Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Vol. 63

The

The Dreyfus Trial:

The Prosecution

CAMBRIDGE MASS.

[blocks in formation]

has never yet been a moment when I would not have been glad to die for France, and I hope yet to do so.

Colonel d'Abeville's point was that the author of the bordereau must be, first, an officer of the artillery, and, second, a stagiaire of the General Staff, having access to more than one bureau of the Staff. As the prisoner was the only officer fulfilling these conditions, therefore he must be the criminal. These and other witnesses for the prosecution insisted upon the fact that Dreyfus was of a prying, inquisitive disposition.

The principal points against Dreyfus last week were made by General Fabre, Colonel Bertin, and Colonel d'Abeville, respectively chief and subchiefs of the Fourth Bureau of the General Staff of the French Army when the borderzau was discovered, and when Dreyfus was one of the six stagiaires, or probationers, undergoing instruction in that Bureau. The two officers first named declared that a plan had been intrusted to Dreyfus comprising the details of the concentration of the troupes de couverture in the eastern part of France-in case of sudden mobilization these are the troops to be thrown towards the frontier to cover the army's actual mobilization. It may be remembered that the words "concentration of the troupes de couverture" form the caption of one of the five documents enumerated in the bordereau (or memorandum of army secrets found by a spy in the German embassy in 1894), and thus was one of the secrets betrayed to a foreign power. The value attached to this point by the prosecution is that Dreyfus did possess knowledge of the plans of concentration, which, notwithstanding his denials, he is accused of imparting to German and perhaps to other foreign agents. The prisoner admitted that General Fabre correctly described the work on which he was engaged when a probationer. As has been acutely pointed out, however, this proof of opportunity is, after all, merely an inculpatory presumption. Thinking that Colonel Bertin tried to show the prisoner's disloyalty since as well as before condemnation, the latter protested that-

In nothing I have written during the five bitter years of my exile will you find a word of disloyalty. I have never believed for an instant that France would hesitate to receive the truth when it should be revealed to her, nor that the army would hesitate to maintain the right and its traditions of honor. There

The Defense

The most precious life in France to-day seems Maître Labori's. No wonder that his enemies tried to kill him. His cross-questioning has been of patent gain to the cause of his client and of justice. By it the facts were brought out that not only at the 1894 court martial, which condemned Dreyfus, had General Mercier inserted an accusing document in the secret dossier (or bundle of papers bearing on the case) by indirect methods, but, since the beginning of August of the present year, he had actually repeated that criminal audacity. These two facts have not only caused a general scorn of Mercier; they have also shown with startling distinctness that the same desperate means are used to bring about the recondemnation that were used five years ago. Maître Labori also brought Mercier to book regarding the latter's assertion that thirtyfive million francs had been spent by the defenders of Dreyfus, and asked the witness to say how he knew this, who spent it, and other awkward questions, which Mercier was quite unable to answer. Finally, not only Mercier but the other apologists for the General Staff were forced to take refuge behind an "I refuse

to answer the question," and this attitude was approved by Colonel Jouaust himself, the President of the court. The latter's reputation for impartiality, therefore, has suffered somewhat. During the week the reported "confession" of Dreyfus the day after his degradation in January, 1895, came up again, and was thus explained by the prisoner:

I said to Captain Lebrun-Renault: "I am innocent. I will declare it in the face of the whole people. That is the cry of my conscience. You know that cry. I repeated it all through the torture of my degradation." Du Paty de Clam asked me if I had not given documents of no importance in order to obtain others in exchange. I replied that not only was I absolutely innocent, but that I desired the whole matter should be cleared up: Then I added that I hoped that within two or three years my innocence would be established. I told Du Paty de Clam that I wanted full light on the matter, that an iniquity had been done and that it was impossible for the Government to fail to use its influence to discover the whole truth. "The Government," I said, "has means, either through the military attachés or through diplomatic channels, to reach the truth." And I also said, "It is awful that a soldier should be convicted of such a frightful crime. Consequently, it seems to me, I who asked only for truth and light, that the Government should use all the means at its disposal to secure that light." Du Paty de Clam replied: "There are interests at stake higher than yours."

Experts

Towards the end of the The Handwriting week M. Bertillon, the expert in chirography, and a famous specialist in measurements of the human body, began his ingenious testimony. He tried to prove (1) that the bordereau was a doctored document; (2) that it could have been manufactured only by the prisoner; (3) that it had been written in a free hand by means of a key-word placed beneath tracing-paper in such a way as to be quite visible. The basic objection to M. Bertillon's testimony is that its premises were all wrong. testimony of another handwriting expert, M. Gobert, contradicted the above. He asserted that the handwriting of the bordereau was natural and fluent, but that it was almost illegible, whereas Dreyfus, even when writing rapidly, always wrote legibly. M. Gobert suggested that the judges compare the bordereau with a letter admitted to be in Esterhazy's handwriting, and with documents written by the prisoner. He

The

thus showed that the bordereau was in Esterhazy's handwriting, and not in the handwriting of Dreyfus. He pointed out the identity of letters therein with letters admittedly written by Esterhazy, proving that while the resemblance was not apparent in Dreyfus's handwriting, in Esterhazy's there were marked peculiarities in punctuation and in the manner of beginning fresh lines, also noticeable in the bordereau, but not found in the prisoner's chirography. M. Charavay, an expert who in 1894 had testified that Dreyfus was the author of the bordereau, confessed to a change of opinion. The reasons for this change were the publication of Esterhazy's letters, the discovery of the Henry forgery, the inquiry of the Court of Cassation, and Esterhazy's confession. "It is a great relief to my conscience," M. Charavay added, "to be able to say before you, and before him who is the victim of my mistake, that the bordereau is not the work of Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy."

Perhaps the most interCaptain Freystaetter esting testimony of the entire trial was that given by Captain Freystaetter on Saturday of last week; at all events, his evidence is equaled in importance only by Colonel Picquart's. Captain Freystaetter has as brilliant a military record as has any French officer. He was a member of the 1894 court martial. Two years ago his conscience compelled him to disclose the fact that Dreyfus had been condemned not only by secret but also by illegal evidence. The witness declared that the proofs of the condemnation were to be found in the bordereau and in four secret pieces sent to the court by General Mercier. Colonel Maurel, the President of the 1894 court martial, had previously admitted to the present court martial that he had read one, but only one, of the secret documents sent by General Mercier to the 1894 prosecution, and withheld from the defense. Maître Labori, therefore, called upon Colonel Jouaust to have Colonel Maurel confront Captain Freystaetter. On this Colonel Maurel repeated, with evident embarrassment, that he had only looked at one document, but, he added, "I did not say that only one piece was read. I admit, after what Captain

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

Freystaetter says, that other documents may have been produced." Freystaetter replied: "Not only did I see them, but I assert that Colonel Maurel had them in his hands. And, what is more, I assert that he made a commentary on each document as it passed through his hands." Maurel haltingly replied that he did not remember, and refused to say more. Freystaetter added that he had written Maurel a letter recalling the scene at the secret sessions of the court martial of 1894, and announcing his intention of telling the truth, as he was now doing. Maurel acknowledged this with a nod, but still refused to say anything more. The admission of prevarication on the part of the President of the court martial of 1894 made the Freystaetter testimony of extremest pertinence, a pertinence increased when the witness confronted General Mercier. The former had said that a despatch from a foreign attaché, reporting the arrest of Dreyfus, had been communicated to the judges of the 1894 court martial, and that this despatch was a forgery. It was an erroneous translation of the Panizzardi despatch, and those who communicated it knew it to be erroneous, for at that date they possessed a correct translation. As no contradiction had been offered to Freystaetter's statement, and as Mercier had previously testified to having given an order that the telegram should not be communicated, and, further, that his order had been carried out, Maître Labori asked the President of the court to demand an explanation from Mercier. The latter denied Freystaetter's declaration that the Panizzardi despatch was in the dossier, shouting, "It's a lie," possibly forgetting that Freystaetter's evidence had been admitted by Colonel Maurel. To this Freystaetter replied: "I swear that what I have said is true. And I remember not merely the despatch, but I have a vivid recollection of the fact that the first words were, Dreyfus is arrested.

Emissary warned."'"

The Court Regarding the probable verdict on Dreyfus, an impression has gained ground that the judges are prejudiced against him. This would not be unnatural-indeed, the testimony of General Roget, for instance, made a visibly

profound effect on them. The vehemence of Roget's deposition, however, can be explained by his undoubted realization that he and his brother generals are quite as much on trial as is Dreyfus. The testimony of the Generals must needs be received by the members of the court with due deference. All of those members are graduates of the Military Polytechnic School, and from their early youth their respect for military convention and traditional discipline is nothing less than religious.

The Generals occupy a higher military rank than the judges, and overawe them.

Hence the judges are constantly subject to an illegitimate army pressure. There are seven members in the court. According to law a court martial has a Colonel as its President when the prisoner is a Captain, and two members are of the same rank as the accused. It is not necessary that the verdict be unanimous. Hardly any legal evidence against Dreyfus has been adduced bearing upon the real question before the court; indeed, Lord Russell, Chief Justice of England, is quoted as saying that there has been no testimony in support of the charge against Dreyfus that would warrant an English magistrate in holding him for a regular trial. The one specific question is: Did Dreyfus communicate to a foreign government the facts mentioned in the bordereau ? The Court of Cassation, the Supreme Court of France, has already established the fact that the conviction of Dreyfus in 1894 was illegal. It has directed the present court martial to obtain evidence bearing on the question before it, but for three weeks the court martial has heard evidence bearing upon the entire subject. Perhaps this implied disdain of the Court of Cassation results partly from the repeated demand of the Dreyfusards to probe the justice of their cause to the bottom, but more likely it is due to the vanity and obstinacy, if not terror, of the guilty creatures of the General Staff. The reiteration of hearsay or presumption from them is not evidence, and the only evidence, except that mentioned in our first paragraph, worth considering has been that contained in the received renderings of the Schneider and Panizzardi despatches. Both of these renderings are now shown to be forgeries. Indeed, the Schneider despatch was the eleventh forged docu

« PredošláPokračovať »