \npayments. The receiver, therefore, accepted the despatch with the custo- \nmary * Merci, monsieur.\' The sender happened to wait for a moment, and \npresently saw the telegraph clerk pick up his message, cross the room, \nclimb on a chair, and carefully place the despatch on top of a cabinet. \nThe man returned to his seat, received a few more telegrams from the per- \nsons waiting at the window, checked them, gave them to a messenger to \ntake to the operating room, got up again and carried a heavy ledger over \nto the cabinet and deposited it on top of the London man\'s despatch. The \ncorrespondent was mystified, but did not interfere until the clerk had re- \nceived a few more telegrams and had carried a few more miscellaneous \narticles across the room and piled them upon the cabinet. Then the Lon- \ndoner remonstrated gently : \n\n\n\nDREYFUS TEIAL REPORTING 396 \n\n" \' Aren\'t you going to send my despatch V \n\n"\' Your despatch has been sent, Monsieur,\' was the calm reply. \n\n" \' No, it hasn\'t. It\'s over there on top of that cabinet,\' insisted the \ncorrespondent. \n\nThe clerk looked at him as if he thought he had been bereft of his \nsenses. \n\n" \' Nothing of the kind. I sent your despatch to the operating-room \nas soon as you handed it to me,\' was the polite but firm reply. \n\n" The Englishman began to get angry, and in rather peremptory tones \nasked the clerk to verify his words by examining the top of the cabinet. \nThe clerk was sure by this time that his interlocutor was crazy. He mut- \ntered something about these English, and sharply asked the insistent dis- \nturber to stand aside and not block the line at the window. The enraged \njournalist hurried off, and found a French confrere of influence, to whom \nhe explained the situation. Together they returned to the telegraph office \nand sent for the chief. The case was laid before him. He went to the \ncabinet, lifted down a heap of things on top, and there at the bottom of \nall lay the despatch. Then, naturally, the Londoner began to say things, \nbut the chief interrupted him : \n\n" \' Now, be reasonable, you mustn\'t be angry with this poor fellow. \nHave a little consideration of the circumstances. He has been in tears all \nday ever since he heard Labori had been shot. He doesn\'t know what he \nis doing. Eeally it isn\'t fair for you to be cross with him.\' \n\n" And what could the correspondent do after that explanation ? \n\n"How to communicate the news of the court-martial\'s verdict most \nexpeditiously to the waiting world has, of course, been the problem upper- \nmost in every correspondent\'s mind for days past. Many schemes were \ndevised for securing a few seconds\' precedence, and some of them were \nsufficiently ingenious to deserve success, but in the end pure chance proved \nto be the controlling factor. This applies to the despatches announcing \nthe judgment filed by the correspondent here after the decision had been \nannounced in court by Colonel Jouaust. These telegrams poured into the \nEennes telegraph office in a perfect avalanche, and, as usually happens in \ntimes of such excitement, the order of dispatching did not follow the exact \norder of receipt. In fact, the last was sometimes first. Those of us who \nhave had experience of similar confusion at presidential elections at Ver- \n\n\n\n396 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nsailles and other occasions had prepared for this emergency. We wrote \nour despatches in duplicate, filed one at the earliest possible moment, and \nwaited to slip the other into the distracted clerk\'s hand at the moment \nwhen he handed over the swelling pile of telegrams for transmission. The \nchances were that the top or last message would be sent first. \n\n" It is probable, despite ail the rush at Eennes, that the first news of \nthe verdict reached New York via London. Some of us learned yesterday \nmorning that the decision would be telephoned to the home office in Paris \na few minutes before it was publicly announced in the court-room at \nRennes. As a matter of fact, at the moment when the decisive\' words \nwere being read to the assembled audience in the Lyc^e, the news had \nbeen received at London, and had been transferred to the cable, which de- \nlivered it in New York three minutes late. \n\n" The fate of two plans of rival American correspondents for beating \ntheir fellows deserves to be recorded. They were not satisfied with con- \nveying the news from the covirt-room to the telegraph office \xe2\x80\x94 a distance of \nless than a quarter of a mile \xe2\x80\x94 by foot or bicycle; so they arranged sys- \ntems of signals. In one case, a series of boys stationed at intervals along \nthe route was to pass along the signal of \' guilty \' by holding the right \nhand high in the air, while both arms in that position would signify \' in- \nnocent.\' The boys were carefully drilled, and the system worked perfectly \nuntil the fateful moment came. Then the first boy gave the signal pro- \nperly, but the second lost his head. Instead of raising his hand he \nclapped both arms to his sides and started pell-mell for the telegraph \noffice. His employer saw him coming and ran to meet him, unable to \nimagine what had happened. The boy simply flung himself into the \nnewspaper man\'s arms. Too much excited himself to think of any French, \nthe correspondent shook the little wretch and shouted in English : \n\n"\'What is it?\' \n\n"Then the boy bethought himself. Up went his right hand high in \nthe air. \' Coupable,\' he yelped, and trotted with his arm still up behind \nhis employer the rest of the way to the telegraph office. \n\n" The other incident was no less tragic. Another series of boys were to \nwave red discs if the verdict was guilty, blue ones for the four-to-three \nverdict of dishonorable acquittal, and white for innocent. The correspon- \ndent who relied on this scheme made the fatal mistake of stationing a very \n\n\n\nDREYFUS TRIAL REPORTING 397 \n\nsmall boy at the Lyc^e end of the line. A crowd of more than a hundred \nmen and boys was waiting at the slot beneath a window through which \nthe word was to come. All broke and ran at the same moment when the \nnews was received, and the small boy with a red disc was simply knocked \ndown and trampled on by the crowd before he could give the signal." \n\n\n\nDICTIONARY \n\nOF NAMES, DOCUMENTS, ETQ IN THE DREYFUS CASE \n\nThe following Dictionary of the Dreyfus case contains ready references \nto the leading actors and documents in the famous drama : \n\nAbeville, Colonel d\' \xe2\x80\x94 Former Deputy Chief of the Fourth Bureau. \n\nBeaukepaire, M. Quesnay de. \xe2\x80\x94 Former President of the Civil Section of \nthe Court of Cassation, who resigned and bitterly attacked Dreyfus. \n\nBebtillon, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Chief of the Identification Department of the Paris Pre- \nfecture of Police. He testified at both of the court-martials as an ex- \npert in handwriting, against Dreyfus. \n\nBertin, Lieutenant-Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Chief of Dreyfus\'s bureau at Military \nHeadquarters, 1894. \n\nBebtulus, M. \xe2\x80\x94 The magistrate who made the preliminary examination of \nthe Esterhazy case. He received the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry\'s \nconfession of forgery. \n\nBillot, General \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of War (April, 1896-June, 1898) during the \ntime of the Henry forgeries. To him Scheurer-Kestner opened up his \ndoubts on the validity of the conviction of Dreyfus. Billot played him \nfalse, and took his stand on the " authority of the chose jugee. " \n\nBertrand, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Representative of the government at Zola\'s second trial. \nHe violated the law for the purpose of saving Du Paty de Clam, the \nforger. \n\n" Blanche " and " Speranza " Telegrams \xe2\x80\x94 Two telegrams forged by Du \nPaty de Clam and Esterhazy, and sent to Picquart with the object of \n"bluffing" him into the belief that a lady, who was in the "plot," had \ngiven away the "secret" that he forged the Esterhazy "petit bleu." \nThe " Speranza " despatch was sent to Picquart especially with the object \nof inspiring official circles with the belief that he was an agent of the \nDreyfus syndicate. \n\nBoisDEFFRE, GENERAL DE \xe2\x80\x94 Chief of the General Staff at the time of the \nDreyfus prosecution. He resigned because Henry deceived him. He \nwas in touch with all the Esterhazy trickeries. \n\n\n\n400 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nBordereau \xe2\x80\x94 The document found in bits among the waste paper at the \nGerman Embassy, pieced together, and attributed to Dreyfus, though \nundoubtedly Esterhazy wrote it. It offers secret information, and is, of \ncourse, unsigned and undated. \n\nBouLANCY, Mme. de \xe2\x80\x94 A relation of Esterhazy and an acquaintance of Colo- \nnel Picquart. Esterhazy tried to drag her into the conspiracy hatched \nagainst Picquart by suggesting that she wrote certain letters. It was \nabsolutely false. \n\nBrisset, Major \xe2\x80\x94 Government Commissary, or prosecutor, at the court- \nmartial of 1894. \n\nBrugere, Lieutenant \xe2\x80\x94 An officer of the Artillery Reserve; witness in \n1899. \n\nCarriere, Major \xe2\x80\x94 Government Commissary (prosecutor) at the Dreyfus \ncourt-martial of 1899. \n\nCarvalho, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 Officer of the Artillery ; witness at Rennes. \n\nCasimir-Perier, M. \xe2\x80\x94 President of the Republic at the time of the Drey- \nfus trial. He had the courage to speak out to the Court of Cassation \nand announce that the prisoner was convicted on secret evidence. \n\nCastelin, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Member of Assembly, from the district of Aisne. He gave \nnotice of an interpellation of the Government in 1896, which stirred the \nauthorities to renewed activity and helped to bring about the revision of \nthe case. \n\nCavaignac, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of War (October, 1895- April, 1896; June, \n1898-September, 1898). He announced the discovery of Henry\'s for- \ngery, but reaffirmed his belief in the guilt of Dreyfus. He is a cousin \nof Du Paty de Clam. \n\nCernuschi, Eugene de \xe2\x80\x94 An Austro-Hungarian refugee who testified at \nRennes. \n\n" Cette Canaille de D " \xe2\x80\x94 A phrase in one of the documents of the \n\nsecret dossier. It does not refer to Dreyfus, but to a subordinate, whose \nname is said to be known to the French War Office (said to be Dubois). \n\nChanoine, General \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of War (September 18, 1898-October 25, \n1898). He was chiefly memorable for his stagy resignation in the \nChamber. \n\nCharavay, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Archivist and expert in ancient manuscripts. He testified \nat both courts-martial. \n\nChautemps, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of Colonies in 1894. He tried to mitigate Drey- \nfus\' s sufferings in his exile, but without success. \n\nCocHEFORT, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Chief of the French Detective Department. \n\n\n\nDICTIONAKY 401 \n\nCoMMiNGES, Mlle. Blanche de \xe2\x80\x94 "La Dame Blanche\'\' (The White \nLady"), a wealthy lady who has attended all the court scenes in the \nDreyfus drama. \n\nCoRDiEK, Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Department in 1894. \n\nCourt de Cassation \xe2\x80\x94 The French Court of Appeals. The body which \ndecreed the re-trial of Dreyfus. \n\nCuERS, EiCHARD \xe2\x80\x94 A Spy in the Government service. \n\nCuiGNET, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 He discovered Colonel Henry\'s forgery, and was satis- \nfied with the rest of the documents of the secret dossier, which he col- \nlected and filed. \n\nDarius, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Procureur-General of Cayenne, where Dreyfus was in exile. \nHe first announced to Dreyfus the order for revision of his case. \n\nDarras, General \xe2\x80\x94 He commanded the troops and officiated at the degra- \ndation of Dreyfus. \n\nDelagorgue, M. \xe2\x80\x94 President at the Zola trial. He made history by his stock \nsaying in favor of the War Office party : " The question shall not be put." \n\nDemange, Maitre \xe2\x80\x94 Dreyfus\'s counsel at the court-martial and during the \nRennes trial. \n\n" Dixi Article " \xe2\x80\x94 Written by Esterhazy in the J^clair, bitterly attacking \nPiquart on private information illegally lent him by the War Office. \n\n" Document Liberateur " \xe2\x80\x94 The letter beginning " Cette canaille de \nD ." This was the famous one which Esterhazy threatened Presi- \ndent Faure he would disclose, unless protected against Picquart. He al- \nleged it had been stolen by Picquart for a foreign embassy. Esterhazjr \neventually returned it to the War Office, after it had served its purpose. \n\nDossier, The Secret \xe2\x80\x94 A collection of more or less private documents bear- \ning on the case, only one of which, unless the War Office has manufac- \ntured any more forgeries, mentions Dreyfus by name, and this is abso- \nlutely commonplace and innocent. \n\nDreyfus, M. Mathieu\xe2\x80\x94 The brother of the captain, was one of the pio- \nneers of the campaign for revision. It was he who first denounced Ester- \nhazy as the writer of the bordereau. \n\nDrumont, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Editor of the Lihre Parole, who first published details of \nthe discovery of the bordereau. \n\nDu Patt de Clam, Lieutenant- Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 The melodramatic villain of \nthe piece. He set a trap to surprise Dreyfus by dictating to him the \ntext of the bordereau. He was a warm supporter of Esterhazy, and \nacted the part of the " Veiled Lady. " He assisted in forging telegrama \nto entrap Picquart, and did the dirty work of the War Office. \n26 \n\n\\ \n\n\n\n402 DEEYFUS: THE PEISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nEcHEMANN, Lieutenant-Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Member of the court-martial of 1894. \n\nEsTERHAZY, CouNT Walsin \xe2\x80\x94 0x16 of the chief opponents of Dreyfus. M. \nMathieu Dreyfus having denounced him as the writer of the bordereau, \nhe was tried and acquitted, amid an anti-Jewish manifestation. He \nwas subsequently arrested on a charge of forging the " Speranza " and \n" Blanche " telegrams, but liberated on a technical point. He was, how- \never, expelled from the army, and has since gravitated between Hol- \nland, London, and Paris, at one time fully admitting he wrote the bor- \ndereau by desire of his superiors, and then denying he ever said so. \nThere is little doubt but what he did write it. With Du Paty de Clam, \nhe stooped to any anti-Dreyfus trick, no matter how mean, but he played \nall parties equally false. \n\nEabre, General \xe2\x80\x94 Former Chief of the Fourth Bureau of the General Staff. \n\nFaure, M. Felix \xe2\x80\x94 Ex-President of the French Eepublic, and an unquali- \nfied supporter of the General Staff against Dreyfus. \n\nFlorentine, Major \xe2\x80\x94 Member of the court-martial of 1894. \n\nFonds-Lamothes, M. des \xe2\x80\x94 A former artillery officer \xe2\x80\x94 now an engineer. \n\nFoRziNETTi, Commandant\xe2\x80\x94 Director of the Cherche-Midi prison, where \nDreyfus was first confined. He denied the prisoner made any confession, \nand eventually, for affirming a belief in his innocence, fell into disgrace. \n\nFretcinet, M. de \xe2\x80\x94 Former Premier and former Minister of War, known \n\nas " The Little White Mouse." \n.Fretstaetter, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 A member of the court-martial of 1894, and a \nfearless defender of Dreyfus at Eennes. \n\nGallet, Major \xe2\x80\x94 A member of the court-martial of 1894. \n\nGallifet, General the Marquis de \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of War at the time of the \nEennes court-martial. Called " The Hope of France," on account of his \nfearless adherence to truth and enforcement of strict discipline. \n\nGallopin, Major\xe2\x80\x94 Officer of the Artillery, who testified at Eennes. \n\nGermain, M. \xe2\x80\x94 A groom in the employ of Kuhlman, a stable-keeper in \nAlsace. \n\nGoNSE, General \xe2\x80\x94 Assistant Chief of the General Staff. He was the im- \nmediate superior of Picquart, against whom he was, after a moment\'s \nhesitation, a consistently warm supporter of Esterhazy. He had doubts \nabout Dreyfus\' s guilt till the influence of Headquarters made him solid \nwith the other generals, since when he bitterly opposed revision. \n\nGrandmaison, M. Georges Charles Alfred Marie Mullin de \xe2\x80\x94 Deputy \nfrom the Saumur District of Maine-et-Loire, a friend of M. de Beau- \nrepaire. He made a sensational speech at Eennes. \n\n\n\nDICTIONARY 403 \n\nGbibelin, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Principal Archivist of the Headquarters\' Staff, and an \nabettor of Du Paty de Clam. \n\nGuENEE \xe2\x80\x94 A private detective. \n\nGuERiN, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Former Minister of Justice. \n\nGuERiN, Lieutenant-Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 He was ordered to attend and report on \nthe degradation of Dreyfus. \n\nHadamard, M. \xe2\x80\x94 The father-in-law of Dreyfus, a rich Paris diamond mer- \nchant. \n\nHanotaux, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Former Minister of Foreign Affairs. \n\nHartmann, Major \xe2\x80\x94 Ofl&cer of the Artillery, witness at Rennes. \n\nHavet, M. Louis \xe2\x80\x94 A member of the Institute and a Professor of the Col- \nlege of France, who testified at Eennes. \n\nHennion, M. \xe2\x80\x94 A detective; Chief of Secret Police at Kennes. \n\nHenry, Lieutenant-Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Picquart\'s successor in the Intelligence \nDepartment. To supply non-existent evidence he forged a telegram \nwhich was inserted in the secret dossier. On discovery and arrest he \ncut his throat in Mont Valerien prison. \n\nHenry, Mme \xe2\x80\x94 Widow of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. \n\nJouaust, Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 President of the Dreyfus court-martial of 1899. \n\nKuHLMAN, M. \xe2\x80\x94 An Alsatian livery stable-keeper, who testified at Rennes. \n\nLabori, Maitre Fernand \xe2\x80\x94 Counsel of Dreyfus, Zola, and Picquart. \n\nLebon, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Former Minister of the Colonies, during Dreyfus\' s exile. \n\nLebrun-Renault, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 An officer to whom, so it was at one time \nalleged, Dreyfus made a confession. As a matter of fact he did nothing \nof the kind; only the War Office, by purposely distorting the captain\'s \nreport on the circumstances, made it appear that he did, \n\nLe Monnier, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 One of the Headquarters\' Staff. \n\nLe Rond, Major \xe2\x80\x94 A professor at the Military School. \n\nMaurel-Pries, Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 President of the Dreyfus court-martial of 1894. \n\nMercier, General \xe2\x80\x94 Minister of War (November, 1893-January, 1895) \nwhen Dreyfus was arrested. He was his bitterest foe, and utterly im- \nplacable. It was he who laid secret evidence before the court-martial \njudges. \n\nMuLLER, M. Mertian DE. \xe2\x80\x94 A friend of M. de Beaurepaire. \n\nMiTRY, Major de \xe2\x80\x94 Officer of the Hussars, who testified at Rennes. \n\nD\'Obmescheville, Major Pesson \xe2\x80\x94 He drew up the "act of accusation" \nfor the court-martial of 1894. He assumed allegations of guilt to be guilt. \n\nPaleologue, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Foreign Office expert, and correct translator of the \nPanizzardi telegram, which Henry falsified. \n\n\n\n404 DREYFUS: THE PRISONER OP DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\nPanizzabdi, Major \xe2\x80\x94 The Italian military attache, supposed, erroneously, \nto have had relations with Dreyfus. He sent the telegram to his gov- \nernment on which Henry based his forgery. \n\nParay-Javal, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Handwriting expert, who testified at Rennes. \n\nPays, Mme. de \xe2\x80\x94 The mistress of Esterhazy. \n\nPatron, Major \xe2\x80\x94 Member of the court-martial of 1894. \n\nPellieux, General \xe2\x80\x94 One of the French General Staff. He supported \nEsterhazy and used the Henry forgery in the Zola trial as an " abso- \nlute proof " of the guilt of Dreyfus. \n\nPelletier, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Handwriting expert. \n\n" Petit Bleu " \xe2\x80\x94 A telegram found at the Germany Embassy, written by \nColonel von Schwartzkoppen, the German military attache, to Esterhazy, \ninviting him to call. It was torn up and thrown into a waste basket, \nthe writer having changed his mind about sending it. It was found \nthere by secret agents. Esterhazy contended that it was a forgery. \n\nPiCARD, M. Lemercier \xe2\x80\x94 War Office agent and forger of the humbler type. \nHe laid a trap for the Dreyfus party, which failed. He was imprisoned \nand was said to have hanged himself. Other reports say he was mur- \ndered. \n\nPiCQUART, Lie-utenant-Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Ex-head of the Intelligence Department. \nHe took up the cause of Dreyfus on the ground that the evidence was \ninsufficient, and he also produced the famous " petit bleu " (telegram) al- \nleged to have been written to Esterhazy by the German attache, Colonel \nvon Schwartzkoppen, making an appointment but which was not sent. \nHe was removed from the army and imprisoned on a charge of forging \nthe " petit bleu " himself, but was since liberated. \n\nPolytechnic School \xe2\x80\x94 The school where French officers are educated, cor- \nresponding to West Point in the United States. \n\nRavary, Major \xe2\x80\x94 He drew up the blundering report at the time of the \nEsterhazy court-martial. \n\nRiSBOuRG, General \xe2\x80\x94 Commander of the Republican Guard in Paris in \n1894. \n\nRoche, Captain \xe2\x80\x94 Member of the court-martial of 1894. \n\nRocHEFORT, M. Henri \xe2\x80\x94 Editor of the Intransigeant newspaper. \n\nRoget, General \xe2\x80\x94 The alleged manufacturer of nearly all the War Office \nreports about Dreyfus, the revision of whose trial he bitterly opposed. \nHe was the savior of the General Staff in its most illicit machinations, \nand that was why M. Deroulede tried to induce him to march on the \nElysee. \n\n\n\nDICTIONAEY 405 \n\nSandhbbr, Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Former Chief of the Intelligence Department of the \nFrench Army. He died from brain disease soon after the first trial, at \nwhich he played a prominent part. \n\nSaussier, General \xe2\x80\x94 Military Governor of Paris. \n\nSavignaud, M. \xe2\x80\x94 A former orderly of Colonel Picquart. \n\nScheurer-Kestner, Senator \xe2\x80\x94 The former Vice-President of the Senate, \nsince dead. He was the first public man who prominently took up the \ncause of revision (in July, 1897). He was an able champion of Drey- \nfus, and was not afraid of consequences. \n\nSchneider, Colonel \xe2\x80\x94 Former Austrian military attache at Paris. \n\nScHWARTZKOPPEN, CoLONEL \xe2\x80\x94 The German military attache in Paris, to \nwhom the bordereau was sent, and who was alleged to have written the \n" petit bleu " to Esterhazy. \n\nSyndicate, The \xe2\x80\x94 A figment of the imagination of the Anti-Semites, who \ncame to the conclusion that a number of wealthy persons were financing \nand *\' working " the Dreyfus campaign. \n\nTeysonniere, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Handwriting expert, who testified at the 1894 court- \nmartial. \n\nTrarieux, Senator: \xe2\x80\x94 Former Minister of Justice, witness at Eennes trial. \n\nToMPS, M. \xe2\x80\x94 A special Commissary of the Railway Police, who first photo- \ngraphed the bordereau. \n\nValabregue, M. \xe2\x80\x94 Captain Dreyfus\'s brother-in-law, residing at Carpen- \ntras, with whom he is living with his family after his release. \n\n" Veiled Lady, " The \xe2\x80\x94 This was Du Paty de Clam, disguised, who handed \nthe " document liberateur " to Esterhazy near the Arc de Triomphe. It \nwas suggested that Esterhazy thought the lady was inspired by revenge \non Picquart. \n\nVeugmon, Dr. \xe2\x80\x94 Physician in charge of Dreyfus at Devil\'s Island. \n\nViGuiE, M. \xe2\x80\x94 ^ Director of General Safety, French Government Police. \n\nWeill, Henri \xe2\x80\x94 A former officer of the Headquarters\' Staff. \n\nWeyler Letter \xe2\x80\x94 A forged letter, incriminating Dreyfus, sent to the War \nOffice. The author, probably, was Du Paty de Clam. \n\nZola, Emile \xe2\x80\x94 The novelist. He published the now famous letter of ac- \ncusation (\'^ J\' accuse\'\') against the entire French General Staff, accusing \nthem, in point of fact, of a gigantic conspiracy to convict Dreyfus. \nHe was put on trial, convicted, fined, and sentenced to imprisonment. \nHe appealed, and his sentence was quashed. He was again prosecuted \non a sentence in his article which barred any reference to the Dreyfus \ncase. Hence he permitted judgment to go by default, and, being con- \n\n\n\n406 DEEYFUS: THE PRISONER OF DEVIL\'S ISLAND \n\ndemned, left the country, appealed, and lived in England, retiarning \nonly recently to France. His celebrated denunciation is now proved to \nhave been founded on absolute truth. \nZuKLiNDEN, General \xe2\x80\x94 War Minister (January, 1895-October, 1895). Ex- \nMilitary Governor of Paris. He is chiefly memorable for his expres- \nsion in the Chamber of Deputies of absolute conviction of the guilt of \nDreyfus. \n\n\n\n-e \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n'