Obrázky na stránke
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


REV. LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D., Editor-in-Chief
HAMILTON W. MABIE, L.H.D., Associate Editor

Robert D. TOWNSEND, Managing Editor

Rev. James M. WHITON, Ph.D.

Copyright, 1899, by the Outlook Company

[ocr errors]

The Outlook .



The Defense

Published Wecklp Vol. 63 September 2, 1899

No. 1 3215 The principal points has never yet been a moment when would The Dreyfus Trial: The Prosecution against Dreyfus last

not have been glad to die for France, and I

hope yet to do so. week were made by General Fabre, Colonel Bertin, and Col

Colonel d'Abeville's point was that the onel d'Abeville, respectively chief and sub- author of the bordereau must be, first, an

, chiefs of the Fourth Bureau of the General officer of the artillery, and, second, a stagiStaff of the French Army when the bor- aire of the General Staff, having access to derrau was discovered, and when Dreyfus

more than one bureau of the Staff. As was one of the six stagiaires, or probation- the prisoner was the only officer fulfilling ers, undergoing instruction in that Bureau. these conditions, therefore he must be the The two officers first named declared that criminal. These and other witnesses for a plan had been intrusted to Dreyfus com

the prosecution insisted upon the fact prising the details of the concentration of that Dreyfus was of a prying, inquisitive the troupes de couverture in the eastern disposition. part of France—in case of sudden mobilization these are the troops to be thrown towards the frontier to cover the army's

The most precious life in actual mobilization. It may be remem

France to-day seems Maître bered that the words “concentration of the Labori's. No wonder that his enemies troupes de couvertureform the caption of tried to kill him. His cross-questioning one of the five documents enumerated in the has been of patent gain to the cause of bordereau (or memorandum of army secrets his client and of justice. By it that's found by a spy in the German embassy were brought out that not oniy the in 1894), and thus was one of the secrets 1894 court martial, which condeinned betrayed to a foreign power. The value Dreyfus, had General Mercier inserted an attached to this point by the prosecution accusing document in the secret dossier is that Dreyfus did possess knowledge of (or bundle of papers bearing on the case) the plans of concentration, which, not by indirect methods, but, since the beginwithstanding his denials, he is accused ning of August of the present year, he of imparting to German and perhaps to had actually repeated that criminal auother foreign agents. The prisoner ad- dacity. These two facts have not only mitted that General Fabre correctly de- caused a general scorn of Mercier; they scribed the work on which he was engaged have also shown with startling distinctwhen a probationer. As has been acutely ness that the same desperate means are pointed out, however, this proof of oppor- used to bring about the recondemnation tunity is, after all, merely an inculpatory that were used five years ago. Maître presumption. Thinking that Colonel Ber- Labori also brought Mercier to book retin tried to show the prisoner's disloyalty garding the latter's assertion that thirtysince as well as before condemnation, the five million francs had been spent by the latter protested that-

defenders of Dreyfus, and asked the witIn nothing wave written during the five

ness to say how he knew this, who spent years of my exile will you find a word it, and other awkward questions, which of disloyalty. I have never believed for an Mercier was quite unable to instant that France would hesitate to receive Finally, not only Mercier but the other the truth when it should be revealed to her, hos that the army would hesitate to maintain apologists for the General Staff were the right and its traditions of honor. There forced to take refuge behind an “I refuse




to answer the question,” and this attitude thus showed that the bordereau was in was approved by Colonel Jouaust him- Esterhazy's handwriting, and not in the self, the President of the court. The handwriting of Dreyfus. He pointed out latter's reputation for impartiality, there the identity of letters therein with letter fore, has suffered somewhat. During the admittedly written by Esterhazy, proi week the reported “confession ” of Drey- that while the resemblance was not apparfus the day after his degradation in Janu- ent in Dreyfus's handwriting, in Ester ary, 1895, came up again, and was thus hazy's there were marked peculiarities in explained by the prisoner:

punctuation and in the manner of beginI said to Captain Lebrun-Renault: “ I am

ning fresh lines, also noticeable in the innocent. I will declare it in the face of the borilereau, but not found in the prisoner's whole people. That is the cry of my con chirography. M. Charavay, an expert science. You know that cry. I repeated it

who in 1894 had testified that Dreyfus all through the torture of my degradation.” Du Paty de Clam asked me if I had not

was the author of the bordereau, confessed given documents of no importance in orier to to a change of opinion. The reasons for obtain others in exchange. I replied that not this change were the publication of Estersired the whole matter should be cleared up; forgery, the inquiry of the Court of Cassa: only was I absolutely innocent, but that I de hazy's letters, the discovery of the Henry Then I added that I hoped that within two or three years my innocence would be established. tion, and Esterhazy's confession. “It is I told Du Paty de Clam that I wanted full

a great relief to my conscience," M. Chalight on the matter, that an iniquity had been done and that it was impossible for the Gov

ravay added, “ to be able to say before you, ernment to fail to use its influence to discover

and before him who is the victim of my the whole truth. “The Government,” I said, mistake, that the bordereau is not the work " has means, either through the military at- of Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy." tachés or through diplomatic channels, to reach the truth.” And I also said, “ It is awful

O that a soldier should be convicted of such a frightful crime. Consequently, it seems to

Perhaps the most inter

Captain Freystaetter me, I who asked only for truth and light, that

esting testimony of the the Government should use all the means at its disposal to secure that light.” Du Paty de

entire trial was that given by Captain Clam replied : “ There are interests at stake

Freystaetter on Saturday of last week; higher than yours.”

at all events, his evidence is equaled in importance only by Colonel Picquart's.

Captain Freystaetter has as brilliant a Towards the end of the military record as has any French offiThe Handwriting

week M. Bertillon, the Experts

cer. He was a member of the 1894 court expert in chirography, martial. Two years ago his conscience and a famous specialist in measurements compelled him to disclose the fact that of the human body, began his ingenious Dreyfus had been condemned not only by testimony. He tried to prove (1) that the secret but also by illegal evidence. The bordereau was a doctored document; (2) witness declared that the proofs of the that it could have been manufactured condemnation were to be found in the only by the prisoner; (3) that it had bordereau and in four secret pieces sent been written in a free hand by means of to the court by General Mercier.

Coloa key-word placed beneath tracing-paper nel Maurel, the President of the 1894 in such a way as to be quite visible. The court martial, had previously admitted to basic objection to M. Bertillon's testimony the present court martial that he had read is that its premises were all wrong. The one, but only one, of the secret documents testimony of another handwriting expert, sent by General Mercier to the 1894 M. Gobert, contradicted the above. He prosecution, and withheld from the deasserted that the handwriting of the bor- fense. Maître Labori, therefore, called dereau was natural and fluent, but that it upon Colonel Jouaust to have Colonel was almost illegible, whereas Dreyfus, even Maurel confront Captain Freystaetter. when writing rapidly, always wrote legibly. On this Colonel Maurel repeated, with M. Gobert suggested that the judges com- evident embarrassment, that he had only pare the bordereau with a letter admitted looked at one document, but, he added, to be in Esterhazy's handwriting, and with "I did not say that only one piece documents written by the prisoner. He was read. I admit, after what Captain

[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
« PredošláPokračovať »