Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE OUTLOOK

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

ROBERT D. TOWNSEND, Managing Editor
CHARLES B. SPAHR, Ph.D.

ELBERT F. BALDWIN

REV. JAMES M. WHITON, Ph.D.

Copyright, 1899, by the Outlook Company

Vol. 63

The Outlook

The Dreyfus Trial:
The Prosecution

Published Weekly

September 2, 1899
3215

[ocr errors]

As

Colonel d'Abeville's point was that the
author of the bordereau must be, first, an
officer of the artillery, and, second, a stagi
aire of the General Staff, having access to
more than one bureau of the Staff.
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.

1

The principal points has never yet been a moment when I would 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 Colonel d'Abeville, respectively chief and subchiefs of the Fourth Bureau of the General Staff of the French Army when the bordereau 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, not withstanding 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 Jatter protested that-

In nothing ave 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

Labori's.

The most precious life in France to-day seems Maître 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 the 1894 court martial, which condeinned 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 Finally, not only Mercier but the other apologists for the General Staff were forced to take refuge behind an “I refuse

answer.

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 bor

The

dereau 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

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, prov that while the resemblance was not appar ent in Dreyfus's handwriting, in Esterhazy's there were marked peculiarities in punctuation and in the manner of begin ning 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."

[graphic]

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 offi cer. 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 de fense.

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 I was read. I admit, after what Captain

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