The Zola Trial

(DREYFUS AFFAIR)

Critical Eyewitness Report from the Jury Court Paris

from

Gustav Maier

Bamberg Verlag der Handelsdruckerei, 1898

(Transcribed, then translated via www.deepl.com and edited by Beatrice Marta Maier, 2022)

1
 Table of contents
(original page nr in brackets in the text)

Page nr

Table of contents 2

Introduction 4

The prehistory of the Zola trial 9

Letter from Mathieu Dreyfus to the Minister of War 10

Emile Zola to President Felix Faure ("J'accuse") 12

Indictment against A. Perrenx and Emile Zola 21

Answer from Emile Zola 22

The Trial Hearings 26

First day of hearings 26

Second day of hearings 30

Scheurer-Kestner 32

From the correspondence between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart 33

Third day of hearings 36

Fourth day of hearings 38

Fifth and sixth day of hearings 40

From the testimony of Colonel Picquart 43

Speech of the socialist deputy Jaurès 50

One day of rest 55

Seventh day of hearings 56

Eighth day of hearings 58

Ninth day of hearings 60

Tenth day of hearings 62

Eleventh day of hearings 66

Twelfth day of hearings 69

The defense speeches 73

First day 73

Prosecutor van Cassel indicts 74

2
Emile Zola defends himself 77

Advocate Labori, defender of Emile Zola 82

Second day 89

Third day 97

Mr. Georges Clémenceau 99

The verdict of the jury 104

The judgment of the Court 104

My closing words 105

Epilog 107

(NB: Texts and statements of persons quoted or reproduced by Gustav Maier are written in italics).

3
 INTRODUCTION
(5)

These days I have often asked myself why I felt such a strong desire to experience the Zola trial for
myself. There have been many sensational trials during my life, and I have always been content to
follow them in the newspapers, even though I was most interested, and I never felt the slightest
need to attend the Panama trial or the exchange trial. Nor can participation in the fate of a person,
be he Drefyus or Zola, in itself be the reason.

This is usually due to the fact that the proceedings have only the name in common with ordinary
criminal proceedings. These are directed against persons who have committed a crime or are
accused of doing so. Here, however, this is only true on the surface: the essence of the matter is that
a man stands before the court who, of irreproachable reputation, felt urged in his conscience to
venture voluntarily his whole personality, his honor, his freedom and his fortune to the removal of an
injustice of which he was convinced; that he undertook this, not for the sake of the individual case,
but because he recognized a grave general infirmity in it; that a writer covers his pen with his person,
and that a Frenchman in the throes of national confusion has the courage to throw himself against
the current of public opinion.

(6)

Such examples are not too frequent in history. Zola has often been compared to Voltaire these days:
the goal is equally high for both, but with all recognition of Voltaire's immortal merits for the cause
of Jean Calas and judicial reform, I am uncertain whether he would have been capable of a similar
deed as Emile Zola. One has wanted to explain the latter's whole action out of vanity and ambition; I
doubt this insinuation, but even if it were true, one might well wish in the interest of cultural
progress that this kind of vanity and ambition would become more frequent.

In short, it is the liberating impression of the appearance of a personality which has forced me here,
as it holds the interest of the whole civilized mankind in breath at present. This personality has a
liberating effect to such an extent because it still progresses beyond selflessness to self-sacrifice. It is
the spirit as it revealed itself at other times and in other forms in a Mucius Scävola, in a Winkelried
and in a Giordano Bruno, the spirit which at times stirs up and uplifts the swampy humanity, the
spirit which reconciles us with its infirmities and soothes our pessimism!

It is not only the French who need such an impulse, our whole time needs it. The upper and middle
strata of society are not only in France, they are almost everywhere - especially in the big cities,
which more and more set the tone - immersed in gainful employment. Its great demands make the
occupation with public affairs only a secondary matter.

The development of technology and traffic dulls the view, because it detracts from the most
important questions of development by the great and regular course of daily life, because it - making
indifferent against it - creates the impression as if everything is in the most perfect order, when
railroads and tramways, posts and telegraphs, municipal order police and the whole wonderful
mediation organism function regularly.

(7)

4
The parliamentary system as it prevails on the continent is not a means of better popular education.
Only in long periods does it call for political activity, and then it offers a wide scope to clique and
interest economy. Less and less often does it educate exemplars of patriotic virtue, and deeper and
deeper does it lead into the party whirlpool, as the epidemically growing scenes of beatings prove.
Quite regular political activity is - with vanishing exceptions - only noticeable among the working
class. And this is the guarantee of their astonishing success.

Here lies the breeding ground of the political reaction which is manifesting itself everywhere in the
present! Perhaps no age was more favorable to the rule of closed, purposeful minorities than ours.
Thus, in Berlin the junkery and the bureaucracy, in Vienna the clerical aristocracy in connection with
radical anti-Semitism can successfully strive for sole rule, thus in New York the Tammany ring and the
dollar rule, thus in Paris, as everywhere on the European continent, militarism gains ever greater
validity. Everywhere the fiction of parliamentarism does not yet allow political life to come to full
development serving the common good.

Only England is an exception. There, too, an oligarchy rules, but as a result of centuries of political
education, the people take a more lively, permanent part in politics, and the basis of rule gradually
becomes broader. The ruling circles have learned from the political development to be modest, to
adapt themselves to the currents, and therefore they hold the helm with a certain right. The English
aristocracy therefore still corresponds relatively best to that Platonic ideal of complementarity,
which every democratic rule needs. Switzerland comes closest, because in the institution of the
referendum it possesses an exceedingly valuable means of permanent popular education, even
though it has yet to form that complement of a true intellectual aristocracy as a result of its historical
development.

(8)

Zola brought a fresh breath into this dangerous calm, and that is the secret of his strong international
impact. There is no other way to understand it. For there would be no reason why one should be
more interested in the Dreyfus case in Paris than in the Ziethen case in Elbelfeld, in that of the miner
Schröder and comrades in Essen, in the guilt or innocence of the anarchist Koschemann condemned
in Berlin or of the real and alleged Spanish anarchists abused in Montjuich. Even anti-Semitism has
been tolerated by educated Europe for almost two decades without general agitation and without
particular remorse.

So nowhere does one have reason to throw oneself into the breast and look down nobly on France,
because the lively popular temperament there brings the general disease to a more rapid outbreak
and makes its symptoms more clearly recognizable. The infallibility of the judiciary in general and the
secret vehicle of the special military jurisdiction prevail, more or less prominent, everywhere!

How long has the struggle for the military trial been going on in Germany? The European militarism,
which the rising rule of the principle of nationality has brought up for three decades, produces a very
strange contrast. On the one hand, the armies are democratizing in the popular army, on the other
hand, the aristocratic closure of the officer corps is intensifying. This internal contradiction is an
unbearable disease in the long run.

The Dreyfus case is its clear symptom, the appearance of Zola perhaps the beginning of its crisis. The
blessing of "national defense" must everywhere cease to develop into the curse of an internal "saber
rule"; the people's army must not become the means of people's oppression, not in the shape of its
leaders the site of people's disrespect, not the basis of new privileges!

5
In exactly the same way anti-Semitism is, as already said, a general European, at least continental
disease, a relapse into the recent past, which is still far from being overcome. The millions do not
advance as fast as we wish and believe; the more rapid and stormy their progress is, the more it lacks
steadiness. This is clearly shown by the rapid development of France in and since the great
revolution.

(9)

Anti-Semitism is everywhere an agitationally skillfully exploited concomitant of the social movement;

in its innermost essence it is directed against capital in general. In the competition of working life, it
finds rich breeding ground everywhere, but the most luxuriant - which in my opinion has been given
far too little attention - where its victims begin to withdraw precisely from working life and turn to
other, less lucrative, but really or supposedly more honorable and influential types of occupation.

Just as anti-Semitism once emanated from the "Jewish judge" in Berlin, so in Paris - and I have
become fully aware of this in recent days in the Paris courtroom - it is attached to the increasing
number of young Jewish "stagiaires" (who are roughly equivalent to trainee lawyers and interns in
Germany) and to the Jews in the privileged position of the army. The old Rothschild on the stock
exchange is tolerated ten times more easily than a young Rothschild in the bureaux of justice or in
the ranks of the officer corps. Only in London one is not surprised when a Jew is elected Lord Mayor.

Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the French people in this case would be incomprehensible if
patriotism, whose borderline to chauvinism is so difficult to determine, did not lie hidden at its
deepest bottom. The clever way in which the Dreyfus case was played out on Germany is the reason
why French public opinion is so difficult to instruct. Whoever looks deeper and considers the
character of the people will understand this sensitivity. We Germans must not hold it against the
French, we who rightly honor and uphold the popular sentiment and patriotic sacrifice of our own
cooler fatherland in the years 1806-1815.

And we must not overestimate them either. It is all too easy to mistake the passionate tirades of the
tabloid press for French public opinion, and to imagine Paris as a hotbed of revolution at the present
time because of the wide space given in our newspapers to wanton street excesses by young people.
In which city of millions are there not sensationalist and speculative newspaper writers,
unscrupulous agitators and thousands of discontented elements ready for any mischief?

(10)

Of course, in no city are such movements so skillfully directed, so finely fomented, as in Paris. The
invention of the word "Syndicate Dreyfus" is a masterpiece of this kind, as is no less the cry "Vive
l'armée ! "

But is it our merit, and not rather that of a cooler people in a cooler climate, if the slogans of Stöcker,
Böckel and Ahlward have less effect here than those of Drumont, Rochefort and Thiébaud?

The catchword is a dangerous weapon, and it remains to be regretted that it has so far been invented
and used mostly for evil and rarely only for good.

The call: "Liberté, égalite, fraternité", which once went out from the Seine, was such a good slogan,
which conquered the world. But it could not fully assert itself, the call was premature.

Zola has thundered out the more concrete call, the fulfillment of which forms the prerequisite of that
ideal: "Lumière, vérité, justice! "Only through the realization of light, truth and justice can that ideal
be achieved, above all through the light of education, which alone thoroughly eliminates prejudice.

6
The European civilization has built a shining house, but the foundation is weak and rotten, it must
begin to build again from scratch.

And Zola has not only called, like thousands before him: he has sealed his word by an act. This is
what brings him the sympathy of all the peoples of the globe who are and can be more passionless at
this time than his own nation! Because it is their all cause which he leads ! - That is what also forced
me here!

(11)

In addition, there was the desire to see, independently of the so often colored newspaper reports -
from my own point of view - to what extent the French people are partly to blame for the injustices
of the past and the present, and possibly to fathom the deeper causes of this guilt.

And since I am standing here under the tremendous impressions of a world-historical drama, not
influenced by the duties of a nervously overhasty daily reporting, I would like to summarize these
impressions, in order to serve as far as possible in the countries of the German tongue the unbiased
understanding of these events and thus to contribute my quite modest part to the work of liberation
in the sense of international reconciliation.

The communication of such impressions should not be completely pointless. Modern newspaper
reporting, however excellently organized, has two serious flaws as the reverse of its advantages:

- The ever-increasing demands on the speed of these reports compromise their thoroughness and
depth,

- the extensive but often haphazard detail entertains and excites the reader for the moment, but is
by no means favorable to a planned imagination, for it is usually incapable of producing a lasting
image in the mind, but rather produces only the passing trembling phenomenon of the
cinematograph.

So, it could not be my intention to give a copy of these newspaper reports, as they are now
mushrooming about this trial; I present the critical results of my observation to the reader and want
to stimulate him to his own reflection.

In the haste that the wishes of the public and the publisher make obligatory for me, I may
nevertheless kindly ask you not to apply a higher standard to my remarks than that of a fleeting
expression of thoughts that move me deeply, in other words, not to expect an artistic painting, but a
series of snapshots.

(12)

The question could still be raised whether it is at all permissible, correct, to deal with this internal
French matter abroad in the present manner? I answer this question in the affirmative!

The cultural status of France in modern times is to a high degree determining for the culture of
Europe: the French themselves are proud of the fact that the progressive achievements of their great
revolution have made the triumphal procession through the whole western cultural world. Thus they
will not object if the intellectual and political reaction threatening them finds interest everywhere, is
appreciated everywhere according to the importance of their nation.

Of course, under one condition: that it is done in a spirit of a certain impartiality, not to belittle them,
but to understand them. In this case, it is they themselves to whom the greatest service is rendered.

7
For this whole affair and the manner of its development is very apt to be misunderstood, and no
nation on earth is so great as to be indifferent to it.

I hope that in my following reports and reflections one will recognize the endeavor to remain faithful
to this line, which in my opinion is very compatible with a serious criticism.

Paris, February 20, 1898.

Gustav Maier.

8
 The prehistory of the Zola trial.
(13)

In the fall of 1894, as is well known, the investigation was opened against the Captain in the French
General Staff Alfred-Dreyfus for betrayal of important secret documents. Colonel du Paty de Clam
led the investigation and Commander d'Ormescheville drafted the indictment of December 9, 1894,
which has since been published and whose insufficient content caused a justified stir.

The court-martial, which convened in early January 1895, sentenced the accused officer in a secret
hearing to ignominious cassation and deportation for life. But even before the verdict, the then
Minister of War Mercier had loudly proclaimed the guilt of the accused. The anti-Semitic press seized
on this declaration with zeal, and after a short time it was clear in the opinion of the French people
that Dreyfus, as a Jew and a German, had betrayed France.

Although already on November 30, 1894, and again after the preliminary condemnation on January
9, 1895, the "Agence Havas" had brought official notes: "that the alleged involvement of the foreign
legations in Paris in this affair lacks any justification", the view gradually became general and almost
ineradicable that Dreyfus had betrayed secret documents to Germany.

It is very likely that the government played a double game by issuing this official denial, but in doing
so it did not prevent its devoted press from making this insinuation more and more palatable to the
gullible and easily inflamed people.

(14)

The "traitor Dreyfus" was infamously degraded and taken to Devil's Island, a "dry guillotine". - The
matter was no longer spoken of.

In the meantime, a change had taken place in the bosom of the "Service des Renseignements", the
General Staff, the bureau to which the supervision of espionage is subordinated. Colonel Sandherr,
who had fallen ill, was replaced by Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, an officer whose merit and talent is
demonstrated by the fact that, at little more than 40 years of age, he was the youngest of his rank in
the entire army.

The latter found indications that the writing of the so-called "Bordereau" (an intercepted letter
accompanying stolen documents) was similar to that of Commander Esterhazy. With the consent of
the sous-chef of the General Staff, General Gonse, his direct superior, he continued his
investigations, and his suspicions became certainties, as everything he learned about the past life and
character of Commander Esterhazy strengthened his opinion.

In the meantime, something of this change of opinion must have leaked out, whether intentionally or
through negligence, because on November 18, 1896, the deputy Castelin introduced an interpellation
on the Dreyfus affair in the Chamber, which ended with "general approval" and reassured public
opinion. The continued existence of the "traitor Dreyfus" seemed assured.

Around this time, a change in the attitude of the General Staff and the government took place, and
one is hardly mistaken if one attributes this to the supreme chief, General de Boisdeffre, namely,
while according to his letters, which have become known in the meantime, as late as September
1896 General Gonse declared himself completely in agreement with the unmasking of the "second
traitor", it seems to have been suddenly recognized that such an unmasking would have to entail the

9
release of the "first traitor", Dreyfus. Fearing the grave discredit of the General Staff and the army, it
was decided to stifle the matter.

(15)

Two days before the Castelin interpellation, on November 16, 1896, Colonel Picquart was sent on an
"important mission" to the eastern and then to the southeastern frontier, continually kept in
suspense so that he could not return to Paris to finally arrive in Tunis in early 1897.

Initially, his written communication with General Gonse remained friendly, but soon Colonel Picquart
received threatening letters from his successor, Colonel Henry, his correspondence was intercepted
and examined, he sensed that something was at work against him, became concerned, and in June
1897 traveled to Paris to consult his friend, Advocate Leblois, and to deposit in his custody the
correspondence with General Goose that might be important for his defense.

Leblois met in July 1897 with Senator Scheurer-Kestner, who, himself Alsatian by birth, had been
dealing with the Dreyfus case for some time. He informed him of Picquart's discovery and showed
him the letters of General Gonse. Thus Scheurer-Kestner became firmly convinced of the innocence
of Dreyfus and the guilt of Esterhazy. He, in turn, informed the friendly Minister of War Billot, who
promised to investigate and demanded 14 days of silence from him, which, however, did not prevent
the conversation from being reported in the papers close to the Ministry of War the very next day.

In the meantime, the brother of the condemned man, Mathieu Dreyfus, who had never been lax in
his efforts to save his brother's honor, had been led by chance on the same track. The facsimile of the
much-discussed Bordereau had been published in the "Matin" - at whose instigation is still unknown
today, no serious investigation was initiated about it.

A former banker de Castro bought this number in passing on the boulevard and was thunderstruck
when he recognized the handwriting of Esterhazy, with whom he had done much business. He
compared his letters, which reinforced the certainty of his discovery, and informed Mathieu Dreyfus.
The latter, in turn, confided in Scheurer-Kestner, who had never known him before, and thus the
"Syndicat Dreyfus." was born.

(16)

On November 15, 1897, Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Commander Esterhazy to the Minister of War
as the author of the Bordereau with the following letter:

"Mr. Minister!

The only basis of the charge against my unfortunate brother in 1894 was an unsigned, undated cover
letter stating that confidential military documents had been delivered to the agent of a foreign
power.

I have the honor to inform you that the author of this document is Count Esterhazy, Commander of
the Infantry, who was put on inactive status last spring due to temporary illness. The handwriting of
Commander Esterhazy is identical with that of this document. It will be very easy for you, Mr.
Minister, to obtain the handwriting of that officer.

Besides, I am ready to tell you where you can find letters from him of unquestionable authenticity and
from a time before my brother's arrest.

I cannot doubt that you, Mr. Minister, knowing the author of the treason for which my brother was
convicted, will dispense swift justice.

10
Approve, Mr. Minister, etc.

Mathieu Dreyfus"

General Billot ordered an inquiry by General de Pellieux, who, as he himself confessed during the
testimony, limited himself to asking Mathieu Dreyfus for proof of his claim and did not pursue the
leads indicated to him by Colonel Picquart.

The investigation ended with an acquittal, but to be on the safe side, Esterhazy was referred to a
court-martial, for which Commander Ravary was appointed rapporteur.

The latter, at the request of the Minister of Justice, finally decided to bring in the bordereau, which
was the only subject of the indictment. But the experts declared that it did not originate from
Esterhazy, who had himself acknowledged the "frightening similarity" with his handwriting. In the
meantime, the accused had developed a feverish activity, which he had been given the opportunity
to do by being left at large.

(17)

(PORTRAIT of Capitain Dreyfus: see ADDENDUM)

(18)

Esterhazy influenced the press, wrote threatening letters to all sides, which Colonel Picquart had
already received in Tunis. For him, it was above all a matter of preventing the threatened revision of
the Dreyfus trial.

Thus it gradually came to light that the latter had not been convicted solely because of the
Bordereau, but also because of another document. Esterhazy wanted this document to have been
delivered to his rescue, by a "veiled lady" who had given him rendezvous at night in Montmartre and
other places, for the first time on November 14, 1897, one day before the denunciation by Mathieu
Dreyfus, he returned the file to the Minister of War, from whose own archives it must have come.

Neither General de Pellieux nor Ravary had this mysterious event investigated, just as Esterhazy was
not actually treated as a defendant, no house search and no investigation of the anonymous letters
was carried out at his place; and only a very mild and ineffective warning was given because of his
conduct of the press.

On the other hand, a storm was gathering over the head of Colonel Picquart. Before his return from
Tunis, an illegal and unsuccessful search of his house was conducted without his presence, and with
the direct help of Esterhazy and the officers of the general staff, a complete incriminating material
was collected against him, on the basis of which he was accused of disloyalty in the service,
falsification of documents and suspicion of Esterhazy against his better knowledge.

Commandant Ravary's report of December 31, 1897, is the strangest indictment ever written. It
contains a brilliant defense against the accused, Esterhazy, and a complete indictment against the
main witness, Colonel Picquart.

(19)

Public opinion had woken up somewhat, however, and the initial intention of a repeated secret court
martial was abandoned.

The session of January 10, 1898, began in public with the reading of that indictment and was closed
after brief relatively insubstantial questioning of witnesses and the defense of Esterhazy at the very

11
moment when the attacked Colonel Picquart was to speak. Thus he was cut off from any possibility
of defending himself before the public.

Esterhazy was unanimously acquitted, congratulated by his judges, and embraced; but Picquart was
shortly afterwards taken under military investigation, arrested, interned at Mont Valérien, and given
a sentence for serious offenses in the service, the confirmation of which by the Minister of War is still
pending, because General Billot declared that he did not wish thereby "to interfere with the
proceedings in the Zola trial. "

This is, in the briefest possible terms, supplemented by disputed testimony in the Zola trial, the
prehistory of the now smoldering trial. The trial thus revolves around two different but closely
related matters:

- the alleged incorrectness of Esterhazy's acquittal, and

- the illegality of the conviction Dreyfus ! -

The advocates of the latter rightly claim that if Esterhazy is the author of the Bordereau, the Dreyfus
trial would have to be revised according to the law. This revision did not yet need to establish his
innocence: if he were guilty after all, he would be convicted again in a new trial. If, however, as
seems more and more likely, the conviction was only based on another secret document which
neither Dreyfus nor his defense counsel had before them, then it is illegal and must be set aside by
itself. This is the position gradually adopted by a number of France's most eminent minds,
uninfluenced by the clamor of the crowd.

Emile Zola, however, the celebrated writer, was seized with such deep moral indignation at the
injustices he was convinced had been committed that he published the following letter in the Paris
newspaper "Aurore" only three days after the court martial's verdict in the Esterhazy case, on
January 13, 1898:

(20)

Emile Zola: ("J'Accuse")

"To Mr. Felix Faure,

President of the Republic.
Mr. President!

Allow me, in my gratitude for the benevolent reception I once found with you, to tell you today,
concerned for your just fame, that your hitherto so happy star is threatened by most inimical and
indelible taint.

You have emerged unscathed from low calumnies, you have conquered hearts. You appear radiant in
the apotheosis of that patriotic feast which the Russian alliance has been for France, and you are
preparing to preside over our World's Fair which - a solemn triumph - shall crown our great century of
labor, truth and liberty. abominable affair Dreyfus!

A court martial, by order received, has just dared to acquit one Esterhazy and has thus slapped truth
and justice in the face. It happened: France wears this besmirching on its cheek, history will record
that under your presidency such a social crime could be committed.

12
Now that the others have dared to do it, I too will dare! I will speak the truth: I have taken the
resolution to do it, if a duly handled jurisdiction would not help it fully to the victory. Since I do not
want to be complicit, I must speak. My nights would be disturbed by the spectre of the innocent man
who is over there, under the most terrible tortures, atoning for a crime he did not commit.

And to you, Mr. President, I will shout sic, this truth, with all the power of a righteous man's
indignation. To your honor, I am convinced that it is unknown to you. And to whom else should I
indicate that swarm of evildoers, those true culprits, if not to you, the highest official of the land?

Zola continues:
First, the truth about the trial and conviction of Dreyfus.

One sinister person has led everything, done everything; that is the Colonel du Paty de Clam, then a
simple Major. He is the whole Dreyfus affair, and it will be known only when a loyal investigation will
have clarified his actions and his responsibility.

(21)

He is a highly adventurous, confused head, who pursues novelistic intrigues and enjoys the means of
information of the feuilleton novels, such as: stolen papers, anonymous letters, rendez-vous in lonely
places, mysterious women, who carry around oppressive pieces of evidence at night. It is he who fell
to dictating the bordereau to Dreyfus, it is he who dreamed of observing him in a room entirely laid
out with mirrors, it is he whom Major Forzinetti presents to us as he wants to be led to the sleeping
accused, equipped with a blinding lantern, in order to cast a sudden stream of light on his face, and
thus to intercept the crime, as it were, in the first horror of awakening.

And I do not need to say everything: search and you will find. I only declare that Major du Paty de
Clam, who was commissioned to investigate the Dreyfus affair as a judicial officer, is, according to the
order of dates and responsibilities, the first guilty party in the terrible miscarriage of justice
committed.

The Bordereau had been for some time in the hands of Colonel Sandherr, head of the Information
Bureau, who has since died of general paralysis. There had been 'departures', papers disappeared, as
still today they are disappearing.

The author of the bordereau was investigated, when the preconceived notion gradually took root that
this author could only be an officer of the General Staff and an artillery officer: obviously a double
error, which proves the superficiality with which this bordereau had been examined; for a reasonable
investigation shows that it could only be an officer standing with the troop.

So they searched the house, they checked the manuscripts, it was a kind of family affair, they wanted
to catch a traitor in the bureau itself in order to expel him from it. I do not want to repeat here a
partly known story; enough, Major du Paty de Clam appears on the scene as soon as the first
suspicion falls on Dreyfus. From that moment on, it is he who has invented Dreyfus, the matter
becomes his affair, he takes it upon himself to confuse the traitor, to bring him to full confession.

There is probably the Minister of War, General Mercier, whose intelligence seems mediocre; there is
probably the first Chief of the General Staff, General de Boisdeffre, who seems to have given in to his
clerical passions, and the Sub-Chief of the General Staff, General Gonse, whose conscience knew how
to pander to many things.

13
But in the beginning, it is only Major de Paty de Clam who controls everyone, who hypnotizes them;
for he also deals with spiritualism, with occultism, he consorts with spirits. Unbelievable are the
experiments to which he subjected the unfortunate Dreyfus, the snares in which he wanted to entrap
him, the mad investigations, the monstrous fantasies - a true madness of torture.

(22)

Zola continues:
Oh, how a nightmare it weighs; on him who knows the beginnings of the matter in its true details!
Major du Paty de Clam captures Dreyfus and brings him into secret custody. He runs to Mrs. Dreyfus,
he terrifies her, he tells her that if she talks, her husband is lost. Meanwhile, the unfortunate man
desperately proclaims his innocence.

And the investigation was conducted in a way that reminds us of the chronicles of the 15th century; it
shrouds itself in deep mystery, it makes use of a system of barbaric devices, and yet it rests on a
single, almost childish moment of incrimination: on that simple-minded bordereau that was not based
both on an ordinary betrayal, but rather on a most brazen fraud, since the famous secrets delivered
were almost all worthless.

I dwell on this, because here is the egg from which the true crime later develops, the terrible denial of
justice from which France has fallen ill. I would like to demonstrate in a tangible way how the
miscarriage of justice became possible, how it grew out of the conduct of Major du Paty-de Clam,
how General Mercier, Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse, allowed themselves to be drawn into it, how
they gradually assumed responsibility for this error, and how they subsequently considered it their
duty to proclaim it as the sacred truth, as a truth that must no longer even be questioned.

At the beginning, therefore, only negligence and lack of intelligence were at play on their part. At the
most, one sees them giving in to the religious passions of their milieu and the prejudices of esprit de
corps. They have let stupidity run its course.

Dreyfus appears before the court-martial. The trial is conducted as secretly as possible with the doors
closed. If a traitor had opened the border to the enemy and led the German Emperor to Notre Dame,
no stricter measures could have been taken to preserve secrecy.

The nation is in a daze, whispering to each other of terrible things, of monstrous treacheries, such as
history denounces; and the nation, of course, believes them. Therefore, no chastisement is severe
enough for it, it welcomes the public degradation with its applause, it wants the guilty to consume
himself in remorse on his rock of shame.

But were they true, these unspeakable, dangerous things that could set Europe ablaze and that had
to be buried so carefully behind the closed doors? No, it was only the novelistic delusional fantasies of
Major du Paty de Clam behind it; all this was done only to conceal the most insipid novelistic
feuilleton. To become clear about it, one only has to examine carefully the indictment file read out
before the court martial.

(23)

0h, about the nothingness of this indictment! That a man could be condemned on this piece of paper,
what a miracle of injustice! I ask, which righteous man can read it without his heart rearing up with
indignation and indignation, if he remembers thereby the massless sentence which takes place over
there on the devil's island.

14
Dreyfus knows several languages - a crime! no compromising paper was found on him - a crime! he
sometimes visits the country of his birth - - a crime! he is diligent and seeks to educate himself about
everything - a crime! he does not get confused - a crime! he gets confused - also a crime!

What naiveties in the drafting of that writing, what definite assertions into the blue! We had been
told of 14 charges, and we now encounter in truth only one: the bordereau. On top of that, we learn
that the experts did not agree at all, that one of them, Mr. Gobert, was militarily reprimanded
because he allowed himself not to judge in the desired sense.

There was also talk of 23 officers who had come to crush Dreyfus by their testimony. We do not yet
know their interrogation, but it is certain that not all of them incriminated him; and it is also
remarkable that they all belong to the bureau of the Ministry of War. It is a family trial, one is there
among themselves. Note: the General Staff wanted the trial, judged it once, and just judged it for the
second time!

Zola continues:
So there remained only the bordereau, on which the experts had not agreed. It is said that in the
courtroom the judges naturally wanted to acquit. Therefore, with desperate persistence, they claimed
that a secret document existed, a damning document, a document that could not be shown, but
which justified everything, before which one had to bow as before the invisible and unfathomable
deity.

I deny this document, deny it with all my might! A ridiculous document in which there is talk of
pleasing women and in which there is talk of a certain D...... who becomes too demanding; no doubt a
husband who found that his wife was not paid dearly enough.

But a document relating to national defense, which could not be presented without war being
declared tomorrow-no, no! that is a lie, and it is all the more odious and cynical because these people
lie with impunity and cannot be convicted. They stir up France, they hide behind its justified agitation,
they muzzle tongues by confusing hearts and perverting minds. I know of no greater civic crime.

(24

These, then, Mr. President, are the facts which explain why a miscarriage of justice could have been
committed. To these are added moral proofs: the financial situation of Dreyfus, the absence of all
motives, the constant protestations of his innocence, all this shows him to us completely as a victim of
the extraordinary imagination of Major du Paty de Clam, of the clerical milieu in which he stood, of
the hunt for the "dirty Jew" which dishonors our age.

And now we come to the Esterhazy affair. Three years have passed, many consciences are still deeply
troubled, worrying, searching and finally gaining conviction of Dreyfus' innocence.

I do not want to write the story of Herr Scheurer-Kestner's doubts and final conviction; but while he
was investigating on his part, serious things were happening in the General Staff itself. Colonel
Sandherr had died, and Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart had succeeded him as chief of the lnformation
Bureau. And in this capacity, in the exercise of his office, a card-telegram came to his hands one day,
addressed to Esterhazy by the agent of a foreign power. His strict duty required him to investigate.

He never acted, it is certain, other than in agreement with his superiors. So he submitted this
suspicion to his superiors: to General Gonse, then to General de Boisdeffre, finally to General Billot,
who had succeeded General Mercier as Minister of War. The famous Picquart files, of which so much

15
has been said, were never anything other than Billot's files, i.e. the files that a subordinate had
compiled for his minister, the files that must still lie in the War Ministry today.

The investigations lasted from May to September 1896, and it must be said quite loudly: the General
Gonse was convinced of the guilt of Esterhazy, the Generals de Boisdeffre and Billot had no doubt
that the famous bordereau was of Esterhazy's handwriting. Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart had
established this with certainty. But the excitement was great, because the condemnation of Esterhazy
would have entailed the inevitable revision of the Dreyfus trial, and precisely this the general staff
wanted to avoid at all costs.

(25)

Zola continues:
There must have been a psychological moment full of trepidation. Consider that General Billot was
not compromised by anything; he entered quite fresh, he could help the truth to break through. He
did not dare, no doubt frightened by public opinion and certainly out of fear, to expose the entire
general staff, General Boisdeffre, General Gonse and all his subordinates.

But there was only One Minute for this struggle between conscience and military interest. When that
minute was up, it was already too late. He too had become involved, he was compromised. And from
then on his responsibility becomes heavier and heavier, he has taken upon himself the crime of the
others, he is as guilty as the others, even more guilty, because it was in his power to do justice, and he
did nothing to do it. Understand: a year has passed since Generals Billot, de Boisdeffre and Gonse
knew that Dreyfus was innocent, and they kept this terrible knowledge to themselves! And these
people can sleep, these people have wives and children who love them!

Colonel Picquart had done his duty as a righteous man. In the name of justice, he insisted to his
superiors. He implored them, he told them how impolitic their hesitation was in the face of the
terrible storm that was gathering, that would have to break out as soon as the truth became known.

Later, Mr. Scheurer-Kestner used the same language towards General Billot, imploring him to take
the matter in hand out of love for the fatherland before it worsened and became a public calamity.
No! The crime had been committed and the General Staff could no longer admit it.

Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart was sent away on a mission, he was sent further and further away, as far
as Tunis; there, one day, they even wanted to pay special tribute to his bravery by entrusting him with
a mission in which he would certainly have been massacred, in the same area where the Marquis de
Morès met his death. He was not disgraced, the General Gonse maintained a friendly correspondence
with him. But it is once not good to have come behind certain secrets!

In Paris, the truth inexorably went its way, and it is known how the expected storm broke loose. Mr.
Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Major Esterhazy as the true author of the Bordereau, just as Mr.
Scheurer-Kestner was about to submit a request to the Keeper of the Seals to revise the trial.

(26)

And now Major Esterhazy appears on the scene. Available testimonies show him at first quite out of
countenance ready to commit suicide or to flee. Then suddenly he turns out the bold side and
astonishes Paris by his impetuous behavior. Help had come to him: he had received an anonymous
letter informing him of the machinations of his enemies. A mysterious lady had even sacrificed her
night's rest to hand him a document stolen from the general staff that would bring him salvation.

16
And I cannot but find here the lieutenant-colonel du Paty de Clam again, recognizing the effect of his
fertile imagination. His work, the guilt of Dreyfus, was in danger. and he wanted to defend it. The
revision of the trial would have been in the collapse of the sensational novel, so debauched, so tragic,
and whose heinous solution takes place on Devil's Island. Surely he could not allow that!

Zola continues:
From now on, the duel between Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart and Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam
begins, the one in the open, the other undercover. One will meet them both again soon before the
civil court. But basically it is always the general staff that defends itself and does not want to admit to
a crime whose shamefulness grows from hour to hour.

One has wondered with perplexity who the protectors of Major Esterhazy actually were. First of all,
there is the lieutenant colonel du Paty de Clam, who instigated everything and directed everything.
One recognizes his hand by the tawdry aids. There is also the General de Boisdeffre, there is the
General Gonse, there is the General Billot himself, who all felt compelled to acquit the Major.

For if they wanted to bring to light the innocence of Dreyfus, the bureaux of the War Ministry would
collapse under public scorn. And the beautiful result of this monstrous situation is that the only honest
man in the matter, the one who alone has done his duty, Colonel Picquart, is to be denigrated and
punished as a victim. Oh justice, what terrible despair constricts our heart!

One goes so far as to say that Picquart himself is the forger, that he fabricated the telegram of cards
to corrupt Esterhazy. But, good God, why? With what intention? Give a reason! Is Picquart perhaps
also paid by the Jews? The most beautiful thing about this is that he himself was an anti-Semite. Yes,
we are witnessing the unworthy spectacle: one proclaims the innocence of a man ruined by debts and
crimes, and one destroys the honor of a man of spotless conduct! Truly, when a society has come to
this, it is doomed to dissolution.

(27)

So, Mr. President, this is the Esterhazy affair: a guilty person who absolutely had to be acquitted. For
almost two months now, we have been able to follow the progress of the beautiful work hour by
hour. I will be brief, because this is only meant to be an outline of that history, the bright pages of
which were once to be written in great detail. And so we saw General de Pellieux, then Major Ravary
conduct a criminal investigation, from which the scoundrels emerged cleansed, and the honest people
soiled. Then the court-martial was called.

How could anyone have hoped that a court martial would undo what a court martial had created?

I do not even want to speak about the always possible selection of the judges. The overpowering idea
of discipline, which is in the blood of these soldiers, is it not enough to invalidate the striving for
justice in its roots? Discipline and obedience mean one and the same thing. When the Minister of
War, the supreme chief, publicly proclaims, to the applause of the people's representatives, the
absolute authority of the judgment rendered, how can a court-martial be required to give him a
denial in any form? In a hierarchy such a thing is impossible. General Billot has exerted a suggestion
on the judges by his declaration, and they have judged just as they must go into the fire without
thinking.

Zola continues:
They brought to their bench the preconceived opinion: "Dreyfus has been convicted by the court-
martial of crimes of treason, therefore he is guilty and we, as a court-martial, we cannot declare him

17
innocent. But the recognition of a guilt of Esterhazy would be the recognition of the innocence of
Dreyfus." Nothing could dissuade them from this train of thought.

They have rendered an unrighteous verdict which will forever weigh upon our courts-martial and taint
all their judgments with suspicion in the future. The first court-martial may have been
incomprehensible, the second is necessarily criminal. Its excuse, I repeat, lies in the fact that the
supreme chief had spoken and declared the verdict passed to be-untouchable, sacred, and rapt from
men, so that his subordinates could not say the contrary.

One speaks now of the honor of the army, we should love it, respect it. Oh certainly, we love that
army which would rise at the first threat, which would defend the French soil, it is the whole people;
and we feel for it only tenderness and esteem. But it is not about them here, not about them whose
dignity we want to preserve precisely in our striving for justice. It is about the saber, which perhaps
tomorrow will be given to the master. And kiss the silver handle submissively? by God, no!

(28)

I have already proved elsewhere: the Dreyfus affair was the affair of the War Ministry, an officer of
the General Staff, denounced by his comrades of the General Staff, convicted under the pressure of
the Chief of the General Staff. And I repeat, he cannot be declared innocent without the whole
General Staff being guilty. Therefore, the Bureaux covered up Esterhazy by all possible means, by
press campaigns, communications, influences, they did it only to spoil Dreyfus a second time.

With a mighty broom stroke the republican government would have to drive into this Jesuit nest, as
General Billot himself calls it! Where is a truly strong and patriotic ministry that will have the courage
to transform and renew everything there? How many I know who tremble at the possibility of war,
because they know in what hands the national defense rests!

And what a nest of low intrigues, of gossip and of slander has become that sacred place where the
fate of the fatherland is decided. One is afraid of the illumination by the Dreyfus case, which is a
human sacrifice, that of an unfortunate, a 'dirty Jew'.

Oh, what a lot of madness and stupidity, crazy conceits, low police tricks, customs of the inquisition
and of tyranny, the arbitrariness of some of the most infamous, who put their boots on the neck of
the nation and shove the cry for truth and justice back down its throat, under the lying and nefarious
pretext of the raison d'état!

Zola continues:
And it is a crime that one has relied on the dirty press, that one has let oneself be defended by the
yeast of the Parisian riffraff, so that now this riffraff unashamedly triumphs over the defeat of law
and simple honesty. It is a crime to accuse of sedition those who would like to see France
magnanimously at the head of the free and just nations, while they themselves plot shamelessly
before the whole world to help error to triumph by force.

It is a crime to mislead public opinion and to exploit this opinion, which one has corrupted to the point
of madness, for an act of murder. It is a crime to poison the small and the lowly, to stir up the
passions of reaction and intolerance by entrenching oneself behind the shameful anti-Semitism from
which the great liberal France of human rights will die if it is not cured of it.

(29)

18
It is a crime to exploit patriotism for works of hatred, it is finally a crime to make the saber the
modern god, while all human science is active for the approaching fulfillment of truth and justice.
What a pity to see them so struck in the face, so misjudged and so obscured, that truth, that justice
for which we have so passionately longed!

I can guess how it collapsed in Mr. Scheurer-Kestner's soul, and I believe that he will reproach himself
in the end for not having taken a revolutionary approach when he introduced his interpellation in the
Senate, for not having thrown down the whole shebang in order to knock everything down. He was a
great, righteous man, he remained faithful to his loyal life, he believed that truth would prevail by
itself, especially since it seemed to him as bright as day. Why turn back everything, he thought, since
the sun will soon shine, And it is precisely this joyful trust for which he has been so cruelly punished.

A similar thing is true of Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, who, conscious of his dignity, did not like to
publish the letters of General Gonse. These scruples honor him all the more because, while
respectfully maintaining discipline, his superiors had excrement thrown at him, and prepared for him
themselves an unexpected and insulting trial. So there are two victims, two honest people, two simple
hearts, who gave their cause to God while the devil was at work. And one has witnessed, with regard
to Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, the unworthy spectacle of a French court, through the reporter,
publicly incriminating a witness and charging him with every conceivable offense, and then having
the doors closed as soon as that witness takes his turn to give clarifications and defend himself. I say
that this is yet another crime further, and that this crime will incite the public conscience. Verily! the
military courts make a strange concept of justice.

So that, Mr. President, is the simple truth, and it is appalling, it will stick as a stain on your presidency.
I believe that you have no power in this matter, that you are the prisoner of the Constitution and of
your environment. Notwithstanding this, you have a duty as a man of which you must be mindful and
which you must perform. Not that I doubt in the least of triumph! I repeat it with increasing certainty:
the truth has set out and nothing will stop it.

(30)

Only today we are at the beginning of the matter, because only today the positions have become
clear: On the one hand, the guilty, who do not want justice to be done, and on the other hand, the
worshippers of justice, who stake their lives on it being done. When the truth is buried, it clenches and gains such
a tension that on the day it comes to light, it blows up everything with it. See to it that no terrible misfortune is
caused for the future!

Zola continues:
But this letter has become long, Mr. Chairman, and it is time to conclude.

I accuse Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam of having been the diabolical tool of .miscarriage of
justice - albeit unconsciously, I want to believe - and then of having defended his sinister work for
three years with the most tasteless and culpable machinations.

I accuse General Mercier, at least out of weakness of mind, of having made himself complicit in one of
the greatest injustices of the century.

I accuse General Billot of having had in his hands the sure proofs of the innocence of Dreyfus and of
having stifled them, of having been guilty of this crime of violation of humanity and of judicial murder
with political intent and in order to save the compromised General Staff.

19
I accuse General de Boisdeffre and General Gonse of having made themselves accomplices in the
same crime, the-one, no doubt, out of passionate clerical inclination, the other, perhaps, out of that
esprit de corps which makes the bureaux of the Ministry of War the unassailable holy of holies.

I accuse General de Pellieux and Major Ravary of having conducted a criminal investigation; I
understand by this an investigation of monstrous partisanship, of which we possess in the report of
the latter an imperishable monument of naive audacity.

(31)

I accuse the three experts, Messrs. Belhomme, Varinard and Couard, of having made lying and
fraudulent reports, unless a medical examination declared them to be afflicted with a disease of sight
and judgment.

I accuse the bureaux of the Ministry of War in the press, especially in the "Eclair" and in the "Echo de
Paris" of having conducted a despicable campaign to mislead public opinion in order to cover up their
own mistakes.

I finally accuse the first court-martial of having violated the law by convicting an accused on a
document which remained secret, and I accuse the second court-martial of having covered up this
violation of the law by committing in its turn the legal crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty person.

By making these accusations, I know very well that I am making myself responsible, according to
articles 30 and 31 of the Press Law of July 29, 1881, which punish the defamation offenses. And I
expose myself to this intentionally.

The people I accuse, I do not know them, I have never seen them, I have neither resentment nor
hatred against them. They are for me only concepts, symbols of social evil. And the action I am
performing here is only a revolutionary means to hasten the victory of truth and justice.

Zola continues:
I have only One passion, that of light, in the name of humanity, which has suffered so much and
which has a right to happiness. My flaming protest is only the cry of my soul. So dare to put me before
a jury court, and let the investigation proceed in broad daylight! I am waiting.

Approve, Mr. President, the assurance of my deep reverence!

Paris, January 13, 1898.

Emile Zola."

(33)

20
This was followed by the subsequent

INDICTMENT.
"On January 20, 1898, at the request of the Procurator General at the Court of Appeal of Paris, which
takes up its domicile in its parquet at Paris, in the Palais de Justice, acting by virtue of my office on an
action brought on January 18 by the Minister of War on the basis of article 47 of the law of July 29,
1881, on behalf of the first court-martial of the Military Governorate of Paris, which judged
Commander Esterhazy on January 10 and 11, 1898, and depends on his department, I, the
undersigned Charles-Marie-Georges Dupuis, bailiff at the Court of Appeal in Paris, residing in the
same town, residing in the Palais de Justice, report to Mr. A. Perrenx, manager of the newspaper ,
"Aurore", residing in Paris 142 Rue Montmartre, speaking first to an employee and then to himself, to
appear before the jury court of the Seine in the Palais de Justice of Paris on February 7, 1898 11 ½
o'clock in the morning and likewise by special copy Mr. EmiIe ZoIa, professional writer to Paris,
residing 21 bis, Rue. de Bruxelles as accused:

I. J.A. Perrenx, at Paris, not more than three months ago, in his capacity as manager, published in
number 87 of the 2nd volume of the newspaper "Aurore'' of Thursday, January 13, 1898, which
number has been sold, distributed and exposed for sale in public places and gatherings, the following
sentences drawn by Emile Zola, in an article under the inscription

INDICTMENT concerning: "Letter to Mr. Felix Faure,

President of the Republic. "
First column of the first page:

"A court martial has just dared, by order, to acquit one Esterhazy, a fist blow in the face of every truth
and justice. And this is accomplished, France carries this besmirching on its scales. History will say
that under your presidency such a crime could be committed.... "

(35)

Sixth column of the first page:

"They have pronounced this inspired sentence, which will forever weigh upon our courts-martial,
suspecting all their judgments henceforth. The first court-martial may have lacked understanding, the
second has necessarily gone to work criminally ... "

Second column of the second page:

"I charge the second court-martial with having covered up this illegality by order, committing in its
turn the judicial crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty man..."

Since the said posts contain the insinuation of facts capable of attacking the honor of the Military
Governorate of Paris, which met in Paris on January 10 and 11, 1898, in accordance with its
obligations, and thus to have publicly defamed the same with reference to these obligations.

II . EmiIe ZoIa, at the same time and in the same place, to have made himself complicit in the offense
set forth above, by handing over, either to Mr. Perrenx, manager of the newspaper, "Aurore", or to
any other editor or employee thereof, for transmission to him, for the purpose of publication, the

21
document containing the aforesaid pages, and thus having supplied the means for the perpetration of
the action with knowledge of that purpose; offenses provided for and punishable by Articles 23, 29,
30, 31, 35, 42, 43, 45, 47 and 52 of the Law of July 29, 1881, such as Articles 59 and 60 of the Criminal
Code.

For his knowledge, I have sent him, speaking as above, the present copy

G. Dupuis."

(35)

Answer by Emile Zola.

"To the Minister of War!
In response to my accusation against you, your rank and file, you summon me to appear before the
jury court of the Seine on February 7.

I will appear!

I will appear for a loyal discussion in the full light of day.

But, Mr. Secretary, you undoubtedly did not read my indictment at all. Some scribe must have told
you that I merely accused the second court-martial of having "passed an unjust sentence, covered up
an injustice by order, by committing the judicial crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty man."

This assertion alone would not have satisfied my need for justice. If I wanted the discussion in full
light, I had the desire to see the truth emerge before the eyes of all France, the whole truth.

Therefore, I have supplemented the charges which it pleased you to make according to the wording of
the bailiff Dupuis, with other charges which are not, less formal, not less clear, not, less-determined.

I said:

I accuse Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam of having been the diabolical tool of the miscarriage of
justice - albeit unconsciously, I want to believe - and then of having defended his sinister work for
three years with the most smarmy and culpable machinations.

I said-:

I accuse General Mercier, at least out of weakness of mind, of having made himself complicit in one of
the greatest injustices of the century.

(36)

I said:

I accuse General Billot of having had in his hands the sure proofs of the innocence of Dreyfus and of
having stifled them, of having been guilty of this crime of violation of humanity and of judicial murder
with political intent and in order to redact the com m itted general staff.

I said:

I accuse General de Boisdeffre and General Gonse of having made themselves accomplices in the
same crime, the one no doubt out of passionate clerical inclination, the other perhaps out of that
esprit de corps which makes the bureaux of the War Ministry the unassailable holy of holies.

22
I said:

I accuse General de Pellieux and Major Ravary of having conducted a criminal investigation; I
understand by this an investigation of monstrous partiality, of which we possess in the report of the
latter an imperishable monument of naive audacity.

I said:

I accuse the three experts, Messrs. Belhomme, Varinard and Couard, of having made lying and
fraudulent reports, unless a medical examination declared them to be afflicted with a disease of sight
and judgment.

I said:

I accuse the Bureaux of the War Ministry of having conducted a vile campaign in the press, especially
in the 'Eclair' and the 'Echo de Paris', in order to mislead public opinion and to cover up their own
mistakes.

Read all this again, Mr. Minister, and you will recognize, whatever you may think of my boldness, that
I have not lacked either accuracy or clarity.

(37)

Zola continues:
And if you feel compelled to acknowledge this, and if in your wise silence the whole world will
acknowledge it with me, tell me why, after five days of deliberation and consultation, of hesitation
and vacillation, you visibly embark on a retreat.

How! I could write that 'the Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam - even if unconsciously, as I want to
believe - has defended his sinister work for three years with the most insipid and guilty
machinations?' - and one does not dare to persecute me for it.

I could write that 'the General Mercier, at least out of weakness of mind, has made himself complicit
in one of the greatest injustices of the century?'-- and one does not dare to persecute me.

I could write that 'you yourself, General Billot, having had in your hands the sure proofs of the
innocence of Dreyfus, and having stifled them, have been guilty of this crime of a violation of
humanity, and of a judicial murder, with political intent and in order to save the compromised general
staff? - and you, the Minister of War himself, do not dare to prosecute me for it.

I could write that 'the General de Boisdeffre and the General Gonse have made themselves
accomplices in the same crime, the one no doubt out of passionate clerical inclination, the other
perhaps out of that esprit de corps which makes the bureaux of the Ministry of War the unassailable
holy of holies?'and one does not dare to persecute me for it.

I could write that 'the General de Pellieux and the Commander Ravary have made a criminal
investigation?' and one does not dare to persecute me for it.

I could write that 'the three scribal experts, Messrs. Belhomme, Varinard and Couard have given lying
and fraudulent reports, unless a medical examination declares them to be afflicted by a disease of
sight and judgment?' and they do not dare to prosecute me for it before the jury court and sue me
before the police criminal court.

(38)

23
I could write that 'the bureaux of the Ministry of War have conducted a vile campaign in the press,
especially in the 'éclair' and the 'Echo de Paris', in order to mislead public opinion and to cover up
their own mistakes?' and one dares not persecute me for it.

I have said all this and I maintain it. Is it really possible that you do not want to accept the discussion
of these charges, which are so clearly formulated and no less difficult for the accuser than for the
accused?

I thought to find in front of me the Lieutenant Colonel, du Paty de Clam, the General Mercier, the
General de Boisdeffre, the General Gonse, the General de Pellieux, the Commander Ravary together
with the three writing experts

I have attacked honestly and under the eyes of all; one dares now to answer me by the insults of the
paid newspapers and the shouting of the gangs which the Catholic circles let loose on the street. I
take note of this persistent striving for darkness, but I announce to you in all loyalty that it will be of
no use to you.

Zola continues:
Let me tell you why you have not dared to heed all my charges:

Fearing the light, you have, in order to save yourself, resorted to the means of prosecutorial practice.
You have discovered an article in the law of July 29, 1881, which allows me to prove only those facts
which are included in the indictment.

And now you are quite calm, aren't you?

I am sure you believe that I cannot prove against Lieutenant Colonel du Paty de Clam, Generals
Mercier, Boisdeffre, Gonse and de Pellieux, Commander Ravary, against your experts and against
yourself.

(39)

Well! I tell you beforehand: you are mistaken, you have been wrongly advised. At first, they had
thought of summoning me before the police court; they did not dare to do so because the Court of
Cassation would have overturned the whole procedure.

Then they proceeded to drag the matter out by an investigation; but they feared thereby to give it a
new impetus and to call forth an overwhelming amount of methodically set up testimony against you.

Finally, in desperation, they decided to impose an unequal fight on me by tying me up in advance and
securing for themselves the victory that could not be expected from a free debate.

You have forgotten that I will have twelve independent French citizens as judges.

I will triumph through the power of justice, I will create light in the conscience through the brilliance
of truth. Due to the imperative necessity of the proof, already after the first words one will see all the
clever legal remedies swept away. To start this proof, the law commands me, and the law would be
mendacious, if it denied me the means for exactly this fulfillment of duty.

How, then, was I to prove the charges you brought against me if I were not allowed to show the
concatenation of facts, and if I were prevented from dealing with the whole matter in full clarity?

The freedom of proof, that is the power I trust in!

24
EmiIe Zola.

(40)

25
 The Trial.
And so, on Monday, February 7, 1898, the trial began before the jury court in the center of the city of
Paris, on that island in the Seine from which the two blunt towers of the Notre Dame church greet
us, stands the enormous building of the Palais de Justice.

Once the site of a Roman settlement, then the residence of the ancient French kings, often
devastated by fire, it has served the exercise of justice for centuries. Until the great Revolution, it was
the seat of the "Parliament", the judicial authority that limited the royal power. The courtrooms and
deliberation rooms, a veritable labyrinth, adjoin the high, wide halls that run all around.

The jury courtroom is a rather high paneled room with 6 windows on one side; it seats about 500
people. The court is enthroned on a raised platform - at its head the image of the Crucified - the
judges and the public prosecutor in black scarlet togas - to the left of them at a table sit the
defendants with their defense attorneys and their secretaries. Up to a barrier the witnesses step
forward.

Also in the background, a narrow space is closed off by barriers, into which the small number of lucky
people who have been making cue out there since early morning hour and introduce the audience
are let in.

It cannot be the intention of this report to give a complete account of the hearings: that would
require a volume of thousands of pages.

The impressions as they were conveyed to the attentive, critical listener are to be conveyed to the
reader. This will be attempted with respect to each individual day of the session by sending in
advance a clear picture of the mood, which will be followed by excerpts from the most important
hearings and testimonies. The essential content of the interrogation of the witnesses will appear by
itself from the pleadings in an overall picture.

(41) (Image de la salle d'audience, see ANNEX)

(42)

First day of hearings.

A clear, blue spring sky overarches quiet Paris. Even the rose-red giant posters that yesterday
enacted the heads of the Anti-Semitic League do not disturb this calm.

Messrs. Drumont, Thiébaud and Guerin, it must be said, have studied their Antony well: for them,
everything is only the instigation of a "criminal Jewish syndicate", an "international conspiracy of
agents of foreign countries", they want to remain quite calm, but if it is true that Jewish money
intends demonstrations in favor of the defenders, then - yes then the "honest and patriotic"
population of Paris will take their defense into their own hands, for which the government is too
weak. -

26
Nevertheless, it is quite quiet over there in front of the Palace of Justice; only in the gloomy hall of
the Assises does the crowd aggregates, and the government shows its strength through the orderly
Municipal Guards.

Lucky who today can call himself a journalist or wear the toga of the lawyer: from these two
categories -- the rest, besides the official personalities, are a small number of privileged ones -- is
composed the majority of the auditorium.

A lot of the former had to be turned away: just now, an editor of an illustrated magazine there, who
had supposedly come over from New York yesterday, slips away cardless and saddened. Why didn't
he telegraph before making the long journey?

(43)

The Parisian press is, of course, fully represented in its heads: close to me the expressive gray head of
old Rochefort, over on the platform the red-blond, spiritual head of Madame Séverine, there Yves
Guyot, Jaurès and others; on the bench of the defenders: George Clemenceau and Zola himself, also
already gray, the pince-nez on his nose and the stick with the silver button in his hand. Under the
toga you can see many milky faces.

Around 12 o'clock Zola appears, shortly afterwards the judicial apparatus. The president makes an
energetic face: he promises to clear the hall at the first demonstration.

The whole day is a prelude, nothing more. It is the limitation of the evidentiary procedure that the
prosecuting authority seeks. Master Labori makes every effort to prevent them from imposing the
proof of all charges on Zola. In vain! One has the feeling that his pathos is sometimes too strong, and
fears that it will exhaust itself too soon; often one feels almost opposite the stage.

But one feels that this man is fully serious, that the cause he represents comes from his soul, flows
out through his nerves. When he thunders out "that without justice and truth there is no chose jugée
at all", when he affirms that there is no matter of "national defense" here, and that he himself and
his clients are not behind the prosecutor in patriotism, when he scourges the unheard-of "that the
prosecutor himself, General Billot, is allowed to close the mouths of the main witnesses", then he
makes the impression of a certain tragic greatness.

Not so, when he unfolds the same pathos about relative trifles, such as the "veiled lady" of the
Colonel du Paty de Clam or the pretended illness of the witness Madame de Boulancy, who had
changed her apartment to escape the interrogation and the alleged death threats of Esterhazy.

Calmer, almost too calm, almost too businesslike, but fine and suave, is his colleague, the young
lawyer Albert Clémenceau; the defendants themselves hardly get a chance to speak today.

(44)

Out of the endless legal formalities, the innumerable "under consideration", etc. The tangible result
is that the evidentiary proceedings are limited to the points actually charged, the court-martial
against Esterhazy. This is, as cannot be denied, a defeat for the defense, although valuable
clarifications can and will emerge from this single point as well. On the other hand, the three
"scribes" have fallen away with their claim to be admitted as civil parties and have been referred to
their own trial. Finally, the court will decide today which of the witnesses who did not appear and
were excused by letter should be compulsorily produced at the request of the defense.

27
Among them are quite interesting personalities, such as General Mercier, du Paty de Clam, the
commander Ravary, Madame de Boulaney, etc. So, on the whole, this first day was not much more
than an outpost battle.

The papers quarreled, as usual, but Paris remained quiet, although the Dreyfus-friendly journals
claim that Rochefort was booed outside the Palace of Justice, and the latter in turn asserts that the
same thing happened to Zola. So much is fact that Rochefort shouted to his "decriers"--as the
tasteful expression goes--"they are paid 100 sous apiece by the syndicate," and that the equipage of
Zola leaving the court was followed breathlessly by a few hundred "bassists" who did not get their
money's worth.

When I strolled along the boulevards around 10 o'clock, it was dead quiet, only a few young
coxcombs were hooting and singing: "Conspuez les juifsl," "A bas Zola." I believe, however, that this is
why some, like others, will have slept peacefully. - The foreign countries are visibly much more
excited than the actual scene of the tragicomedy. Zola is said to have received today about 500
dispatches from all over the world.

(45)

After the jurors are drawn and sworn in, the prosecutor van Cassel takes the floor:

"The Press Law prescribes that in the case of insults with reference to public functions prosecution
shall take place only on the complaint of the minister concerned, in the present case on the
application of the Minister of War. In his complaint of January 18, and accordingly also in the
summons of January 20, the Minister of War brought the charge of insulting the court-martial in the
matter of Esterhazy.

It is natural that the plaintiff delimits the territory to which he wants to call the insulter: otherwise it
would be all too easy for the latter to divert the debate to distant points and thus to initiate a
diversion, to perform one of those well-known tricks which are so frequent before the jury courts.

One insinuation is contained in Zola's article, clear, precise and categorical: the assertion that a court-
martial by order knowingly acquitted a guilty person, that is, committed a crime. This could not be
borne. The principle of our press legislation is an absolute one: persons have the right to pass over the
attacks concerning them, and it is only praiseworthy if, instead of a justified feeling of revenge, they
renounce these their prerogatives.

To increase the points of the debate would mean to darken them, to poison them with personal
questions, to degenerate them. The plan of the defendants, which has been established outside, is to
discuss the authority of two decisions of the court-martial, against Dreyfus and Esterhazy, before the
jury, which is not competent to do so, but any such attempt would be a manifest violation of the law.
- For our law is besides very anxious to avoid errors of law: the Act of 1895, passed a year after the
Dreyfus case, provides in the widest measure for the facilitation of an appeal. So far, no attempt of
this kind has been made; one has only tried to have a second officer convicted for the crime of the
first, and this attempt has failed.

(46)

Van Cassel continues:

The last possible reason for revision, apart from a possible false testimony - which nobody has
mentioned - the discovery of a new fact, can be understood according to common sense only in the
sense that it is a question, as the law itself says, of a fact which is suitable to substantiate the

28
innocence of the convicted person. Now here, as one openly admits, one wants to arouse a
scandalous debate by a revolutionary means. There is only one obstacle to this, and that is the law.

Articles 35 and 52 of the Press Law stipulate that only the facts stated in the summons may be proved
by the defendants. There is only one exception to this rule: if the facts offered as evidence, which are
foreign to the summons, form an incurable whole with it. The analysis of the extraneous facts that the
defendants want to bring forward proves that no such indivisibility exists: they all refer to persons
who did not participate in the court-martial offended. Nowhere is a circumstance adduced which
could lead to the trace of unlawful orders or criminal acquittal. The defendants have been so little
concerned with the person of those they have attacked that they have not even given their names,
and the writer himself confesses that they are complete strangers to him."

The public prosecutor shall file appropriate motions to limit the facts to be admitted into evidence.

Advocate Labori, defender of Emile Zola:

"It is not the right moment to reply to the accusations and attacks of the Mr. Prosecutor. At the given
moment we will discuss why no request for revision of the Dreyfus trial has been filed. And if, God
willing, our negotiations take the course I expect of them, we, for our part, will have the right to
wonder why the Public Prosecutor has not requested both the revision and, as is his right by law, the
annulment of the sentence of 1894 against Captain Dreyfus.

(47)

But this moment has not yet come, because you, gentlemen of the jury, do not yet know the facts of
the case, and the whole endeavor of our opponents is that you should not get to know them. The
prosecutor must move here in the narrow circle in which he is banished by the indictment of the
Minister of War.

In the light of this, I will, at the appropriate moment, explain the facts to you, gentlemen of the jury,
without violating, even with a single word, the respect that I owe to justice. But you will feel from the
reason of my words that I will endeavor to create light in the minds and hearts of the twelve French
citizens who not only represent the whole of France, but are sitting here before the wide world, and in
whom I feel the highest confidence.

Compared with the short words of the representative of the state authority but filled with
insinuations and reserves with reference to the Dreyfus-Esterhazy affair, I must nevertheless demand
complete independence for my words, with all respect for the judiciary.

We have been prepared to be limited as far as possible in our defense, according to the wishes of the
Secretary of War, but it will be our task to ask at the proper moment what have been the deeper
reasons for the exercise of this right. I do not believe that the limited form of the action will really
have the consequences we hope for. I ask the President's permission to give you a print of Zola's letter
of January 13, as well as to read to you the last paragraphs of it."

The Labori defense attorney, with his voice raised, read out all the charges set forth therein:

"I accuse Colonel du Paty de Clam, Generals Mercier, Billot, de Boisdeffre, de Pellieux, experts
Belhomme, Varinard, and Conrad, the bureaux of the War Department, etc., etc.. I accuse the first
court-martial of violating the law by convicting an accused on a document which remained secret,
and I accuse the second court-martial of having covered up, by order, this illegality, and of having
committed the crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty person.

29
(48)

You know the answer, gentlemen. It began with the lawsuit that, after five days and nights of
deliberation and uncertainty, Mr. Secretary of War initiated, it continues, through the motions that
have just been made on his behalf by the prosecutor here. Do people really think that this is going to
stifle debate? - That would be like putting yourself in the middle of a whirlpool to stop it. If one
wanted to stifle the now open debate, one would have done better not to indict at all.

Public opinion, to which I will speak, and which is magnanimous and trusting, but blind - now still the
strongest support of public authority, it would probably have given its consent to this omission of the
lawsuit even today.

Is it really serious to say to us today: the three quoted paragraphs of this letter of 1500 or 2000 lines
have nothing to do with the deep intention, the general thought, the conviction of Mr. Zola? nothing
to do with the whole content of the article and the other charges? - No, between those three accused
points and the whole there is, not only a close connection, but downright indivisibility. Commander
Esterhazy was prosecuted for the same crime of treason as ex-Captain Dreyfus; the subject of the trial
is the same in both cases, among others: the bordereau, about which the experts testified in the
second trial.

I understand that the experts of the two trials, which are not completely the same, have no desire to
meet here adversarially. Some of the same have prosecuted us in the criminal court. Some of their
advocates are here, the better, I hope they intend to deal with us in the jury court as well.

(49)

Mr. Mathieu Dreyfus had denounced Commander Esterhazy: if the latter had been convicted, the
revision of the verdict against Dreyfus would have been self-evident. He was acquitted, the question
remains open, and we will discuss it. So, the dilemma arises: either we will be prevented from having
any proof at all, or we must be allowed to examine both, because the proof of Esterhazy's guilt
includes that of Dreyfus' innocence. - Moreover, the Minister of War has overlooked a detail that is
perhaps dangerous for him: he has included in his complaint the passage that the second court-
martial covered up an illegality of the first.

How are we supposed to prove that, without just this illegality, to justify? - Is there not a connection
here, even indivisibility?

It remains to speak of the 'condemned thing'. What will remain of it if we succeed in proving that it is
irregularly and illegally judged? That thing about which public opinion has such a strong belief that it
considers as public offenders all those who dare to doubt it even for a second, even if they offer the
proof? - This "judged thing" the citizens respect, but only because they consider it regular and judged
by law. Where there is no more law, no more legality and no more justice, there, Mr. Prosecutor,
there is no more judged thing: let us not speak of exceptions in this!"

30
 Second day of hearings.
Tuesday-, February 9, 1898
It is a single, pronounced success for the defense. First of all, the Court of Appeals proved it right in
summoning the witnesses who did not appear yesterday: we will probably soon have the pleasure of
seeing Messrs. d'Ormescheville, Ravary, Esterhazy and others appear. The last one, Esterhazy, by the
way, already made his debut today by a rather blatant letter: he had been acquitted and had no
reason to appear on the citation of a "simple private citizen".

(50)

The interrogation of Mme Dreyfus could still be prevented by the President, but Labori asked her no
less than 16 questions, which the Court refused to answer, but most of which contained just as many
answers.

Already LebIois, the advocate of Colonel Picquart, broke through the snares of the judicial net of
traps; he set forth the whole tale of the brave colonel's sufferings, proved that the forged letters and
telegrams destined to discredit Picquart could only have come from the bureaux of the War Ministry,
and related the amusing fact of how the officer, who had become inconvenient, was "walked" all
over France on a supposedly important mission until he finally arrived in Tunis.

But the main result was the testimony of Scheurer-Kestner. He thoroughly rehabilitated himself,
proved that his whole attitude since then had been the result of a discretion that had certainly gone
too far, that the Minister of War had broken his promise of loyalty, and all this in a tone of honest
conviction that did not fail to make a deep impression.

Despite all the legal quibbles, despite the efforts of the president and the prosecutor, the much-cited
letters of General Gonse finally came to light, proving how this sous-chief of the Grand General Staff
doubted Dreyfus' guilt as early as 1896. In vain, the president tried to restrain him.

"They want to prevent me from telling the full truth",

the courageous man (Scheurer-Kestner) shouted with a raised voice at the head of the court.

Mr. Casimir-Perrier, the former President of the Republic, regained the favor of public opinion by
declaring that he was at the disposal of the-Justice as an ordinary citizen. He did not want to take the
oath of witness "because he could not tell the full truth."

(51)

The holy legend of the "Dreyfus Syndicate" also got a hole today; it was proved that its "members"
had come to the knowledge of Esterhazy's authorship of the Bordereau in quite different ways.

The banker de Castro, who happened to buy the facsimile of the latter on the street in 1896, was
thunderstruck when he immediately recognized the similarity of the manuscript with Esterhazy's
business letters in his possession; it was he who drew Matthieu Dreyfus' attention to it, while long
before Picquart, Gonse, and thus Scheurer-Kestner had already reached the same conclusion.

ZoIa himself also intervened in the debate today; he demanded not to be treated worse than the
thieves and murderers, who were also not cut off the evidence.

31
The total result of the session is a shipwreck of the governmental art of cover-up, the tool of which,
despite commendable striving for impartiality, even the president has had to make himself so far.
With compelling logic, the defense asserts its principle that once the allegation is under indictment
"that the second court-martial covered up an illegality of the first", proof of such illegality must be
allowed.

Thus, the legal quay walls, which seemed to be made of ashlars, turn out to be hollow plank walls
when the real tide rushes in. They collapse, and above them sits, helpless, the President, helpless the
Procurator General. The energy of yesterday seems to have dwindled even in secondary matters;
today the dear public is even allowed to demonstrate.

The external apparatus is also helpless and disorganized; the overcrowding and disorder in the hall
exceeds all limits; the numerous municipal guards seem to be there only for their own amusement
and not to maintain order. At the exit, a crowd of screamers even assaults Zola.

The cry, "The Republic is order," will soon be as true as that of yore, "The Empire is peace."

(52)

However, if one does not behave indiscreetly and cheekily, one is at least as safe here in Paris as in a
royal Prussian train.

This is precisely the great error to which one is so easily misled by reading the daily reports, as if the
excellent but artificially misled French people were identical with those fanatical screamers of whom
a few hundred or thousand can be found at any time in every large city, or with those catilinarian
journalists, bureaucrats and swashbucklers who are spread all over Europe.

The French people do not coincide with the gang that rumbles in the streets, nor with the clique that
plots in the bureaux of the Ministry of War: perhaps the drama that is now unfolding in the Palace of
Justice serves to prove this once again to the world outside.

Scheurer-Kestner:
"Last month, July, I heard that in the Information Bureau of the General Staff, as early as September
1896, other occasional inquiries had discovered that they had been mistaken in 1894 in attributing
the Bordereau to Dreyfus.

I learned at the same time that after Colonel Picquart had made this discovery, he went to Mr.
Bertillon, one of the experts of 1894, who in his time had attributed the bordereau to Dreyfus with all
certainty. Picquart showed him the bordereau and Esterhazy's handwriting, but without telling him
the origin, and asked him what he thought about it. And Mr. Bertillon answered: 'Ei, the forger has
succeeded! This is no longer a similarity, this is the complete sameness'!

Colonel Picquart then asked his boss for permission to continue his investigations. Among other
things, he suggested to General Gonse that the documents be subjected to a new handwriting
examination, which he advised against.

There exists a correspondence about this between Gonse and Picquart, of which I had the privilege of
taking cognizance, and which was of great value to me, because it fortified my opinion; I obtained
from it proof that General Gonse subscribed to the opinion of Colonel Picquart, who, for his part, was
preparing a revision of the trial."

32
(53)
Scheurer-Kestner then wants to read out these letters of General Gonse, which causes a lengthy
debate with the President and is finally denied to him on the basis of the law, which requires the
delivery of all documents to be presented in the trial 5 days after the service of the indictment.

The defense attorneys take this opportunity to state that this posting could not have happened
because at the court-martial Esterhazy had taken these letters from Colonel Picquart and placed
them unread in the files. After long negotiations, Scheurer-Kestner is authorized to make oral
communications from these letters. In view of their importance, we will communicate their wording
in the following.

From the correspondence between General Gonse

and Colonel Picquart.

Letter from General Gonse to Colonel Picquart.

Cormeilles-en-Parisis (Seine and Oise), Sept. 7, 1896.

My dear Picquart!

I received your letter of Sept. 5, and after thinking over everything you tell me, I hasten to inform you
that it seems to me useful to proceed with great caution in the matter by being suspicious of first
impressions.

It will be necessary now to be sure about the nature of the documents. How could they be
transcribed? What information has been requested from third parties? One can answer that
according to this train of thought it is rather difficult to achieve a result without making some fuss. I
recognize that, but in my opinion, it is the best means to move forward safely.

The continuation of the investigation with reference to the handwriting has the great disadvantage
that it forces to take new people into confidence under unfavorable conditions, and it seems to me
better to wait for a greater certainty, in order to proceed only then on that rather correct way

I return on Sept. 15, and the best way to communicate about such a matter is verbally. In summary,
my feeling is that it is necessary to proceed with extraordinary caution.

I squeeze your hand in friendship, my dear Picquart.

Yours sincerely, A. Gonse.

(54)

Letter from Colonel Picquart to General Gonse.

Paris, Sept. 9, 1896.

My General!

33
I have read your letter carefully and I will conscientiously follow your instructions. But I think I must
tell you the following: Various indications and a serious fact, which I will tell you about after your
return, show me that the moment is near when people who are convinced that they were mistaken
about Dreyfus will try everything and make a considerable noise. I think I have done what is necessary
so that the initiative comes from us. If we lose too much time, it will come from another side, which,
apart from higher considerations, will not put us in a nice role.

I must add that those people do not seem to me to be as well informed as we are and that, as it
seems to me, their intention is to make noise and noise, which nevertheless will not bring about
clarity. There will be an unnecessary crisis, a scandal, which could be avoided by doing justice at
times. Approve etc., Picquart.

Letter from General Gonse to Lt. Col. Picquart

Cormeilles. en-Parisis, Sept. 10, 1896.

My dear Picquart!

I report the receipt of your letter of the 8th, and after thinking about it, I insist on a first feeling,
despite the anxiety it contains. I believe that it is necessary to act with the utmost prudence; at the
point where you have arrived with your investigation, it is not a matter of avoiding the light, but of
knowing how to act in order to reach the revelation of the truth.

In this regard, one must beware of any wrong measure and especially guard against steps that
cannot be made good. It seems to me necessary, before compromising anything, to silently pursue
the thought I have indicated to you until the fullest possible certainty is reached.

I know well that the solution to the problem is difficult and that many uncertain things can happen,
but that is precisely why you must proceed with prudence. You do not lack this virtue, so I am calm. So
remember that the difficulties are great and that good tactics, considering all the possibilities in
advance, are essential.

I have just had the opportunity to write to General Boisdeffre, I enclose a few words in the spirit of my
present letter. Caution, caution! That is the word you must always have before your eyes. I return on
the 15th in the morning, look for me early in my bureau after you have gone through your mail. I
press your hand in friendship, my dear Picquart,

Your very devoted

A. Gonse.

(55)

Letter from Lieutenant Colonel Picquart to General Gonse.

Paris, Sept. 14, 1896.

My General!

On Sept. 7, I had the honor of calling your attention to the scandal that certain people threatened to
create recently, and I took the liberty of telling you that, in my opinion, we will have great
inconveniences if we do not take the initiative. The article of the "Eclair", which you will find enclosed,
unfortunately strengthens me in my opinion. I will carefully investigate who could have thrown this

34
bomb. But I think I must point out once again that we must act without hemming and hawing. If we
wait any longer, we will be thrown overboard, driven into an irresolvable situation, and will no longer
find the means to establish the full truth.

Approve, etc. , Picquart.

Scheurer-Kestner continues:
"After reading these letters, my conviction was established that an error had been committed. What
did I have to do? My first duty was to inform the government, the Minister of War. I brought him the
documents and proved to him that the writing was not that of Dreyfus, but that of Esterhazy. It
seemed to me that the honor of the government, of the republic, of the democracy, of the army
demanded that the initiative for an expiation of wrongs committed come from above and not from
below, and therefore I turned to the government."

Zola:
"I would insist, Mr. President, on asking Mr. Scheurer-Kestner to give us more details about his
conversation with General Billot, in order to establish something to which I attach great importance.
You know, Mr. President, that we, and especially I personally, are accused of being the cause of the
terrible crisis which is disorganizing our country; it is said that we have caused these great
disturbances which are disturbing business and stirring hearts.

Well! I would like to have established that General Billot was informed by Mr. Scheurer-Kestner of
everything that was to happen. I want the confirmation of Mr. Scheurer-Kestner that he is an old
friend of General Billot, whom he duces, that he-has wept in his arms, that he has implored him in the
name of France to take the matter into his own hands."

(56)

Scheurer-Kestner:
"I did, however, implore the Minister of War to prove to me Dreyfus's guilt by offering to shout its
truth from the rooftops himself. But he would not or could not do it. He was content to say to me: 'He
is guilty.

The conversation with him, who has been my friend for 25 years, lasted three hours. Yes, I asked him
to focus all his attention on this matter, which otherwise threatened to become very serious and
dangerous.

'You must', I told him, 'forestall this. Make a personal inquiry, don't rely on anyone; there are files in
certain bureaux, let them come without intermediaries! Set up a personal and loyal enquête, and if
you promise me to do so, I will make myself obligated against you to remain silent until I hear the
result from you.'

When I took my leave, General Billot asked me to keep strict silence. I accepted, but I made a
condition: 'Two hours are enough,' I told him, 'to make the inquiry: I give you 14 days and during that
time I will not move.'

The very next day I found in the newspapers the account of this conversation with all the details, half
right, half wrong, as one is wont to do. They said that I had presented nothing, they even said that I
had refused any proof to the Minister of War. And during these 14 days they dragged me in the

35
excrement, treated me as a dishonest man and a wretch, heaped insults on me and denounced me as
a German and a Prussian."

Zola: "Like me as an Italian!"

(57)

Zola:
"Gentlemen of the jury, I want to address you. I am not a speaker, I am a writer. I am not in the habit
of taking the floor in public. I am an extremely nervous creature and it may happen that the words I
use express my thoughts badly. There is no doubt that I have not expressed myself properly because I
have not been understood. I am accused of saying that I am above the law. But I did not want to say
that I am indignant against this great idea of the law, to which I rather submit completely, because
from it I expect justice.
But I wanted to oppose the way in which I am persecuted and only a few lines are pulled out of my
long accusation in order to condemn me; I say that this is unworthy of justice, and that in no case can
these few lines be taken and spoken out without considering everything I have said. For a writing
continues, sentences bring about sentences, ideas bring about ideas, and therefore it is unworthy to
draw out just one little thing to thereby impose silence on me by virtue of the law. That is what I said.
I have expressed myself wrongly. I am not above the law, but I am above hypocritical
procedures."(Applause.)

Labori: "Bravo!"
Prosecutor van Cassel: "Master Labori, it was you who gave the sign to these bravos."
Labori: "I did it; but frankly, it was the outcry of my conscience!"

Third day of hearings.

Wednesday 9 February.
The third day belongs to the military. It is a shining assembly of uniforms, which is composed of
pretty much everyone who has been mentioned in the matter so far. Mr. Casimir-Périer has set the
example for them, and they too bow before the "majesty of the law."

In passing, I have the impression that the much-vaunted syndicate of "Sabers and Suffragettes" is as
far gone as the Dreyfus syndicate; to my mind, it is far less a matter of any deliberate plans than of a
haphazard and disjointed parliamentary clique and bureaucratic interest economy.

(58)

The Gallic Moltke of the future, General Count Mouton de Boisdeffre, gray and sinister, was quite
interesting to see, but not much was heard of him. The uniforms have appeared, but their wearers
hide behind professional secrecy wherever possible.

The interrogation of General Gonse is more dramatic: he seems to be very upset by yesterday's
publication of his letters to Colonel Picquart, because after only a few words he lets himself be

36
carried away by an insult to the defense counsel. Asked about his opinion of the veiled lady, he
replies: "Ce sont des traquenards" (mousetraps) could be roughly translated).

Labori protests, appealing in vain to the helpless procurator general.

Immense tumult, the president, takes a bold decision and has the hall cleared. This "evacuation" is a
delicious illustration of the whole comedy. There is no evacuation at all: the young jurists, who
actually shouted almost alone, the officers, the highly protected ladies of the aristocracy, we
journalists, i.e. about 95% of the auditorium, remain quite calmly in the hall - only the 50 poor devils,
who stand behind the bar to maintain the fiction of the "public", and who have been fighting for their
seats since 5 o'clock in the morning, are driven out.

Then Gonse excused himself, and General Mercier took the stage in his place. In his otherwise also
rather meaningless testimony, a serious misunderstanding was prevented only by Labori's energy: on
a remark of the defense counsel that at a certain time the existence of the "secret document" had
been boasted of, Mercier sharply interrupted him:

"This is not true!"

The audience, thinking he was denying the existence of the document, applauded furiously.

Labori then asked the new question whether such a document existed at all, which the general
refused to answer.

(59)

I was struck by the changed attitude of the auditorium compared to yesterday, that on the benches
behind me a number of officers of the War Department in civilian clothes had settled down, giving
lively expression to their sympathies for the chiefs: one can see how much is to be given to sympathy
and displeasure.

Colonel Henry, Picquart's fiercest opponent, was "accidentally" sent away on a mission yesterday; on
the other hand, Constable GribeIin, chief of archives at the War Ministry, becomes entangled in
alarming contradictions with the conjured testimonies of Advocate Leblois, so that a dramatic
confrontation of the two witnesses in the present and a perjury prosecution in the future looms.

The senator and former minister Trarieux closes the day with a long, long speech, delivered in the
style of the parliamentary tribune, which brings little new except for the interesting fact that the
famous "secret" document, in truth reading: "Cet animal de D ...... devient trop exigeant" before and
at the publication has simply been falsified into: "Cet animal de Dreyfus."

During his speech it becomes dark, total night in the hall, the journalists light candles, the impression
is downright gruesome. Six o'clock had become, (at home - seven), finally, finally - one heard long
ago the senator only speak out of the night, - lets, the president, light the gas.

"Light", by the way, played a big role today in the real sense: the constable Gribelin, who had assured
several times that "the lamp was lit" when Picquart and Leblois were sitting over the dossiers, was
considered by the president to be a lantern lighter, to general hilarity.

When I see him sitting up there, the bland Mr. Delegorgue with his broad, round, benevolent sunny
face, majestically wrapped in his red toga, my thoughts involuntarily wander to China, or I feel like I
am standing in front of the curtain of a Molière comedy.

37
A large military contingent parades in the walkways and in front of the palace today, and the
gawking, jeering crowd has also grown. The people just stay inside until they have been gobbled up,
cheered, and lost their way.

(60)

Another hall of the same building has seen today the outcome of the trial Reinach-Rochefort. The
former lantern man, sentenced to five days in jail and two thousand francs, is over the moon about it
and today in his "intransigeant" quite comfortably accuses General Billot of belonging to the -
Dreyfus syndicate. - -

But that doesn't sound as bad under the sunny Parisian sky as it does over there in our fog: people
laugh and shrug their shoulders, just as people here at the scene itself are much less concerned with
all these things than they probably believe at home. People read the newspapers, mostly without
much alteration,-and go about their business quietly, as their forefathers would hardly have done
differently at the time of the revolution. The French bourgeois is a quiet man and mostly strives for
the pensions that are supposed to secure him a quiet old age.

Today, a big crowd in the hall led me behind the barrier that closes the general public. There, a
bourgeois Parisian, in naive eloquence, set the tone and spoke a good word: "After the coup d'état of
1852, weren't the guilty the ones who sent the others to Cayenne?" The old man's humor pleased me:
"If I ever have a rather dirty business, he said, I'll let myself be court-martialed!"

When I returned to the hall, I was surrounded by a crowd of young lawyers: "C'est un Premier Consul,
qu'il nous faudrait!" said one of the greenhorns, and the others nodded to him in understanding.

(61)

Fourth day of hearings.

Thursday-, February 10.
Deprived of alcohol and nicotine, we have to go hungry for six to eight hours a day: on the other
hand, we have had an exquisite menu for two days, in other areas, the entire sample menu of the
French officer corps, from the chief of staff down to the secret archivist, and in the evening each time
a former minister as dessert.

Yesterday there were three of them: Dupuy, Guérin and Thévenot, but the two first ones were
muzzled by the president, so that we could only enjoy the plea of the latter. It is a real misfortune for
the present government that the former ministers of justice condemn its actions so strongly.

Mr. Thévenot firmly believes in Zola's good faith because he can prove that the investigation against
Esterhazy was conducted in an incredibly frivolous manner. The strange circumstance, in any case
very serious, that a secret document could disappear from the War Ministry and return there again
through the hands of a veiled lady and Esterhazy, was not investigated at all. And yet, only through
the cab drivers of the mysterious female person, one could have learned the truth, if - yes, if she
existed and if one had wanted!

The army's pattern card provides the solution. If one looks at the two speakers and prosecutors of
the two courts-martial, respectively, the commanders d'0rmescheville and Ravary, bland white-
bearded swashbucklers who would have long since been made Landwehr district commanders over

38
there in the German Empire, one understands completely the striking aridity, even ridiculousness of
the two indictments against Dreyfus and Picquart, - pardon, I wanted to say: Esterhazy.

(62)

Then one feels the total inadequacy in principle of a purely military court in matters where life and
honor are at stake.

Then one feels how these, certainly excellent officers, but limited people in the best faith, out of the
duty of military discipline, can commit a judicial crime.

And with that, the terrible tragedy of the plot is revealed in simple features that must escape the
newspaper reader at home with all thoroughness.

Then one sees, raised above the passions of the day and of the parties, that it is not the persons who
are to blame, but a whole system which derives from the undeniable importance of the military
element for our time the belief in its infallibility in fields quite alien to it, and thus with natural
necessity arrives at transferring the fanaticism of the medieval judgment of God into the present.

But, thank God, the present is a skeptical judge, and Zola, Duclaux, France, Guyot, e tutti quanti, a
selection of the best of France, are their bailiffs. And one breathes a sigh of relief: France is not yet
lost, despite Rochefort, Drumont, and Thiébaud.

Another picture - Colonel du Paty de Clam. He could be seen as a guards lieutenant "Unter den
Linden". Dashingly, at parade pace, he marches forward, stops sharply, as if he had a carpenter's
brake in his body, snaps his heels together briskly and salutes tightly to both sides, the monocle on
his nose. With the greatest dash he says - nothing, but he objects with the highest moral indignation
that the honor of a young lady has been dragged into the debate on the part of the defense. This
"young lady"-has been playing a big role in the enemy press for some days, one counts on the
sensitive gallantry of the French people, and it is, indeed, admirable with what psychological subtlety
these people operate. Labori states, amidst the merriment of the audience, that this was far from his
mind, all the more so since the "young lady" is 55 years old. It is significant that those papers in their
reports completely ignore this fact and continue to talk about the offended "young lady": this is how
public opinion is made.

(63)

Colonel Henry, returned from his mission, gets into contradictions with the witness Leblois. One
senses that, after the initial intention of total abstention of the officers had to be abandoned, all
efforts amount to making in advance the feared witness, Colonel Picquart, dead.

The testimony of General de Pellieux, who makes a very sincere impression, is a single accusation
against the officer, who is not even spared the accusation of forgery. - The drama comes to a head
with the catastrophe that will probably break out today during Picquart's interrogation. In the role of
the irritated lion now forced upon him, he will hardly be able to do otherwise than to completely
abandon soldierly discretion and, in his struggle between duty and humanity, to sacrifice himself in
order to give the latter its full due.

If I may be permitted a preliminary word, I consider the charges against him, which were certainly
asserted in good faith, to be groundless, apart perhaps from that of a breach of official secrecy, for
the same reason that I have always held Dreyfus to be innocent. In all suspicions I look first for the
motive, and as little as I could find such a motive in the case of the ex-captain for treason, so little

39
can I fathom it in the case of Picquart for deliberately ruining a comrade against his better
knowledge. Well, the rehearsal will soon take place before us.

The presidency was unusual yesterday, energetic. Is it the fault of the gentleman who sits behind the
president, and perhaps was added to him from the ministry to strengthen his resistance?

The witness Salles, to whom a member of the first court-martial had confirmed the presentation of a
secret document to the judges, was not allowed to testify, despite vehement protestation by the
defense, which, through Clémenceau, questioningly put that testimony on record. But the little
remedies will no longer be able to stop the solution of the great tragedy, and it is the greatest
mistake of the government that, in a false confidence in the power of public opinion, it did not see
this inevitable development in time.

(64)

Meanwhile, the anti-Semitic, military, and clerical press is in fullest confidence of victory. And above
it all, for those around Zola as well as for those around Boisdeffre, the bright, warm sun shines in the
blue Parisian sky.

General Gonse:
"I said yesterday with reference to my letters that they were caused by Colonel Picquart, who had
paid me a visit during a vacation. They were therefore only the consequence of a conversation, and to
understand them one must know the contents of that conversation. Picquart had brought me the so-
called proof of Esterhazy's guilt; they were assumptions, but not proofs, and therefore I said to him:
continue your investigation in the train of thought in which you began. Do not mix up the Dreyfus and
Esterhazy affairs! Leave Dreyfus aside! Pursue, as is your right and duty, the investigation of
Esterhazy in order to establish his guilt. But leave the Dreyfus affair aside for me. At the state of the
question, where there are only suspicions, there was no reason to have an officer arrested, as
Picquart had requested.

I therefore recall the explanation which I have already given, I wanted to distinguish and keep apart
the affair Dreyfus and Esterhazy, to know the first completely outside the debate. I advised Colonel
Picquart to pursue the guilt of Esterhazy, who could perhaps be an accomplice of Dreyfus, perhaps
another guilty party. There could have been several of them. It was up to him, according to the plan
he had indicated, to investigate the matter further, and I think we were in complete agreement on
that."

General Gonse then complains about the publication of his correspondence.

(65)

Fifth and sixth day of

hearings.
Friday and Saturday, February 11 and 12, 1898
General de Pellieux is a quick-witted, good speaker: that was his misfortune on Friday. In his self-
confident zeal, he let the incomparably clever Labori pilot him into the middle of the testimony of the

40
secret Esterhazy court-martial, it was for the interrogation of the hated Leblois. But when the
defense attorney asked:

"Hadn't Mr. Leblois made a comment that could have motivated an addition to the information?" -

the eloquent general blunts:

"I can't answer that, c'est le huis clos."

The answer is given, and Maître Clemenceau nails it.

And now begins the great duel between the General Staff and Colonel Picquart, a drama in itself. This
is a new specimen from that pattern card of the French army, but a pleasant and sympathetic one.
The whole impression of his appearance can be summed up in the words he spoke yesterday towards
the end of the interrogation:

Colonel Picquart:
"For months I have been in the most terrible situation for an officer: I have seen my honor attacked
without being able to defend myself. Tomorrow, perhaps, I will be expelled from the army I love and
to which I have devoted twenty-five years of my life. That did not stop me when I was faced with the
decision to seek truth and justice. I did it, believing that I would be of greater service to my country
and the army. And so I believed that I was doing the duty of an honest man. That is what I had to say.
I am sure that the gentlemen of the jury have understood me."

This was the dignified calm response to the statement made by Chief Henry five minutes earlier:

"The Colonel Picquart lied",

the most terrible charge against an officer not only, but against any honorable man.

(66)

Whence is to be explained this strange position of Henry, Lauth, Gribelin, the representatives of the
General Staff, against Picquart?

Certainly, by the recognized necessity to save the endangered authority of this authority, in
psychologically understandable connection with the bureaucratic jealousy against the talented
youngest colonel of the whole army, who has advanced too fast over the heads of the others. - Thus,
often even in the best of faith, the most innocent events of the past are brought out and endowed
with evil motives: hence an honorable officer is degraded to the level of a forger, thus a trial of
Esterhazy becomes a trial of Picquart! One could probably compile a criminal dossier for every
human being in this way from quite innocent utterances and actions of a long life, and one is
involuntarily reminded of the famous word:

"If someone claimed that I had stolen the towers of the Notredame Church, I would immediately
flee."

And now the long-awaited, much-mentioned defender of Dreyfus, Maître Demange, appears. What a
deception! It is not a fine, spirited advocate who advances with measured steps to the bar, but a
stolid, broad-shouldered figure who could be mistaken for a Swiss colonel who has retired into
private life. With consummate bonhomie, he recounts the entire, long-known revision campaign. But
behind the "bonhomme" lurks dangerously the rogue.

41
Maître Demange "Of course," he said, "since I wanted to appeal to the Minister of Justice for the
destruction of the sentence, so I did not consider it legal."

"Why not?" asks Labori.

And before the compliant president, who would have earned a high medal in a monarchy yesterday
and the day before, can stop it, the answer is out:

"I knew through Mr. Salles that a violation of the law had occurred."

Mr. Salles is known to be the witness who had heard from one of the judging officers in the Dreyfus
trial that the sentencing had taken place on the basis of a secret document not presented to the
defendant and defense counsel.

(67)

He himself had not been given a chance to speak by the president. And now followed a scene à la
Molière, which must be rendered in the original language to enjoy its full subtlety:

Labori: "Mr. Demange vient de nous dire, qu'il avait la certitude, que le jugement n'avait pas été
légalement rendu. Je lui demande s'il ne pourrait pas nous dire, sur quoi il base cette certitude, si ce
n'est pas parce qu'un juge du conseil de guerre l'a affirmé à Mr. Salles, qui le lui affirmé ? "

Demange: "Mais oui, parbleu! "

Le Président: "Maître Demange, vous n'avez pas la parole. "
CIémenceau: "Je vous demande, Mr. le Président, de poser la question. "
Le Président: "Non, non, je ne poserai pas la question." (Laughter).
Poor president! The medal would be lost.

No less artificial is the artificial naivety of Maître Demange, when afterwards there is talk of the
similarity of the Bordereau with the photographs taken of it, on the basis of which the condemnation
took place, a similarity which the General de Pellieux had denied.

Labori: "Il y avait donc une ressemblance entre ce fac-similé et le bordereau? "
Demange: "C'était saisissant... Vous ne l'avez donc pas, l'original? "
Labori: "Non, mais nous voudrions bien l'avoir."
What he thought of the dissenting statement of General de Pellieux with reference to that similarity?

Demange: . "Je pense que deux hommes de bonne foi peuvent avoir une opinion différente."
Poor President,-poor General Staff, if you fall into the trap of an interrogation in which a Labori acts
as Inquirer and a Demange as Witness!

(68)

And now three witnesses, one after the other, who give true defense speeches: the senator Ranc,
who praises Zola's deed as that of the heart and courage, the writer Quilllard, who expresses his
deep admiration for him as a literary opponent, and the great Jaurès.

42
With an eloquence that captures the hearts of all, even the opponents, Labori scourges the injustice
of the proceedings in the Esterhazy trial, telling, as he says, "the professional secret of others" - what
the hearts of Dupuy and Deleassé, ministers at the time of Dreyfus's conviction, think of it, what the
whole chamber does not know out of miserable consideration for the elections in the gallery, while
openly discussing it in the corridors, that the verdict against Dreyfus is illegal. The auditorium is
shaken by this storm wind of honest indignation.

A satyr play is absolutely necessary: so still Mr. Bertillon comes and amuses the whole hall, while
hardly anyone takes him seriously, by the truly mystical explanations of his graphological art, strongly
reminiscent of spiritualism, the explanation of which, as he says, would take two whole sessions, the
whole of which would only be known after his death soII. May he still be granted quite a long life in
the interest of science!

After the interrogation of Colonel Picquart, the Chevaleresque character of the French suddenly
revealed itself in a naïve manner: a never-ending storm of applause accompanied him all the way to
the exit. No objection dared to arise.

To soften the impression and reconcile the army, the barreau, the staff carrier at its head, brought an
ovation to the deeply saddened generals. - One cried -. Then they also had a little fight. - And the end
of the song is that the attendance of the civil "stagiaires" will be better controlled and reduced,
whereas the military ones will probably take their place.

(69)

From the testimony of Colonel Picquart.

Colonel Picquart:
"At the beginning of May 1896 pieces of a card-telegram addressed to Commandant Esterhazy came
into my hands, which were pasted together again by an officer of my service, Commandant Canthe. I
cannot remember exactly what the contents of this card were, but everything seemed to indicate that
there were relations between the person who had written the card and Commander Esterhazy which
seemed suspicious to me.

Before I submitted this card-telegram, which was only a suspicion and not proof, to my superiors, I
had to find out more about the matter. I turned to an officer who knew him and had been in the same
regiment with him.

The information was not favorable to Commander Esterhazy, and prompted me to continue my
investigations and to make inquiries about Esterhazy's way of life. These were not favorable either.
He was described as a man who was always short of money and had had many small accidents in his
life.

Then, however, another strange thing appeared, that this officer, who, to all appearances, was far
from being exclusively occupied with his profession, nevertheless displayed a very great curiosity for
confidential military documents. Having reached this point, I considered myself justified in telling my
boss that there was a serious suspicion against an officer of the French Army. My bosses instructed
me to proceed.

In such suspicious cases, we generally have the habit of taking a sample of the suspect's handwriting
and comparing it with certain documents in our possession. This may confirm or disconfirm the
suspicion.

43
I therefore occupied myself with Esterhazy's handwriting, and quite contrary to what has often been
said, especially in a letter from Esterhazy to myself, I took quite regular paths for it. With the approval
of my superiors, I sought out the colonel of his regiment and asked him for new samples of his
handwriting, which he also handed over to me in the form of official letters.

(70)

As soon as these letters came into my hands, I was struck by their resemblance to the famous, much-
discussed Bordereau, but not being an expert myself, I could not rely on my own impression.

I therefore had photographs made of these official letters, omitting the words such as: 'my colonel' or
anything that could lead to the trace of the person from whom the letters came, and I showed these
photographs to Mr. Bertillon and the Commandant du Paty de Clam.

Mr. Bertillon immediately said to me: 'This is the writing of Bordereau'. I answered him, 'Do not hurry;
take this sample and examine it with leisure.' He replied: 'No, that is unnecessary; it is the writing of
Bordereau; where did you get this? 'I cannot tell you' - 'Is it from a certain time?'- I replied, 'No, from
a later one.' Then Mr. Bertillon told me the following verbatim: 'The Jews have had someone
practicing for a year to get the writing of Bordereau, it is clear that they have now succeeded
completely.'

I left the photograph of Esterhazy's letters and Borderau's with Mr. Bertillon for two days, whereupon
he came to me and repeated what he had said earlier. Colonel du Paty de Clam, then commandant,
said after about five minutes: 'This is the handwriting of Mathieu Dreyfus.' I must add that to explain
this, du Paty de Clam claimed that Dreyfus had made a mixture of his own handwriting with that of
his brother when writing the Borderaus.

These hints were precious to me. But there was something else that attracted my attention. An agent
had told me that an officer - I don't remember whether it was a senior officer or a battalion
commander and I don't want to say anything more about it because I'm not quite sure, so let's
assume a senior officer of about fifty years of age - had delivered such and such documents to a
foreign power, and these documents were exactly the ones that the comrade had spoken to me
about, to whom I turned after the discovery of the card telegram.

(71)

Picquart continues:
I now come to the period in which I was commissioned by General Gonse to investigate whether the
documents listed in the Bordereau could be copied for Esterhazy. I knew that he had not a few
documents copied at home, which he knew how to obtain.

I was advised to contact his secretaries to get something out. The matter was very serious. At that
moment I almost considered my task as finished, after the card telegram, the message of that agent
and the similarities of the handwritings offered sufficient signs.

There is something else. I do not want to further unveil the secret. But in the Ravary report there is a
sentence in which he speaks of me and says:

'The conviction of that officer appeared fully established after he gave an account of the fact that a
document of the secret dossier referred to Esterhazy rather than to Dreyfus.'

Well, that is true, after I had looked through the secret dossier, I convinced myself that one of its
documents did not refer to Dreyfus, but, as they had correctly said, to Esterhazy.

44
I did not continue the investigation among the secretaries for long, because it would not have been
possible without the danger of indiscretion. I stopped at the first one, a man named Mulot. who also
appeared as a witness before the court-martial and told me that he had been made to copy incorrect
things - I don't think it was the firing order - in books.

(72)

At that moment came the article of the 'Eclair.' At that time I was completely convinced that
Esterhazy was the author of the Bordereau. I knew perfectly well that these communications to the
'Eclair' did not come from me, but in the Ministry they seemed to want me to understand that they
must come from my environment after all. I protested vigorously and demanded in writing that an
investigation be made.

This investigation was not made. Later, an even more unpleasant circumstance came up for me, the
publication of the facsimile of the Bordereau by the 'Matin.' I noticed that in this publication, which
was again attributed to me, they had published the Bordereau, but not the few lines that Dreyfus had
written under the dictation of Colonel du Paty de Clam. One had enclosed the text of these lines in
print, but the reproduction of the handwriting was missing. And I believe that if it had been there, it
would have made an unfavorable impression, unfavorable to those who want to attribute the
Bordereau to Dreyfus. These various events put a certain gêne on me, and I thought perhaps better
not to continue.

In the meantime came the interpellation Castelin.

Two days before, on November 16, 1896, I received orders to leave on a mission.

I must inform you that after the publication of Bordereau, or at that time, Esterhazy came to Paris,
where his behavior was very conspicuous. Someone saw him, I think the day after the publication,
running around in the streets in pouring rain like mad. The witness is there, you can hear him. He was
not heard in the inquiry.

Before Castelin's interpellation, Mr. Weil, a friend of Esterhazy, received an anonymous letter
announcing that he and his friend were to be denounced as accomplices of Dreyfus. It seems that
Esterhazy received a similar letter, but I could establish the fact only from Mr. Weil.

Picquart continues:
I have no further to say about the course of my mission. I left Paris on November 16 and arrived in
Tunis on January 13, passing through the Alps and many other regions. Until then, relations with my
bosses had been completely cordial. I received letters from General Gonse, in which he always
squeezed my hand in a friendly manner. After I had left Paris - the General de Pellieux told me so at
the Enquête - they opened my letters on my old bureau.

(73)

Since I was not allowed to tell anyone where I was going, I had given orders to address all my letters
to the War Department, and all of them were opened. General de Pellieux showed me a copy of one
of those letters, and I didn't even notice that it had been opened. But that is nothing. I was shown a
letter that I never received. The copy is about November 20 and the letter is December 15. I saw it for
the first time at General de Pellieux. I don't know why they didn't send it to me, perhaps it was
because it had been opened according to the black cabinet procedure, that is, so that it could be
closed again in case of need. The letter was signed Speranza and read:

45
'Your sudden departure has embarrassed us all. The work is compromised. Speak, and the 'demigod'
will act.'

They had chosen this word 'demigod', a nickname given to an officer friend of mine, and wanted, I
believe, to use it to refer to a head of the syndicate or something like that. I can't understand why
they didn't send me this letter.

The time I spent in Tunis was in the month of June. Since the beginning of the year, I had received a
number of letters from people who told me that when they came to the Bureau, they were told that I
was on a mission and that I would be back soon. I concluded that these people were not being told
the truth, and on one of these letters, which I sent back, I wrote what I confess was a somewhat
vehement remark to Commandant Henry, to the following effect;

'I would well have it said to the people who ask for me that I have been relieved of this service; I need
not blush over it but I blush over the lies that are spread about my departure.'

(74)

Picquart continues:
That was on May 18. At the beginning of June I received a letter from Commandant Henry, who had
formerly been my subordinate, which I have here, in which he tells me that after the investigation had
taken place, the word 'secret' could be explained as follows:

1. Opening of a correspondence for purposes far removed from the service and which no one has ever
understood. (This is an allusion to the seizure of the Esterhazy correspondence).

2. Intention to mislead two officers from the service, so that they should say that a document was of
the writing of a certain person. (But I must note right away that subsequently these two officers
turned into one; I don't know what became of the second one)-.

3. Opening of a secret dossier, as a result of which indiscretions have arisen, for a reason remote from
the service.

I immediately found in the way of execution allegations and accusations, something exceedingly
serious. I knew well that certain machinations were going on, I had even told one of my bosses, and
that above-mentioned letter, drawn Speranza, drew my attention. I immediately replied that,
whatever the Commander Henry may have said, I formally protested against those insinuations, as
against the way in which alleged facts were stated there.

And since I did not feel safe, because I did not know where all this was going to take me, to Gabès and
to the Tripolitan border, I thought I had to take precautions for my safety; I went to Paris, consulted
with some military personages, and then went to my friend Mr. Leblois, to whom I told for the first
time, after showing him this letter, that I had had to do with the Dreyfus and Esterhazy affair.

I informed him about the first two points of this letter, which were necessary for my defense; I did not
tell him about the third point, which referred to completely secret things. At the same time, I handed
over to Leblois, both as a depository and to be able to serve in my defense later, a certain number of
letters from General Gonse to me, I think fourteen.

(75)

(Two of them were recently published in the newspapers against my will). I had previously destroyed
those of the letters which had reference to the secret service. I left Mr. Leblois completely free as to

46
the moment at which he would have to intervene and as to the use he would have to make of this
depot. He acted as he saw fit, and I approve. I then returned to Sousse and heard nothing more about
the whole affair until I learned through the press that Mr. Scheurer-Kestner was dealing with the
Dreyfus question.

At that moment, I was on my way to the south when I was called to Tunis and asked questions that
seemed very strange to me at first. First of all, they asked me if I had not had a document stolen from
me by a woman. My God, it was very easy for me to reply that I had never taken a document outside
the country and that such an insinuation was impossible. Then almost on the same day I received

1. A letter from Esterhazy,

2. A telegram drawn Speranza,

3. A telegram drawn Blanche.

Picquart continues:
Esterhazy's letter said something like the following:

'I have recently received a letter formally accusing you of investigating non-commissioned officers in
order to obtain my handwriting. I have established the fact, it is correct. I have also been informed of
the following: You would have compiled documents from your service to form a dossier against me.
this fact is true, because I possess a file item from it at this moment.'

Then a long phrase:

'I cannot believe that an officer of the French army would have gone so far,' etc...,

at the end again a pompous phrase.

At the same time I received a telegram, signed Speranza:

'Demi-Dieu arrested, all discovered, matter very serious'.

(76)

What now seemed to me to be very serious was not taken into account in the investigation, that is
that the commander Esterhazy wrote my name without 'c' and that the letter was addressed to Tunis.
In the telegram, the spelling of my name was correct; also my quartering, Sousse, was correctly
stated, and the person sending it must have been up to date on my investigation because of
Esterhazy, because the telegram read as follows:

'They have evidence that the card telegram was fabricated by Georges.'

I immediately thought that this telegram of cards was Esterhazy's, on receiving these three pieces I
did not hesitate for a moment. I telegraphed to Tunis for permission to see the General; I brought him
the copies with a letter to the Minister of the following content:

'I am just receiving these three writings, which come from Commander Esterhazy or from someone
close to him. I demand an investigation.'

Something struck me only later. I had received letters and telegrams on November 10 or 11 and the
'Libre Parole' of November 15, 16 and 17 already spoke very-clearly of this matter. So, one publishes
in Paris Tuesday and Wednesday, what had happened in Tunis Friday.

47
In addition, I no longer received any letters from home. I told them that I had to be on my guard and
therefore I recommended to my family to take a simple precautionary measure: to gum the inside of
the envelope so that when you open the letters, you cannot close them and you are forced to keep
them. This also came to pass. Two letters from my brother-in-law, which were closed in this way,
never reached me.

In contrast, I received an anonymous letter which I burned, it was also Piquart, so addressed without
a 'c'. But the letter itself consisted of block letters and read:

'It is to be feared that the whole thing is discovered. Withdraw slowly and write nothing.'

I saw that this letter was posted at the Place de la Bourse in Paris on November 10, the same day as
the telegram, and I learned from a newspaper after my return to Paris that a letter with the same
place of posting had also been found during the search of my house.

(77)

Picquart continues:
Around this time, I had to answer new questions: Whether I had not communicated documents from
my service to non-military persons? I repeat openly what I had communicated to Mr. Leblois. When I
arrived in Paris, I had to give my word of honor not to speak to anyone about the General de Pellieux
and I could also see Mr. Leblois only afterwards.

I was under police surveillance all week after my arrival; this was not at the instigation of General de
Pellieux, as he assured me; I do not know who had me watched, enough, I always had two guards
behind me.

When I came to General de Pellieux, he told me that he wanted to interrogate me about the
Esterhazy affair and did so for a whole afternoon. I set everything apart for him, as I have done here.
Then came two other sessions in which there was hardly any talk of Esterhazy and in which I was
forced to defend myself almost the whole time, although a witness.

The first session was devoted to the examination of the documents that had been confiscated from
me. At first, I was a bit surprised about this house search, then I understood: it was the consequence
of another anonymous letter. There have been many anonymous letters in this matter!

This was addressed to General de Pellieux and said: that if he had a servants' room No. 3 Rue Yvon-
Villarceau searched, he would find interesting things relating to the matter in progress. All that was
found were family and friends' letters. They also found many letters to my mother, which I had always
carefully kept and which I kept in that chamber after her death. One hoped, no doubt, to find in them
things like the letters to Madame de Boulancy. But since I never spoke of official matters to my family,
the result will have been nothing.

(78)

For the rest, General de Pellieux acted with great courtesy. The third summons to him was for the
purpose of trying to uncover the fabulous story of the Speranza letters and the telegrams. I believe
that one is not yet so far with it, and it will probably need a judicial investigation to get further.

I don't know who informed the General de Pellieux about my moral qualities; enough, he told me, to
my great astonishment, that I was engaged in hypnotism, occultism, table-backing, etc., and that I
was neuros. I do not know what this means, I have never seen a table dance in my life.

48
Other strange inquiries took place: they were looking for a certain veiled lady. This proves that they
had investigated very carefully, knowing that a lady de Comminges had lived in my house and had
written letters to me. But what they did not know was that I had told the janitor that if this lady did
not stop writing to me, I would leave the house. He replied to me that she was writing to all the
world, one need not pay any attention to that. The General de Pellieux is told that this lady is in close
relations with me, that she even holds the bridle of the horse when I come back from a ride. From this
I recognize the reports of the police. The General de Pellieux also mentioned another detail, which
probably came from a police report, that Mademoiselle de Comminges had said: 'It is certain that
Colonel Picquart will never confess.' We both laughed quite heartily at that.

Picquart continues:
In the investigation of General de Pellieux, I asked to be confronted with certain witnesses who would
have been important for the clarification; nothing happened.

I come to the investigation of Commander Ravary. I have given him further moral evidence in
abundance.

In Tunis, I had learned that Esterhazy had escaped an investigation or even a court-martial for fraud
in Sfax in 1882 only through the very great long-suffering of his superiors and at his urgent request.
Nor was he known in an advantageous way in the province of Constantine. Nothing of all this
appeared in Mr. Ravary's reports. He seemed very disinclined to summon the witnesses I referred to
him. Thus, I had named Mr. Weill, who was finally summoned on my third reminder. I insisted that the
persons who had made copies for Esterhazy should be summoned, as well as the officers from whom
he had made inquiries, that his financial circumstances in the years 1893 and 1894 should be
investigated, and all this did not happen.

(79)

On the other hand, the commander Ravary insisted very strongly on all the accusations against me,
that I had wanted to make tears on the photograph of the cardboard telegram disappear, that I had
wanted to appoint one of my officers to confirm the handwriting of a document and so on. There was
a tremendous effort on this side, even for the opinion of the lady who had lived in my house. I felt that
this was somewhat outside the Esterhazy affair."

The witness then goes into detail about the charges brought against him for alleged forgery of the
card-telegram, the attempt to subsequently affix a postmark to it, and about the conferences with
Advocate Leblois, about which, as is well known, the statements of Picquart and Leblois, on the one
hand, and of the employees of the General Staff, Colonel Henry, Commander Lauth, and Sergeant
Gribelin, on the other, diverge considerably.

Witness Quillard:
"Mr. Emile Zola belongs to a literary generation entirely different from mine, and usually writers in
possession of public favor find in their immediate successors the worst of opponents, and the severest
critics.

We have not failed in this duty against Mr. Zola, and with all deference to his admirable works, which
honor French literature, I have always made the most definite reservations with reference to him.

I do not speak, therefore, as a faithful student, and I am therefore all the freer to say how Mr. Zola's
behavior seemed to me a beautiful, magnanimous and heroic one. He could have remained silent, he

49
could have taken the path that Victor Hugo called in 1871 that of 'yielding to the wrath of public
opinion'.

(80) (Page sequence 80-88 altered to correct an error in the original book)

Zola knew that by writing his letter he was exposing himself to all the insults and calumnies, he knew
that he was endangering not only his peace and honor but, as we have now learned, even his life,
now that we have arrived, it seems, at such a point of special rot that no one can speak his mind any
longer without being accused of venality.

Well, I find this action, with all the knowledge of the circumstances in which we live, with all the
knowledge of the abomination of anti-Semitism, I find the decision to say openly what one considers
to be true, not to forget the question of the 'truth of the matter' above the 'condemned matter', I find
this act worthy of an honorable man, I find that it honors Mr. Zola more than many of his works. I am
happy to offer him the assurance of my deep and reverent admiration. "

Speech of the socialist deputy Jaurès.

"I attended the public part of the Esterhazy trial and therefore I can affirm not only the perfect good
faith of Mr. Emile Zola, but also the high moral and social value of his deed. The conduct of the
Esterhazy trial had to provoke the most violent indignation of Mr. Zola and also justifies the agitation
of all those who, with the deepest respect for the national army, do not want the military power to
rise above any control and any law.

In the Esterhazy trial, three decisive facts particularly excited me; first, why did they extend the secret
proceedings to the writing expertise? Esterhazy was accused of having written the Borderau. Why
was this crucial question discussed in the dark? In secret proceedings, which deprived the debate of
the so useful control of public opinion, not only with reference to the accused, but also to the judges.

This could only be justified by high reasons of national interest, and it is impossible to claim that any
national interest could have prevailed to conceal this expertise from the country. The only explanation
for this is simply that there was an interest - which was by no means that of justice - to conceal the
contradictions between the experts of the first trial of 1894 and those of the Esterhazy trial.

(85)

But there were other indications for the authorship of Esterhazy, which should have been collected
and publicly examined. For my part, I know and can produce very definite evidence that Commander
Esterhazy was gripped by a peculiar anxiety after the publication of Borderau. I put aside all second-
rate considerations, which have nothing to do with this trial, and go straight for the truth, because I
am of the opinion that it is the duty of all citizens to gather together the small truths they know, in
order to see the great definitive truth shining out of them.

Mr. Papillaus, the editor of the 'Libre Parole,' twice stated before witnesses in the Senate and in the
House:

I am convinced of the guilt of Dreyfus because it seems to me impossible that French officers should
condemn a comrade without overwhelming evidence. I believe it because the very influential Jewish
power would have brought Dreyfus to justice four years ago if there had been the slightest possibility
of it'.

50
Jaurès continues:
Also, the Borderau is only a secondary part of the trial. But as far as this Borderau itself is concerned, I
am convinced that it was written by Esterhazy for the following reason: two days after the
denunciation of Mathieu Dreyfus, Esterhazy, who had not yet regained complete self-control, came to
the editorial office of the 'Libre Parole' a great deal, and there, in front of my colleagues and me, he
said:

'Yes, there is a startling resemblance between the Borderau's writing and mine, and the moment the
'Matin' published the facsimile of the Bordereau, I thought myself lost.'

I draw the attention of the jury to the fact that this facsimile was published about a year before the
accusatory letter, at a time when the name of Esterhazy was not mentioned anywhere in this matter,
and I leave it to you to appreciate the moral significance of such a statement.

(86)

There is a second point which has concerned me in the conduct of this trial, and that is the attitude
taken against Colonel Picquart. The most vehement charges were brought against this man, of
forgery, of all sorts of culpable and ugly acts; the report incriminating him in this way was read in
public, and when the hour came for him himself to defend himself, those who accused Mr. Zola of an
attack on the honor of the army cut off this officer from the publicity of the defense.

I am far from saying a word about the grounds of these charges; I have no right to do so, and it is not
my business. But I ask the gentlemen of the jury who heard General de Pellieux's indictment of
Picquart: What would you have said if, after such a damning indictment, he had been denied the right
to defend himself publicly before you?

Well, gentlemen, this has happened in the Esterhazy trial! Let us not speak of danger to the national
defense, of a national secret, after all, here, without the national defense being endangered even for
a moment, without a terrible secret being divulged, Colonel Picquart was allowed to defend himself
publicly, as he was publicly attacked.

What has most stirred consciences, not only mine, but also those of other independent people who
live far from public affairs, of professors, of my schoolmates, of people who carry on disinterested
activity all their lives, what has determined all these to step out of their reserve and neutrality, to
descend upon the forum and defend the right, is precisely this hurtful contrast of a publicity of
accusation and a secrecy of defense. Zola, like others and no more than others, felt and expressed
natural and justified indignation at such events.

(87)

Jaurès continues:
But, gentlemen, there is also a third very disturbing fact in the Esterhazy trial, which is the absence of
any serious investigation with regard to the veiled lady and to the origin of the secret document
which was communicated to Esterhazy. We would have to be truly strangely blasé, or assurances
from above would have to have the power to strike down in us all criticism and consideration, if this
did not excite and move us.

There is a secret file concerning the national defense that has an international value, that can cause
diplomatic difficulties to our country, this file is locked under three locks in the most secret and best-
guarded iron cabinet of the sanctum sanctorum of the General Staff, and a photograph of this secret

51
file is delivered, under procedures that are close to a melodrama, to a mysterious woman who hands
it over to an already accused officer; and the military authority, the guardian of the national secret,
the guardian of the country's security, does not even begin to investigate the strange migration of
this document and its origin. This is strange in truth! And why has nothing been done? Because this
investigation would have clearly proved that Esterhazy could have received this photograph of the
secret file only through the General Staff itself!

There are two decisive reasons for this. The first is that if the General Staff had not known that it had
just come to Esterhazy from its side, if there had not been an obvious agreement between persons in
the General Staff and Esterhazy, the General Staff would have had to have Commander Esterhazy
arrested at the moment when an officer dependent on military discipline appeared at the War
Ministry and delivered a secret document without being able to explain its origin.

(88)

And the second reason is that this document could only be of interest to Esterhazy if he knew that it
came to him from the General Staff, because he was accused of having written the Borderau; and
why could the possession of a document of the content: 'Cette canaille de D.... ' help Esterhazy to
prove that he had not written the Bordereau? This secret document, which was passed to Esterhazy,
could be useful to him not by its content but only by its origin, by teaching him that the General Staff
was watching over him, that the General Staff was determined not to question the matter, that
Esterhazy could be calm under the protection of his bosses, did not need to lose his head and did not
have to get involved in any confession. That is, the only possible interest of the communication of this
piece of the file to Esterhazy, it should not be a bullet for him, but a strengthening of the heart on the
eve of the battle, i.e. the trial.

Thus, it is evident, - both in the secret proceedings at the writing trial, and in the secret strangulation
of Colonel Picquart, and the absence of any inquiry into the origin of the secret file, - that this trial
was not conducted with a view to truth and justice, but only for the purpose of systematically
exonerating the great military chiefs.

And then, gentlemen of the jury, the fatherland has all the more the right to be agitated and
indignant, since the noblest words were used to carry it away. For there are no words more beautiful,
greater, more sacred than those of the fatherland, of national defense, of national honor. But
precisely because these words are the most sacred and greatest that exist in the language of men,
precisely for this reason one does not have the right to profane them and to drag them down in order
to cover vain boondoggles with them. No, no, in this profanation lies something that should arouse all
French souls and all legal consciences.

Jaurès continues:
And now, why did Mr. Zola, why did so many others throw themselves into battle with him? Why did
they intervene, shouting cries of agitation and conscience? - Because the responsible authorities,
entangled in intrigue and impotence, did not appear, did not act.

Was it not the first duty of the legislators and the government, from the moment the rumor spread
that a secret file had been communicated to the judges of a criminal trial without having been
presented to the accused and the defense counsel, to determine whether in truth such a violation of
republican law and human rights had been committed? And why was it not done?

(81)

52
We have tried to demand from the responsible government the explanation it owes to the country. It
was discussed in the Senate. I took the liberty to bring the question to the tribune of the Chamber and
I clearly asked the President of the Council: yes or no? Has a piece of file concerning a defendant,
which could establish or confirm his guilt, been communicated to the judges without the knowledge
of the defendant and his defense counsel? And I have not been able to get a certain answer about it.

One always takes refuge in the ambiguity of legal truth. Yes, it is legal truth that a man is guilty if he
has been legally convicted, and it is also legal truth that he is guilty and has been legally convicted if
his petition for revision has been rejected.

But this does not say whether or not the communication of a secret document was made outside of
all legal guarantees, which was unknown at the time of filing the appeal.

And why did they refuse to answer this question, which was put to the government by responsible
representatives of the people? The President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Méline, answered me:

'I cannot answer you without serving your calculations',

and so it seems that in the country of the Declaration of Human Rights it is considered a calculation to
confirm that one cannot be executed on secret documents.

But I was told - these words are written officially in the journal - you will be answered elsewhere.
Elsewhere! I thought it would happen before the jury court, - and it is true that here the truth will
finally rise from the earth.

But I don't know anything about any of the responsible representatives of authority coming here, as
little as to the parliament, to answer the question that the country has a right to ask, and it is really
amazing that a country that believes itself free should not know whether the law has been observed,
neither in the palace where laws are made, nor in the one where they are applied.

(82)

Jaurès continues:
Well, one suspects this violation of the law, the whole world feels it. There are not four deputies in the
Chamber who doubt it, why don't they speak, why don't they act? When I asked the simple question
that day, there was a small group of fifteen or twenty friends who supported me, but in all the rest of
the chamber there was silence.

But after I had descended from the tribune, countless deputies from all groups and parties told me in
the corridors, where the parliamentarian finds his elasticity and his freedom again:

'You are quite right, but what harm that this thing has just broken out a few months before the
elections! '

Well, I believe that they are wrong, I believe that in spite of all this, in spite of all obscurations, insults
and threats, the dawn of light and truth will finally come to this country. But if truth is to be defeated,
it is better to fall with it than to make oneself complicit in all those ambiguities and humiliations.
(Loud applause).

But not only violation of the law has taken place: it has taken place under aggravating circumstances.
Not only did the Minister of War, of which there can be no doubt now, communicate a secret
document under conditions that were not legal, but he did not even take what I would call human

53
prudence against error; he did not even consult his colleagues in the Ministry in a friendly and official
manner.

I have heard say - I have come here to reveal the professional secret of the others, because they do
not do it themselves - from Mr. Charles Dupuy and from Mr. Delcassé, who were ministers at that
time with General Mercier- that in the Council of Ministers they spoke only of ONE secret file, the
Bordereau, that no allusion was made to other secret files, not even to the one that has been spoken
of since.

(83)

From this it is evident that this communication was not only unlawful, but that one man, without even
confidentially consulting his colleagues and friends, took it upon himself to throw into the scale of the
trial a piece of record whose value he alone dared to judge. This man, with all the splendor of his
service and his uniform, and with all his power, is but-a man, that is, a weak and frail being,
composed of conceit and pride, of weakness and error, and I do not understand that in this land of
law, one man, one single man, can take it upon his own conscience, upon his own reason,-upon his
own head, to make the decision upon the life, the honor, the liberty, of another man.

And I say: if such customs and such habits were tolerated in our country, then all freedom and justice
would be lost. (Motion).

And that is why citizens like Zola were right to revolt and protest. While the government was
scheming under the spell of its combinations and indulging in ambiguities, while the parliamentary
parties, captured by fear, were silent or abdicated, while the military judiciary was deciding the secret
trial, citizens rose up in their pride, freedom and independence to protest against the violation of
rights, and this is the greatest thing they could do for our country.

Jaurès continues:
I know very well that Mr. Zola has to atone for this noble gratitude through hatred and passionate
attacks, and I also know why certain people hate and persecute him. They persecute in him the man
who tried the reasonable and scientific explanation of the miracle, they persecute in him the man who
prophesied in the Germinal a new time, especially for that miserable proletariat that should rise from
the depths of suffering towards the sun.

(84)

They persecute in him the man who wants to snatch from the general staff that fatal and proud
irresponsibility under which the misfortunes of the fatherland are unconsciously spreading. You can
persecute and plague him, but we - and I believe in this to reflect the feelings of free citizens - we will
always bow reverently before him. "

(Loud applause and great excitement).

54
 A day of rest.
Sunday, February 13, 1898.
Sunday peace and a light foggy atmosphere, through which the pink morning sun shines through,
make one think quite well about the deeper causes of the misery in which we stand.

A whole people, kind and noble in its basic nature, becomes - with the exception of a few heads - the
prey of a passionate delusion, forgets all justice, loses all composure.

How is that possible?

Whoever strolls a few hours on the boulevards can see a light about this. Let's let the entire press of
a much cooler country - with the exception of a few larger papers - suggest a certain idea about some
subject day after day for months and years: I bet we'll get similar results.

(89)

The press is the greatest blessing of our time when it stands on high ground, the greatest curse when
it wades in excrement, appeals to bad passions. But this is what the Parisian tabloid press does
almost without exception, millions of copies of which are thrown among the people every day. It
would be amusing, if it weren't so sad, to compare their coverage of the trial with the truth at every
turn.

An example for a hundred: Last night, I buy the "Presse," one of the many tabloids. "Interview with a
juror" in big letters at the top. What's that? Surely jurors are not allowed to be interviewed in the
middle of a trial! Through the same press, "Patrie", "Petit Journal", "Eclair", etc., etc., one of the
jurors had been denounced in the last few days as being a supplier of Rothschild. Mr. Leblond, as he
was called, asked the President a few days later for his dismissal for health reasons; it is unclear to
what extent that suspicion had an influence on the actually sick, elderly gentleman.

This dismissed juror is now interviewed by the reporter of the "Presse", and the whole content of the
pompously announced interview is then that Leblond politely put the annoying questioner outside
the door and did not tell him a word.

In his "Intransigeant", Rochefort openly accuses the Minister of War, Billot, of having allowed himself
to be bribed by the Dreyfus syndicate for 30,000 francs and of being in cahoots with the latter. After
Billot had made a preliminary statement in the Chamber on Saturday and once again pathetically
assured the guilt of the "traitor," the noble marquis today says quite unabashedly in his paper:

"That's just what I alone wanted; you have to use strong means these days to bring the truth to light."

And so on and so forth ad dulce infinitum.

But how is it possible that such a press could gain such a dominant influence? - one rightly asks. It is
possible because for years and decades the best of the nation, who have now finally woken up, have
not done their duty. They too, out of indifference, fear, or parliamentary interest, have given in to
that chauvinistic current which still more or less masters all minds in today's France, have made the
sacrifice of their own convictions to it, and have thus allowed the monster to grow large which they
now face powerlessly.

(90)

55
When I admired the powerful eloquence of a Jaurès yesterday, I had to ask myself why he himself
does not let it work more in Belleville or Montmartre than in the Palais Bourbon and the Palais de
Justice. What one misses in decades cannot be made up in weeks, and if Zola is defeated, which I do
not believe and do not hope, he will have to say to himself that he too has contributed his honest
share of sins of omission to this humiliation of his fatherland despite "La Debâcle".

The unconditional capitulation of the first spirits of France to the yet so hopeless idea of revenge has
brought the excellent people into that moral misery in which they cannot now find themselves:
Prolongation of law and truth, prolongation of all principles of its own development, prolongation of
the principles of the great revolution, elevation of military power to the highest decisive reason of
state, worship of absolutism, consequent of absolutism, consequently complete decline of the
political influence outwardly and standstill of the commercial development.

France today resembles a person who devotes his entire existence to taking revenge on a rival and
forgets everything else. It will take years of arduous and renunciatory educational work to bring this
sad development back on the right track. Whether those now outlawed and persecuted will have the
courage and perseverance to guide and encourage it unselfishly, on this depends the future of the
beautiful country and its true influence in the civilized world. To this work, the trial of Zola, be it what
it may, is only the beginning of the introduction.

(91)

Seventh day of hearings.

Monday, February 14.
Today belonged to the scripture experts.
Mr. Bertillon has changed his mind: he will not allow us a two-day demonstration of his ingenious
system. Probably from somewhere a muzzle has been attached to his dangerous talkativeness,
nothing at all can be brought out of him today, not even about the scheme of his plan of
investigation concerning the Bordereau, which Labori presents to him. It is a drawing of a complete
fortress with citadel, batteries, arsenal, etc. The fortress is Dreyfus. The remarks are so confused that
one is almost forced to think that the meritorious inventor of anthropometry, the idol of all police
judges, is an outright psychopath.

But this does not seem to be rare in the expert profession: the second, Mr. Teyssonnière, suffers
from persecution mania with a quiet semitophobic tinge. Even on his expertise, as a judge I would
hardly dictate eight days in prison to someone. He has a completely different system than his
colleagues: he operates with individual letters taken out, etc., and is incidentally even more
loquacious than his colleague Bertillon. Thus, one learns also from him finally "the clear proof of the
great bribery campaign, by which the Dreyfus syndicate demoralized France."

Mr. Teyssonnière, open-hearted as he is, tells at length how a colleague and former friend Mr.
Crépieux-Jarnin from Rouen, also a handwriting expert - asked him one day:

"What did you get for your expert opinion?"-

"200 francs" -

"Deux cents francs," dit-il, "cela pourrait vous rajouter cent mille." -

56
Indignant, the honest Teyssonnière cut him off:

"100,000 - 200,000 francs, that would be good for my old days, but I don't need it, I just want to live
in freedom and honor as before."

There we have it now quite clearly!

After the reopening of the session, the good Teyssonnière freely confesses, in response to cross-
questions, that he cannot say that he was bribed:

"Il me semble, que j'ai coupé le mot mille en deux."

(92)

Moreover, it turns out that the attempted bribe for an expert opinion given in 1894 - took place on
August 24, 1897. Mr. Teyssonnière's assumption that he had been bribed is psychologically easy to
explain without a precondition of bad faith: it sounds so ingratiatingly seductive to be able to say to
oneself and in the end to believe oneself that one could have gained riches and yet remained an
honest man! -

And when the friend had taken his leave, the good Mrs. Teyssonnière spoke forebodingly:

"That was the kiss of a Judas."

Judas, three years after the crucifixion, a new, interesting type! - That for such a one the "syndicate"
would have had 100'000 Fr. to spare - surely not even those who believe in his existence would think
it so stupid.

The then Minister of Justice, Trarieux, who had even sponsored Teyssonnière, made some strange
announcements about his past life. However, all this does not prevent the tabloids to announce in
the evening in big letters:

"An attempt to bribe by the syndicate of 200'000 francs now stated."

The correction is covered up or comes only the other morning: this is how one makes public opinion
in Paris at present.

Incidentally, I hardly think that today's samples of expert art will have particularly impressed the
gentlemen jurors.

I must add one thing to the chapter on the Parisian press: The latest journal, "La Fronde," which is
entirely directed, written and set by women, is one of the most distinguished products of the Parisian
press. The editorials written by Madame Séverine about the trial are, in my opinion, among the best
that appear here. Should the political and moral reorganization of France come from women? Who
knows? It would be a bitter irony for the "lords of the Gallic creation.

France has been the avant-garde of progress in Europe for a hundred years, which perhaps explains
to some extent why, like many avant-gardes, it has to retreat from time to time, while the great army
of civilization behind it slowly follows.

(93)

There is still no end in sight to the trial. The atmosphere in the hall and around the palace has visibly
calmed down, the control is extremely strict, today even the Duke of Orleans, who did not have a
ticket, had to leave.

57
The journalists, on the other hand, are very much at ease, although in view of the uncomfortable
attitude of almost the entire European press, Rochefort and Drumont are beginning to agitate a little
against them.

And outside it is spring, full, warm spring, the clear sky draws much more to the Bois de Boulogne
than to the gloomy Palace of Justice. Yet, the springs outside will come again, but not the great
criminal court inside, which hopefully means the beginning of a new spring for France.

The end of yesterday also belonged to the men of science; Havet, professor at the Collège de France,-
and Grimaux, professor at the polytechnic school, united their opinions with those of the other
writing experts heard today. The latter, an old worthy gentleman, was very agitated, so that
sometimes he could only speak with sobs.

Grimaux, told that as a result of his joining the protesters in the Council of Ministers, the Minister of
War had applied for his dismissal, but it had been rejected. But he, too - certainly one of the best -
considered it essential to recite his and his ancestors' loyal army spirit and war deeds at length,
which did not earn him applause from either friend or foe.

This necessity to defend oneself again and again against an opposition of militarism is very
characteristic of the present psychological condition of the French people, as well as of the colossal
power of the "patriotic" press. For patriotism is basically natural for every citizen.

The "Siècle" had yesterday in a letter the interesting note that the chief editors of the "Petit Journal"
and the "Petit Parisien," which together publish 1,300,000 copies daily, Marinoni and Jean Dupuy,
according to their own often repeated, authenticated statements, certainly believe in the innocence
of Dreyfus himself, while they daily agitate in the opposite direction in their million-copy papers.

Mr. Dupuys almost admits this today implicitly in a reply, but calmly continues to agitate: Zola,
Jaurès, Labori, Picquart are the " traitors", Drumont, Rochefort, Marinoni, Dupuy e tutti quanti are
the "honorable men". How much longer?

(94)

Eighth day of hearings.

Tuesday, February 15.

Second graphological day!

Mr. Crépieux-Jarnin appears and relegates the statements of his "friend" Teyssonnière to the
territory of the novel. The opinion that the latter has the indiscretion of the publication of the
Bordereau in the "Matin" on his conscience is strengthened: he has had the dossier Dreyfus of 1894
in his house for a longer time, and there is also some kind of "veiled lady" involved.

All the experts summoned today without exception, at their head Professor Paul Meyer, member of
the "Institute", director of the-"Ecole des chartes", good Catholic, as he had to explain when
questioned, categorically claimed that Esterhazy had written the famous Bordereau.

Most interesting, however, were the remarks of the Brussels graphologist Emil Franck: after the
downright depressing drivel of the famous Bertillon, it was a real comfort to see that graphology has
some scientific basis after all.

58
Franck proved with the help of drawings on a blackboard, how in the bordereau every single letter
carries characteristic features, in the form, direction, distance etc., from which certain exceptions
occur. The exact percentage of these exceptions can be found again in Esterhazy's letters. For
example, in the Bordereau, as in the letters, the letter "j" is always written as a simple stroke with an
i-dot: the exception that the letter is written with a loop, as usual, is found here and there only in the
word "jour." The unusual and incorrect spelling of the capital "A" with an accent grave recurs in the
bordereau, as in the letters. The space between the words, the lines, like the peculiar design of the
initial and final letters are the same in both places, etc. etc. - Also, the style of the Bordereau with its
many inserted relative clauses is not French, but betrays strong Germanisms, while Dreyfus
notoriously spoke and wrote a fine French.

When the expert wanted to explain in the same way the dissimilarities between the writing of the
Bordereau and "the one who was condemned for it", the President interrupted him again: "C'est
l'affaire Dreyfus", but the brave Belgian did not let himself be misled and continued to lecture calmly
how "others" make the d, the t, the s, etc., which of course everyone understood with great
amusement, and against which Mr. Delegorgue could not do anything. Franck concluded after this
almost overwhelming demonstration, which occupied the tense attention for a whole hour, with the
categorical assurance that no other person could have written the Bordereau than Esterhazy.

(95)

In the meantime, the testimony of Madame de Boulancy has arrived: she possesses further letters
from Esterhazy, which she does not want to hand over, because she needs them for her defense
against the accusation of forging the Uhlan letter, but which, according to her assurance, contain
very compromising statements about the French army.

Esterhazy already denies in the "Jour", assures that these letters are also forged, while Madame de
Boulancy testifies that he has been trying in vain for some time, personally and by letters and
telegrams, to get these documents back. He does not need this at all, because for the time being the
French people forgive everything to an Esterhazy!

According to the latest Berlin correspondence of the "Jour", by the way, no less a person is at the
head of the Dreyfus syndicate than His Majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II, from whom statements to this
effect are quoted verbatim.

If I may be permitted a conjecture, it seems to me from the results since then that undoubtedly
Esterhazy wrote the Bordereau. But I do not believe that he committed " treason" with it, I am rather
inclined to believe that he was a spy, but a spy in the service of his own fatherland. Perhaps some
embassy attaché was his dupe: one tells here of very intimate relations with such a one, who is no
longer in Paris.

In this case, the acquittal of the "Ulan" of treason would be formally correct. The. The questioning at
the court-martial could probably suggest such a possibility: Matthieu Dreyfus had accused Esterhazy
only of authorship of the Bordereau, but that question was treason. Esterhazy could therefore have
written the Bordereau without being a traitor. This finding, however, would probably have to lead to
a revision of the Dreyfus trial.

(96)

59
 Ninth day of hearings.
Wednesday, February 16.
The gentlemen in the Rue St. Dominique, the big general staff, seem to be getting sultry: they send
their "speech minister", General de Pellioux, into the field against yesterday's experts. You have to
hand it to him, he is a thoroughly likeable, genuinely soldierly speaker, and is certainly of good faith.
He proves that the documents mentioned in the Bordereau could never be accessible to an infantry
but only to an artillery officer. The proof is conclusive: it leaves only the gap that just with a support
in the General Staff itself any officer can obtain any document. - But the general does not stop there,
he gives a truly scary speech, the pattern of which can be found quite literally in the German
September elections:

"What is to become of this army, in the day of danger, nearer perhaps than you think, what is to
become of our poor soldiers, when they are then led into the fire by chiefs in whom their confidence
has been undermined? Your sons will be led to the slaughter, gentlemen of the jury. But Mr. Zola will
have won a new battle, he will write a new debacle, he will carry the French language into the whole
world, into a Europe, from whose map our France will then be crossed out."

(97)

Labori protests with all his verve against this appearance of the General, he engages in a fierce
skirmish with the President, he demands that Colonel Picquart be present at such testimonies and
notes that they had been holding him for two days on his own forgery charge with the examining
magistrate Bertulus.

He is insurmountable, this Labori with his thirst for truth and light, he commands all tones,
vehemence, gentleness and irony, and when he has finally broken through the thorn hedge of
presidential violence, he thunders towards the general:

Labori:
"One speculates on the nobility of a great people which confuses persons with principles, which
identifies chiefs, fallible men, with the flag which we all hold high and of which no one here may
exclusively seize, the General de Pellieux as little as myself.... As a soldier, I owe him, my superior,
respect, but in the day of battle, my blood counts as much as his, and if I were less gallant, I would
certainly have no less courage."

And in response to the general's attacks on yesterday's experts, one of whom was a dentist, the
other a foreigner, he complains that France, once so hospitable, now despises the foreigner, and
reproaches the general that one can just as well be a dentist and a graphologist at the same time as a
good soldier and a good speaker.

A new species reveals itself today to the "Canaille de D ... " : it seems to be joined by the "Canaille de
T ... ", to be added. Mr. Teyssonnières is convicted of falsehood by Senators Scheurer-Kestner and
Trarieux. He, who yesterday had assured that he owed eternal gratitude to Trarieux, must confess
that he had given the "Libre Parole" the basis for a shameful attack on this benefactor by delivering a

60
letter. His authorship of the delivery of the Bordereau in 1896 to the "Matin" is now almost beyond
question.

That's why he was almost thrown out of the War Ministry, as he says himself. - That was certainly
nice of the gentlemen up there, but why didn't they persecute him?

(98)

Writing experts and no end!

Confrontations between the professor Paul Meyer, the general de Pellieux and the official expert of
the court martial of 1898, Couard. The latter really has an admirable pertness: he claims freshly the
gentlemen at the Institute of documents (Ecole des chartes) do not understand anything about
manuscripts, because they deal only with older texts, and concludes, under general merriment with
the apostrophe:

"A chacun son métier, les vaches seront bien gardées."

And now, at the end, a Swiss gentleman will speak for once: Professor Paul Moriaud from Geneva. He
has to apologize for appearing here as a foreigner, reminding of the friendship of the Swiss for
France, which has proved itself so often. As a receipt for this, the amiable president denies him the
blackboard he asked for, which yesterday had worked so badly under the hand of Mr. Franck. The
jurors are not supposed to learn too much graphology, probably so that they will not be ripped off by
it later in their professional life. Moriaud must therefore make his demonstrations in the air, but this
does not prevent him from proving with compelling logic that the bordereau can only be written by
Esterhazy.

The identity is so great that in peaceful and quiet times, when passions are not aroused, the experts
to whom the Bordereau and Esterhazy's handwriting were submitted could have made their report in
three days:

"We the undersigned declare on oath that there is an absolute identity between the manuscripts, it is
so clear that it seems unnecessary to give any further explanation or justification for it."

(99)

A word was spoken today by General de Pellieux that gives pause for thought. He said literally:

"We care little about the revision of the Dreyfus verdict, I will not be denied by my comrades, we are
completely indifferent to it. We would have been happy if Dreyfus could have been acquitted in 1894.
But the court-martial of 1898 wanted to prevent an innocent man from being put in Dreyfus's place,
whether he was guilty or not."

This sounds rather resigned compared to the strong security since then: should we start to abandon
the position of infallibility in Rue St. Dominique?

Thus, even the most boring graphological session of this strange trial is rich in interesting incidents
for the attentive observer. How long it will last, no one knows: it could be shortened if the general
staff would deign to present the original of the famous Bordereau, because this would at least end
the dispute about whether the facsimiles are equal to it.

"God, of course, created the world in six days",

said one of our kind host friends to me yesterday,

61
"but-the Zola trial is much more difficult."

Tenth day of hearings.

Thursday, February 17.
A graphological overture to a highly political drama. They talked about the Bordereau again,
Professor Moriaud from Geneva, Professor Giry from the hated Ecole des Chartes, Héricourt,
assistant at the physiological laboratory of the medical faculty, all of them, all of them come to the
inexorable conclusion that the writing is to be attributed to Esterhazy. The "Ulan letter" is also
considered genuine by them, contrary to the dissenting opinion of the expert Varinard, as far as one
can conclude from a facsimile. General de Pellieux promises to make an effort to obtain the original.

(100)

Despite these concurring opinions, the duel between Graphology and the General Staff is undecided,
after yesterday General de Pellieux provided weighty evidence that the documents in question could
not have been accessible to Esterhazy.

Then Colonel Picquart steps in front of the barrier for adversarial arguments with the two generals. It
is an unusual, exciting spectacle, perhaps unprecedented in military history, to see the three men in
uniform standing there, the subordinate pleading against his superiors. With his own admirable, one
might almost say holy calmness in attitude and language, with that certainty which can only find its
basis in firmly established truth, in conviction, Colonel Picquart picks apart, piece by piece, the
arguments of his generals.

He proves that the Bordereau's documents did not have the claimed importance, he proves with
every single document that and how it could have been accessible to Esterhazy. Yes, he brings
evidence of how he demanded certain information from other officers, how he continuously copied
documents in his apartment.

The impression of yesterday's assertions of General de Pellieux is completely destroyed, also the
support of General Gonse remains ineffective; one feels that the clever and witty subaltern, as head
of the Information Bureau, has a better command of these matters than his superiors.

This impression is considerably strengthened by the fact that the generals place the origin of the
bordereau in the month of August 1894, because it mentions an important document about
Madagascar, which had only come into being in that month, while Labori holds before them the
indictment, of Major d'Ormescheville, in which this origin is determined to February 1894.

Under tremendous excitement, the meeting is interrupted.

(101)

After the reopening, General de Pellieux approaches the barrier and demands the floor. The tension
is at its highest, it must be released. And it begins to release.

"I have kept myself in the extreme reserve of legality until now. We have not spoken of the Dreyfus
affair, and I do not want to speak of it. But in view of the fact that passages have been read here from

62
the indictment of Major d'Ormescheville, which belongs to the secret proceedings, I must inform you
that they have absolute proof of Dreyfus' innocence in the War Ministry. I have seen him. "

And now the General tells us that in November 1896, at the moment of Castelin's interpellation, a
document reached the War Department, to the following effect:

"There will be an interpellation on the Dreyfus affair, never speak of the relations we have had with
this Jew!"

It was signed with an unknown name, but as a credential it was accompanied by a business card of a
highly placed personage with some unimportant words written on it addressed to that very sender.

The General Gonse confirms this communication.

Then Labori rises. He categorically demands the presentation of this document, which came after the
Dreyfus trial and was therefore not secret. Otherwise, he could not attach the slightest value to it,
with all deference to the generals' good faith.

And now the President's word from last week is literally coming true:

"Il n'y a plus-d'affaire Zola."

As the bold defender stands there, spouting his own excitement in flaming eloquence, he is no longer
the defender of Zola, he is the mouthpiece of the good genius of the fatherland.

Labori:
"Whether Dreyfus, whether Esterhazy is guilty or not, about it-everyone will have his honest
convictions, which will perpetuate themselves if full light is not created. But the excitement in the
country must not increase, must not perpetuate. The revision of the trial will take place in legal forms,
justice will be done, and we will then all calmly return to our work. I am not afraid of war, I stand
there in the name of civilization and humanity.

(102)

General de Pellieux demands that Boisdeffre be fetched, quickly, with his own carriage.

At this moment Esterhazy, dark as the spirit of the night, comes forward to testify. The defense
declares that it will not hear him now, and he departs again. The president closes the session when
General de Boisdeffre enters in civilian clothes. – See you tomorrow!

A tremendous excitement takes possession of the hall: this is how it may have been in the decisive
sessions of the Convention. The air is saturated with electricity, everyone climbs onto the benches,
Jaurès and Thiébaud face each other in a wild troop downstairs.

The dams have been broken, the question has entered a highly political stage, we are on the verge of
lifting that veil that concerns about "national defense" had spread over France.

Diplomacy has the word: now it will become clear whether that mysterious threat note is genuine
and who its author is. The rock is rolling, no human power can stop it. Light will come, and peace for
France.

An impenetrable crowd flows along the boulevards. All kinds of scrawls on Zola are sold, sometimes
quite delightful, but also a delicious caricature: the sinister "Ulan" holding the saber with both hands,
underneath the declaration: "Esterhazy's Pourquoi pas?"

63
The scandal press has been so upset for a few days now that it is snapping. Mr. Millevoye's "Patrie"
has discovered that the Syndicate has stripped France of all grain, so that in the event of war Paris
would have to starve in eight days.

The list of jurors with their exact residences is published every day, so that in case of acquittal, the
mob also knows where to break the windows.

And Rochefort reports that he will enter Ste. Pélagie on Sunday afternoon precisely five o'clock;
should he be offered an ovation, it is of course pure coincidence.

But the truth is on the march; it can no longer be stopped. The honest people from both sides will
come together again in the patriotic pursuit of reassurance, and put the night birds where they
belong. On this height the defense stood today, and it will not descend.

Let's hope that the General Staff will reach them soon too!

(103)

Declaration of General de Pellieux:

"I have a comment to make about what has just happened here. Up to now we have kept strictly
within the bounds of legality. We have in no way spoken of the Dreyfus affair, and I do not wish to
speak of it, but I must call attention to the fact that the defense has just read here publicly a passage
from the report of Commandant d'Ormescheville, which was given in secret session. So I demand to
speak, not of the trial Dreyfus, of which I will not speak, but I will repeat the typical word of Colonel
Henry:

'You want the light; so go for it! '

At the moment of the Costelin interpellation, a fact occurred that I want to report. The absolute proof
of Dreyfus' guilt has been received in the War Ministry (notice that I am not talking about the Dreyfus
affair!). Absolute ! And this proof, I have seen it! - At the moment of the interpellation, the War
Ministry received a paper whose origin cannot be disputed and which says:

'There will be an interpellation on the Dreyfus affair. Never speak of the relations we have had
with this Jew'.

And, gentlemen, this note is signed, it is not signed with a known name, but it is supported by a
visiting card. and on the back is the invitation to an expected rendez-vous, signed with a name of
importance, which is the same as the one on the piece of file; the visiting card bears the name of this
person.

(104)

Well, gentlemen, the revision of the trial has been sought in a roundabout way, I have given you this
fact, which I confirm on my honor, and I invoke the General de Boisdeffre to support my statement.
That is what I wanted to tell you (applause).

Labori:
An incident of exceptional importance has just taken place at the barrier, we all agree on that.
General de Pellieux did not speak of the Dreyfus affair, he spoke of a fact of later date. It is impossible
not to discuss this fact here, because after such a note it cannot be a question of limiting the debate
before the jury court. I would respectfully remark to General de Pellieux that this is not a document

64
that has any value and that, scientifically speaking, provides evidence before it has been discussed
adversarially.

I add that, whatever one will or does, we are now in the midst of an affair that occupies the scope of
a state action, facing two secret documents or-two secret dossiers, both equally serious.

A secret dossier which has been the tool of the condemnation of Dreyfus in 1894, without adversarial
proceedings, without discussion, without defense, and a second secret dossier which has prevented
that for weeks anything else is put forward here than affirmations.

As much as I have respect for the soldierly word of General de Pellieux, I cannot attach the least
importance to this writing, as long as we have not discussed it, as long as it will not be publicly
known, it will not count. And it is in the name of the eternal right of the principles which the whole
world has revered since the most ancient times and since the beginning of civilization that I
pronounce these words.

(105) (Portrait Walsin-Esterhazy: see annex)

(106)

Labori:
As far as I am concerned, I have only one thing in mind in this matter. That is the constant darkness,
that is, the public fear that increases every day, which is created, I will not say, by lies, but by
ambiguities. Whether Dreyfus is guilty or innocent, whether Esterhazy is guilty or not guilty, these are
questions of the utmost seriousness. We, some and others, the Minister of War, General Gonse,
General de Pellieux, myself, can have our own opinion about it and will always insist on it, unless
absolute light is shed on it.

But it must be avoided at all costs that the agitation in the country increases and perpetuates itself.
Well, we now have a means in hand, without having to appeal to the secret court proceedings,
without having to enforce court decisions, to achieve at least partial light, because whatever may
come, the revision of the Dreyfus trial will have to take place inexorably. (Murmuring in the
audience). The protests of the crowd only prove that they do not understand the gravity of this
debate from the eternal point of view of civilization and humanity.

If Dreyfus is guilty, and if the word of these generals, which I accept as entirely bona fide (and that is
precisely what moves me so deeply in this), if it is well-founded, if it proves to be well-founded in fact
and in law, then they will provide us with the proof in a loyal, regular and adversarial trial.

If, on the other hand, you are mistaken, it will be the others who will bring their proofs; and when the
light will be complete, when all darkness will have been dispersed, there will perhaps be one or two
people in France who will be responsible as culprits for all this evil. Whether they then belong to one
side or the other, they will be known and punished, and then we shall all return quietly to our labors
of war or peace.

At this moment no one fears war, and by threats of war, which, whatever one may say, is not near,
one will not intimidate the gentlemen jurors. "

(107)

65
 Eleventh day of hearings.
Friday, February 18.
This Friday, February 18, 1898, it is not a day of honor for the French justice. Nor, despite its
undeniable, perhaps decisive importance for the prosecution, will it be and cannot be a lasting
success. For the farce - I use the word in its worst sense - was-all-too-strong.

When last night General de Pellieux quoted the supreme chief of the army, one had to believe that
the latter had to add further, decisive things which the subaltern general could not or was not
allowed to say. For that Boisdeffre would not deny a communication that had never been made
without his express consent was self-evident.

Instead, the chief of staff has nothing else to say than to confirm with sounding words the horror
story of the diplomatic threatening note on an anonymous or almost anonymous visiting card, and to
offer the jury, which he apostrophized as "representatives of the nation", his dismissal in case of
Zola's acquittal. A worthy reproach for the coming Horace Vernet of the present period of glory: the
French Moltke who lays his marshal's baton at the feet of twelve ordinary citizens!

It is really quite unbelievable what the naive French people allow themselves to be offered in the
way of improbabilities as soon as the tender string of their national vanity is touched. The story with
the visiting card of Mr. von Schwartzkoppen - because everyone here believes that it could not be
about anyone else - bears the stamp of forgery on the forehead, even Colonel Picquart, asked about
it, has expressly declared today that he considers the "document" to be false, but - it draws, and the
directors know that.

Today I have lost the confidence in the good faith of the officers of the General Staff.

(108)

The big event of the interrogation of Esterhazy, in the expectation of which yesterday already seats
up to fifty francs are said to have been sold, has then also taken place. He did not answer a single
question, and the reading of these questions was thus actually nothing other than an indictment
against him. If one wants to be fair, one must not hold this attitude against him: since the present
trial, depending on its outcome, has the meaning of a revision of the verdict of the court-martial
against himself, he would have to become his own accuser as a witness. But this cannot be expected
of anyone.

The President outdid himself today. He barred the defense from asking questions of Generals
Boisdeffre and de Pellieux. The Court confirmed this judgment, and the motivation is so delicious
that it deserves to be kept:

"Considering that Generals de Boisdeffre and de Pellieux have made communications about the
Affaire Dreyfus yesterday and today, considering that the Court, by its judgment of February 7, has
excluded from the trial everything relating to the Affaire Dreyfus"

(is he rebuking the generals? - God forbid!), he agrees with the president that he has taken the floor
from the defenders.

When Clémenceau submits questions to Esterhazy about his dealings with von Schwartzkoppen, Mr.
Delegorgue states that he will not ask them. -Why?

66
"Because it's a matter of the honor and security of the country."

As if the honor and security of France were engaged when the two friendly gentlemen pursue the
pleasures of Parisian life together!

Clémenceau also correctly remarks how strange it is that the honor of the country allows to do
something but not to say it. General de Pellieux requests the examination of a new witness "to whom
offers of money had been made." The witness is already waiting downstairs. "Nous entendrons le
témoin toute à l'heure," says the complaisant president, I heard it with my own ears.

(109)

But when General Guerrier wants to come forward in the evening to testify about Esterhazy's official
conduct in Algiers, the president and the public prosecutor refuse to hear him, "because the witness
was not registered in time. - Drawn to this contradiction by the defense, the just judge replies: "I had
only said to the witness of General de Pellieux that I wanted to think it over.

Madame de Boulancy had come, wanted to give testimony and asked to be escorted into the hall
"since she did not feel safe" (in the face of Esterhazy's threats). The President and the Procurator of
State refused this little help, although crowds of municipal guards were standing around in the hall,
taking the seats of others and not caring in the least about maintaining the peace as soon as it was
disturbed from certain benches.

The president's attitude toward the auditorium, whose military components constantly interrupt the
proceedings and try to terrorize the defense, is downright scandalous. He simply lets everything pass,
shouting, clapping, heckling, even whistling, and only sometimes makes a very timid remark, of which
everyone knows that there is no seriousness behind it.

Is this still not buffoonery enough? If not, let's go down to the Galleria de Harley where, during the
suspension of the session, the same crowd agglomerates around the generals, shouting "Vive
l'armée" and beating through a few people so unseasonable to shout "Vive la République".

And even more touching - Esterhazy coming out of the meeting, the reading of his outrageous letters
had just been listened to silently, almost artificially absent - stormily acclaimed, literally carried on
the hands to his carriage. Duke Henry of Orleans kisses the persecuted innocence touched on both
cheeks and conquers the favor of the audience by this patriotic act. The only thing missing is the
crowning of the "building": after all that I have experienced today, "Esterhazy 1er "does not seem so
hopeless to me. If only he were outwardly more important and had a horse a la Boulanger! But as it
is - I walked behind him for a long time today - his Mephistophelian-melancholic head sits on a shaky,
thin-legged body, which the consumption of the lungs will soon have consumed.

(110)

The sky, however, did it yesterday, as Mrs. Themis probably also did it, and as I would have preferred
to do too: it covered itself and wept all day.

Declaration of General de Boisdeffre:

"I will be brief. I confirm in all points the statements of General de Pellieux with reference to the
accuracy and authenticity of the document in question. I have not a word to add, I have not the
right to do so. And now, gentlemen of the jury, allow me to say one thing to you in conclusion: you

67
are the jury of the nation; if the nation no longer has confidence in the chiefs of the army, in those
who bear the responsibility of national defense, they are ready to leave this difficult task to others.
You only have to speak! I will not say another word, I ask the President for permission to
withdraw."

Labori:
"I repeat that the debate rises more and more every day and that it rises far above the condemned of
the Devil's Island, who moves us not only because it is a man who suffers there. After all, there are so
many people who suffer in so many ways that one could actually be comforted by the fact that there
is one more. But it moves us because he suffers as a result of a violation of law, by a judgment that
was issued in the name of the people and the fatherland. The debate goes far beyond Esterhazy, far
beyond Mr. Zola and Mr. Perrenx, it moves the whole world. It is the cause of justice, freedom and
law in whose name I make my requests in abstracto.

(111)

You too, gentlemen of the Court, you too have your responsibilities, do not respond to my requests by
equivocating, face the question as it is!

I wanted to ask questions to Generals de Boisdeffre and Billot, and was severely and brusquely
interrupted without pretext. Tell me, gentlemen, whether this was done with good reason, whether
these are the new forms of-justice to be introduced in this country! For you too will feel that we are at
the junction of negotiations at this moment, that the incident that has just taken place is perhaps the
climax of them.

Therefore, disregard, I ask you, the noise and anger of an agitated audience that does not know why
it manifests. Pay no attention to the outbursts of anger of a country that is misled; pay no attention
to the passions of people who know nothing and who, without control, believe assurances and
uncontrollable words, words that, if tested for proof, would not stand for a second.

Face seriously the task, which is incumbent upon you, do not forget your so high mission! Finally, I beg
you, do not forget that we may be standing here - the word does not go beyond my thoughts - at a
turning point in the history of our fatherland, and that you are about to pass a judgment whose
consequences no one can foresee today.

Colonel Picquart:
"There are documents that it would be very good to establish the authenticity of. There is mainly one
that arrived at a certain moment, when the commander Esterhazy had reason to defend himself
against the authorship of the Bordereau and, when it was necessary, to prove that someone else had
been its author. Well, one reads this writing, as it seems, brought forward, I have not been shown it,
but I have heard speak of it. Also, I have never been told where it came from, probably it fell from the
sky. But I find that there is reason to consider this document as a forgery with regard to the moment
when it came to light, with regard to its content, which is quite improbable.

(112)

Labori:
"Is Colonel Picquart speaking of that document that was spoken of here yesterday?"

68
Picquart:
"It is the one that the General de Pellieux was talking about. If he had not spoken of it himself
yesterday, I would not have done so today. I think it is a fake!"

Esterhazy:
"Gentlemen of the jury! I do not know whether you can account for the heinous situation that has
been prepared for me. Without a shadow of proof, a wretch, Mr. Mathieu Dreyfus, has dared to
accuse me as the author of the crime for which his brother was punished.

For seven weeks I was under the charge of high treason, two investigations have been conducted, my
accusers have been able to produce all their documents, they have had the widest latitude to do what
they wanted, they have not produced any evidence. At my request, I was judged by my peers and by
my superiors, who unanimously acquitted me. Today I am summoned before you; in defiance of all
law, in defiance of all rules of justice not as a witness but as an accused.

I protest with all my strength against this way of treating me! I am here in the witness hall and can
have nobody questioned for my justification, neither me, nor an advocate. During this time, my
accusers are questioning their witnesses, whom they have prepared, with the help of their defense
lawyers, while I have no one to direct the mood in my favor.

For 18 months, the most terrible persecution ever devised against a human being has been gathering
against me in the dark. Since that time, I have suffered more than any of my contemporaries have
suffered during their entire lives. I have been the object of the most infamous and cowardly
maneuvers, for it is mainly cowardice that leads this campaign.

I am ready to answer all questions which the court or the jurors want to ask me, because they have
the right to do so. As for these people (pointing to the defense attorneys), I will not answer you! "

IMAGES: THE BORDEREAU, A letter from Commander Esterhazy, A letter from Captain Dreyfus: see
ANNEX.

(113)

Twelfth day of hearings.

Saturday-, February 19, 1898
Today brings a liberating impression, but one that was badly needed. It shows that even in today's
France there are still some people other than swashbucklers, complaisant lawyers, mad newspaper
agitators and jeering mobs.

A worthy finale to the seemingly endless interrogation of witnesses: three of the country's greatest
scientific authorities enthusiastically and fearlessly stand up for Zola's good faith: Séailles, Duclaux
and Anatole France.

The honorable press is also stirring: the "Temps" today publishes a brilliantly written article:
"Confusion of Powers", in which it strongly criticizes the interference of the military power in the
judiciary, the comedy of the "cabinet question" of the General Staff to a jury bypassing the
constitutional powers.

69
- Labori flamed with indignation at the "straitjacket" into which the president was constricting the
defense.

- The General Staff considers its work done: General de Pellieux appeared demonstratively in civilian
clothes and gave a blow to the gentleman who "still" wears the uniform and dares to accuse his
superior generals of forgery.

- With that admirable calm which never for a moment left him, the attacked Colonel Picquart replied
that this was a distortion of his words. He had not the slightest doubt about the good faith of the
generals, but even the most highly placed persons had been deceived, as the Norton affair, for
example, proved.

(114)

If I were the Lord God and able to rain pitch and brimstone on this Sodom and Gomorrah of gaiter
bondage, this only righteous one, this "Monsieur", Colonel Picquart, who is a gentleman in the
highest meaning of the word, he could stop me.

The general staff's claqueurs on the benches behind me, of course, think differently: as often as he
confesses something that is unpleasant to them, they murmur "Canaille!" - but when he discreetly
refuses to answer certain questions, they whisper: "Aha, he is afraid! "He is not afraid, but he has
tact, and he has something else that they forget: he has his own conscience, and he alone acts
according to it. We take off our hats to him - he reminded us more than once of a dear military friend
ante diem in the homeland! And shout: "Vive l'armée!"

The fortnight-long campaign was nothing other than a battle of the saber against the pen. You have
to hand it to the gentlemen, they operated well: Macchiavelli is their teacher. The first slogan: "Strike
before bourgeois justice" did not hold: Casimir-Périer botched it for them.

- Even the furious storm against the main witness Picquart bounced off the insurmountable fortress
of his obvious honorability. - The enemy's offensive becomes dangerous, already the strongest
redoubt, the famous Borderau, has fallen. In desperation, one ignites the mine of the visiting card,
one stages the comedy of the "cabinet question" to the jury.

- And now they think they are safe, quite safe. But the gentlemen are likely to be mistaken. If Zola is
condemned--and it is more than likely with the tremendous pressure on the poor jury--there is an
appellate authority which revises even the decisions of the saber, and of which they have not
thought: the logic of the revealed facts and the judgment of history. Before this, the word, the
honest and true word, has more permanence than the sword of Brennus - and the pen, the honest
pen is its bailiff. Word and pen, they overcome poison cup, cross and funeral pyre, they will also cope
with Boisdeffre and consorts.

As Lenau sings in the Albigensians, "The light of the sun cannot be covered" - "And so on!"

(115)

Lt. Col. Picquart:

"My testimony has been attacked in advance, while I was still in Tunis, by newspapers like 'Libre
Parole', 'Petit Journal' and others. They said that I was divorced and that I was having my children
educated in Germany. I have never been married and have no children. I asked for a correction
through people close to me, but they refused.

70
Mr. Ravary in his report and the General de Pellieux in his testimony have expressed doubts about my
honorability. The superiors who knew me better than these two officers could tell them better who I
am. The General de Gallifet, if he were to be heard, would certainly also report here-all the good
things about me that he said before the Council of Inquiry.

General de Pellieux:
"I know of nothing stranger than the conduct of a gentleman who still wears the uniform, and comes
here to accuse three generals of having made and used a false writing."

Lt. Col. Picquart:

"I protest against the way in which my words have been twisted. I did not want in any way to suspect
the good faith of my superiors: there are very well-made forgeries regarding which highly placed
persons have been deceived. The Norton affair is an example of this.

Mr. Lalance (former Protestant-Reichstag deputy for Alsace):

"As an Alsatian, I know the Dreyfus and Sandherr families, those of the accused and the accuser, very
well. Already the father of Colonel Sandherr, converted from Protestantism to the Catholic Church,
was - like all neophytes - a furious fanatic. ln 1870 he organized gangs that shouted in the streets:
'Down with the inner Prussians!', he meant the Protestants and the Jews. And yet it was a Jew who
proposed the bishop of Metz as a member of the Reichstag, and it was clergymen who ran the
election of Protestant candidates.

(116)

In Mulhouse, everyone had done his duty. Colonel Sandherr, whom I knew from an early age, was
brought up in these family traditions. He was a good soldier and a good citizen, but equally fanatical.
In 1893 he was seized with a brain disease, and his irritability was increased by it. He was in this state
of health and mind when he conducted the investigation that led to the 1894 verdict. That, gentlemen
of the jury, is the man of the prosecution! I am convinced that Colonel Sandherr was guided more by
such feelings than by justice.

As for the Dreyfus family.... "

(Speaker interrupted by the President). Mr. Lalance then continues:

"Mr. Zola has done well to speak out where there are grave concerns of a committed miscarriage of
justice. I believe that in a country that claims justice and freedom, one must not hide the light under a
bushel. I believe that even if the most entitled representative of Alsace, the Vice President of the
Senate, has been refused to show a piece of paper, it is not good to withdraw it from the eyes of the
whole nation!"

Gabriel Séailles,( Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne):

"We have attended a trial whose course has astonished us, we have read an indictment that has
upset us because we have searched in vain in it for what we thought we would find. One can
condemn oneself to silence, but one cannot deny oneself to think. Against my will, my mind was
occupied with the facts of which I had received knowledge, and my thoughts arrived at the dilemma:
either Dreyfus was convicted on the basis of the bordereau, i.e. without proof, or he was convicted on
the basis of secret documents which were not communicated, i.e. illegally. This verdict has almost
involuntarily fallen heavily on my heart.

71
(117)

If the law that gives us all the security that we will have to invoke for ourselves tomorrow is always to
be respected, is it not to be done especially when thousands of persons are to be met, condemned
and dishonored in One Person?

How I came to sign the protest declaration? I was correcting a student's paper on morality. I had told
the young people that the human person was sacred, and that it should not be sacrificed to passion,
nor to interest, by whatever name it might be adorned. When I had retired to my cabinet, a student
brought me the petition, and I signed it. Our teachings would be without authority if we were not
willing to confirm them by our actions!

As for the good faith of Mr. Emilie Zola, the trials he now has to suffer would be enough to confirm it.
He has acted according to his temperament, after the manner of one who is made to breathe in a
room where there is stinking air, and who rushes to the window, and, at the risk of catching his death,
breaks the panes to let in light and air. "

Professor Emil Duclaux, (Director of the Pasteur Institute):

"I signed the protest list at the same time as Mr. Emile Zola because, after the Esterhazy trial, I
thought it necessary, for a group of men who seek only the truth, to declare aloud in public, how,
after the darkness of the second trial has not scared away the one of the first, they continue to
demand the light. "

Anatole France, (member of the Academy):

"I was with Mr. Emile Zola last December, and for a few hours was, as it were, the witness of his
thoughts. I can here affirm his admirable good faith and perfect sincerity. But his sincerity needs no
assurance; I therefore confine myself to affirming that, according to his whole disposition in this
matter, he stood up with courage for truth and justice, filled with the noblest sentiments!"

(118)

72
 DEFENSE SPEECHES
Day 1.
Monday, 21 Feb., 1898
So, the decisive battle has begun today. It was initiated yesterday by a big noise that Rochefort's
supporters made when he entered St. Pélagie. His papers reported about it in such detail as if it was
the entry of a high personality.

The prosecutor van Cassel held a speech lasting a little over an hour, which could not make a special
impression. Where he became pathetic, he said nothing, and in his reasoning, he made a few quite
conspicuous mistakes, especially when he suggested that the article in the "Eclair" (in which, as is
well known, the D... of the secret file was falsified to "Dreyfus") originated from Mrs. Dreyfus. What a
witty Parisian said on the way out hit the nail on the head with regard to this accusation: "How much
might he have gotten from the syndicate for making such a bad speech?"

Zola himself then read out a speech, which, despite its excellent content (it follows below in the
wording), had relatively little effect, because he just read it off and he was not up to the restless
claque.

On the other hand, Labori's beginning of the plaidoyer was quite excellent and will certainly not have
missed its effect. For he hurled real bombs at the stunned listeners: it became quieter and quieter
even on the benches behind us. When he read out with fine irony the articles of Paul de Cassagnac
from the year 1894, in which he attacked the general staff and the whole secret procedure of that
time in the sharpest way, when he cited samples of Rochefort's earlier incendiary speeches of the
same content, when he finally declaimed the lying and anti-Dreyfus article of the "Eclair", and
shouted to the prosecutor and the claque:

"That's them, your current patriots!",

suddenly the hall fell silent. The spirit of truth had conquered even those who were reluctant.

(119)

And it was no different when he spoke of the threats of General de Boisdeffre and scourged their
hollowness: it would be a sad state of affairs for the army if the welfare of the fatherland depended
on these few men, who will probably have to be replaced. And no less when he warned against half
measures, against that middle course between justice and injustice which has so often had a
disastrous influence on the fate of France.

A deep silent movement passed through the hall when, at half past four o'clock, the President
adjourned the continuation until tomorrow.

73
Outside on the boulevards, however, the merry people are celebrating the carnival; ladies from the
Latin Quarter are walking their arduous way, scattered with colorful confetti, teased and pursued.
"Panem et circenses" is still the slogan in Paris today, as it was in Rome in the old imperial times.

Prosecutor van Cassel:

"A man, author of numerous novels, brings into a newspaper the startling charge that a court-martial
had acquitted a guilty man by order. One wonders uneasily whether this accusation stems from
unconscionability or from impudence.

Where is the evidence? We are here in the jury court. You must and can tell us why this agreement
has arisen between a defendant who, in your opinion, is guilty and those who have acquitted him. We
have attended twelve sessions and never has this given question been asked. One witness told us that
Mr. Zola's good faith was at the height of his talent, but the same witness also told us that he could
have been inaccurately informed, or that he could have incorrectly assessed the information he
received.

Distrust, gentlemen of the jury, the beautiful phrases. -We need proof here and not phrases, facts and
not sounding words. Has Mr. Zola offered any proof? No, he didn't even try."

(120)

The prosecutor then recalls the painful spectacle of this long series of meetings, emphasizes the
unbearable situation prepared for the generals, and quotes the words of General de Boisdeffre: "The
officers are brave people, they have endured, without responding, long attacks, they know only duty
and the fatherland."- "Of course," the prosecutor adds, "some of these good people did lose patience
in the end."

He then deals with the experts, to whom the defense gave in to very light attacks. Nevertheless, the
experts of 1894, who worked according to the original documents, reached consistent results. The
other experts did not see them and worked according to documents of suspicious origin.

"I have not to speak of that group of international experts who rally around Mr. Bernard Lazare, the
entrepreneur of the audit. There are too many money interests behind it, besides, this is not the trial
of today."

Mr. van Cassel does not wish to enter into the discussion of the condemned matter.

"But what is the cause of all the scandals we have witnessed? A powerful and rich family (Dreyfus)
has had the pain of seeing one of their own convicted of treason. This wound has kept them at heart,
and the efforts whose result we see today began before the condemnation."

The prosecutor now gives a historical account of the Dreyfus affair before the Chambers, the
interpellations, the agendas adopted mostly unanimously or by a large majority, the reports, the
statements of the government, etc. Then he comes to the history of the campaign undertaken by the
"Dreyfus Group" to corrupt the officer denounced by the brother of the condemned man.

(121)

He sets apart how the government, be it through the Conseil President, be it through the Minister of
War, proclaimed in clear words the complete freedom of military jurisdiction. In the Senate, the
ministers refused to say a single word that could appear as an interference with the judiciary.

74
Prosecutor van Cassel continues:
"The 'Aurore' dared to print that the Republic was in danger. Do you remember, on the other hand,
the statements made by General Billot on January 13? The Minister said there that never the great
military chiefs had more respect for the legislation than just now. And as for the Republic, the General
Billot certainly said enough with the words:

'It is a Republican who is speaking to you. And who, then, among the French who are so proud of their
uniforms, should attack our facilities? You know very well that there is not a single one. Once upon a
time, one found himself; he had to make himself disappear by committing suicide.'

The prosecutor then takes the testimonies of the "intellectuals":

"These dilettantes, as a result of a strange aberration, demand the complete exposition of the 1894
trial. They want the revision in order to know what they can hold on to. But this revision would not
give them any certainty, because a new trial would also have to be conducted under the same
precautions necessary for the national defense. It happens every day that sensitive souls have doubts
about the guilt of a defendant who has not confessed. If they have doubts of conscience, that is their
affair; the judges, who have done their duty, feel for those 'intellectuals' only that pity which their
peculiar state of mind deserves."

(122)

Mr. van Cassel now arrives at the interference of Colonel Picquart and his visit to General Gonse in
September 1896:

"'He announced to me evidence against Esterhazy', says General Gonse, 'he brought me only grounds
for suspicion.' The General advised him to be cautious and recommended that he examine the
documents. Colonel Picquart's own testimony proves that there could be no question of documents on
the Dreyfus affair.

General Gonse did not need to advise Colonel Picquart to be careful about this: he knew himself what
he had to abide by. The letters of General Gonse refer only to the suspicions of Colonel Picquart
against Esterhazy, there was no mention of anything else. There is a peculiar coincidence between the
action of the Dreyfus family and that of Colonel Picquart.

Colonel Picquart brought forward the famous card telegram. It was said that it testified to Esterhazy's
suspicious relations. In reality, the meaning was not understood at all, and the card telegram had no
other effect than that Colonel Picquart learned Esterhazy's name. And Colonel Picquart had not said a
word about it to General Gonse: did he reserve it for a favorable moment, or did he not attach any
importance to it himself?

This card telegram would have been a very important document, it seems, if it could have been made
to Colonel Picquart's liking. The statements of Commander Lauth and Archivist Gribelin have shown
that Colonel Picquart wanted to have a pre-dated postmark put on it. -

But this point is less important than the wrong interpretation of the letters of General Gonse. These
have influenced Mr. Scheurer-Kestner, who again adopted the interpretation of Mr. Leblois, which is
refuted however by the text of the letters themselves. The same interpretation has also deceived Mr.
Trarieux. The honorable senator said that an article of the 'Eclair' had attracted his attention and
reflection. That was the article in which they revealed the existence of the writing: "Cette canaille de
D..... ". But this communication to the newspapers could not have come from the War Ministry,
because the Dreyfus group immediately seized it to demand the revision.

75
(123)

Mr. Trarieux declared that he would not have the courage to protest if Dreyfus had only been justly, if
not legally, condemned. And Mr. Jaurès said in the Chamber that if in the interest of the fatherland
the government had committed a revolutionary act, it should admit it loudly and 'proudly'. But these
are not the only contradictions of the exoneration witnesses: thus, on January 24 (1989), Mr. Jaurès
said in the Chamber that he had no opinion about the cause, while on February 12 (1989) he believed
in Esterhazy's guilt.

Mr. Trarieux told us about machinations against Colonel Picquart. One knows what there is in it.
These machinations were intended to justify the visits of Mr. Leblois to the War Ministry. These visits,
almost impossible for others, were exceptionally easy for Mr. Leblois. 12-15 visits in a year, says one
of the witnesses, to 30 or so estimates another. In any case, it was during one of these visits that
Colonel Picquart and Mr. Leblois were seen examining the family secret dossier. The fact is confirmed
by two witnesses in such a way that all the cleverness of Mr. Leblois is not able to make one doubt it."

The prosecutor then moves on to the proceedings against Esterhazy.

"One has spoken of the secret procedure. But this is the rule in all espionage cases, of which since
1888 the military courts have judged 4 in this way, as well as 23 cases of the police court, 7 of them in
Paris, in which one acquittal took place. In the jury court, even once, when a case of espionage was
connected with a theft, it was decided in secret proceedings. And in all these cases no one has ever
protested, one knows that in such matters one does not need indiscreet listeners. So the clamor
against the secret procedure is only a subject for popular assemblies.

(124)

By the way, in the Esterhazy case, the court-martial itself decided on it, by 5 votes to 2. All this shows
the absolute independence of the military judges. It has been reproached that the negotiations were
not adversarial enough, that Ravary's report did not contain enough indictment. This should not have
come as a surprise, since Ravary requested the termination of the proceedings, for which he really did
not have to cite any proven guilt. And the adversarial proceedings also took place, since Mr. Leblois
and Colonel Picquart could support the charges of Dreyfus' brother at will. What has not been said
about the court martial against Esterhazy? There was talk of rallies of the judges after the sentencing,
handshakes, congratulations, etc. All this is false and was also quite impossible."

A speaker reads out a letter from the chairman of the court-martial, General de Luxer, to the
Minister of War, in which he says that the verdict was read at the court-martial in the absence of the
accused, and that the judges did not see Esterhazy at all after the conclusion.

The prosecutor then shows that the good certificates given by General Guerrier to Commander
Esterhazy were by no means forged, as was claimed.

"So that is all the testimony that has been brought forward, in favor of a movement against the law
that Mr. Zola does not want to know. It is he who has imposed on you these 12 meetings unworthy of
our country. It is true that a publisher in Berlin has obtained the right to translate and publish the
'Letter to the Youth'. One wanted to make noise, beyond the borders.

(125)

Prosecutor van Cassel continues:

76
120 witnesses have been summoned, not to speak of the group of foreign diplomats. It is
heartrending what our army has had to hear painful in favor of this campaign. I appreciate the talent
because of the good it produces, but not because of the ruins it has the power to heap.

The army has been showered with insults. Mr. Zola has inflicted upon it the most violent injuria
imaginable. It is untrue that a superior officer has been found to dictate his judgment to the court-
martial. It is untrue that seven officers have been found in the French army capable of deciding a case
otherwise than according to their free and loyal conscience. And yet they have dared to say all this.
You will not allow it, gentlemen of the jury. You will condemn the guilty. France awaits with
confidence your verdict."

EmiIe ZoIa:
"At the meeting of the Chamber of January 22, the President of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Méline,
declared, to the frenetic applause of his complaisant majority, that he had confidence in the twelve
citizens in whose hands he was placing the defense of the army. You, gentlemen, he meant. And just
as General Billot had prescribed his sentence to the court-martial which he charged with acquitting
Commander Esterhazy, giving from the tribune the military order of indisputable respect for the thing
condemned, so Mr. Méline has wished to order you to condemn me, in the name of respect for the
army which he accuses me of having insulted.

To the conscience of the honest people, I submit this pressure of the public powers on the justice of
the country. These are despicable political customs that dishonor a free people!

We will see, gentlemen, whether you obey. But it is not true that I am standing here before you by the
will of Mr. Méline.

(126)

He only gave in to the need to persecute me under the pressure of a great restlessness, in fear of the
new step that the approaching truth was about to take. The whole world knows this. I stand before
you because I myself wanted it. I alone have made the decision that this dark and monstrous matter
be brought before your court, I alone have chosen you of my own free will, as the highest and most
direct expression of French justice, so that France may finally know everything and speak out.

My actions have had no other purpose, my person is nothing to it, I have sacrificed it simply for the
sake of the satisfaction of placing in your hands not only the honor of the army, but the endangered
honor of the whole nation.

So, you must forgive me if the light in your consciences is not yet clear. That would not be my fault. It
seems to me that I was caught in a dream when I set out to bring you all the evidence, believing that
you alone were worthy and called to do so. One has begun to pull away from you with the left hand
what one seemed to give you with the right.

They pretended to accept your jurisdiction, but even if they had confidence in you that you would
avenge the members of a court-martial, certain other officers remained unassailable, exalted even
above-your justice. Understand who can! There is folly in hypocrisy, and it is clear from this that they
feared your common sense, that they shied away from the danger of telling us everything and having
you judge everything.

77
You claim that you wanted to limit the scandal, but what do you think of this scandal, of my action
which amounted to entrusting the matter precisely to you, of my will that the people embodied in you
should be my judge? You further claim that you cannot accept a veiled revision, but with that you
confess that you are basically afraid of-your sovereign control.

(127)

Emile Zola continues:

The law finds in you its most perfect representation, and I wanted to be placed before this
representation, which I, as a good citizen, deeply respect, however, I did not take that suspicious
approach, thanks to which one hoped to intimidate you yourself.

I must apologize to you, gentlemen, for having taken you away from your professional life without
being able to give you all the light as it has been my passionate desire. These negotiations have
proved how we-had to fight step by step against a stubborn will for eclipse. Every shred of truth had
to be fought for, everything was discussed, we were denied everything, our witnesses were
intimidated in the hope of preventing us from providing evidence.

And for you alone we have struck, that you may have full proof, that you may pass your judgment
without compunction.

I am therefore sure that you will appreciate our efforts and that, for the rest, enough clarity has been
achieved. You have heard the witnesses, you will hear my defender, he will tell you the true story,
which fills the whole world, and which nevertheless nobody knows. And so you see me calmly: in you
is the truth, and it will work.

Mr. Méline thought to dictate your judgment by putting the honor of the army at your heart. And it is
in the name of this honor of the army that I myself call upon your justice. I raise the most decisive
objection to Mr. Mérline: I have never insulted the army. On the contrary, I have expressed my love
and my respect for the people in arms, for our dearer French soldiers who would rise at the first
danger and defend the fatherland. And it is equally wrong that I have attacked the chiefs, those
generals who are to lead them to victory. If some persons in the bureaux of the Ministry of War have
embarrassed the army by their hustle and bustle, and one says it openly, does it mean to insult the
whole army?

(128)

Emile Zola continues:

Is it not much more an act of the good citizen, to free the army from that stain, to send out the
warning cry, so that those mistakes, which alone were the cause of our former defeats, may not be
repeated and lead us to new defeats?

By the way, I do not want to defend myself, I leave to history the care to judge my action, which was
necessary for me. But I claim that one dishonors the army when one lets the gendarmes embrace the
commander Esterhazy, according to those vile letters he wrote. I maintain that this brave army is
insulted every day anew by the bandits who, under the pretext of defending it, defile it by their low
interference, dragging in the excrement all that our France still possesses of good and great. I
maintain that those who dishonor our great people's army mix the cry: 'Long live the army!' with the
cry: 'Death to the Jews!' And they even shouted: 'Long live Esterhazy!

78
Great God, the people of Saint Louis, of a Bayard, Condé and Hoche, the people who count a hundred
giant victories, the people of the great wars of the Republic and the Empire, the people whose
strength, dignity and magnanimity dazzled the whole world, they cry: "Vive Esterhazy!"? This is a
disgrace from which only a strong striving for truth and justice can free us again.

You know the legend: "Dreyfus has been justly and legally condemned by seven infallible officers, in
whom not even the possibility of error may be suspected without reviling the whole army. His terrible
deed he expiates in avenging torment. And because he is a Jew, a Yiddish syndicate has formed, an
international patriotless syndicate, which has hundreds of millions at its disposal to help the traitor by
the most reprehensible means. Then this syndicate set about instigating crimes, it bought the
consciences, it plunged all France into a murderous movement, determined to sell it to the enemy,
preferring to inflame all Europe into a world war rather than renounce its terrible intention. You see,
this is very simple, even childish and silly."

(129)

But with this poisoned food the common press has been feeding our poor people for many months.
We should not be surprised if we are facing a sad crisis; if we sow stupidity and lies in such a way, we
will necessarily reap madness.

Emile Zola continues:

I certainly don't want to offend you, gentlemen, by assuming that you yourself have kept to such food
until now. I know you, I know who you are. You are the heart and the reason of Paris, my great Paris,
where I was born, which I love with infinite tenderness, which I have studied and sung about for
almost forty years.

And I also know what is going on in your thoughts at this hour, because before I took my seat here as
the defendant, I also sat on that bench which you now occupy. You represent there the average of the
public opinion, in your totality you strive to be the wisdom and the justice. Soon I will be in the
deliberation hall with you in my thoughts, and I am convinced that you will strive to look after your
civil interests, which of course, according to you, are the interests of the whole nation. You may be
mistaken, but you will only be mistaken in thinking that you are promoting the good of the whole
when you are trying to secure your own good.

l see you in your families in the evening by the light of the lamp, I hear you chatting with your friends,
I accompany you to your workshops and to your stores; you are all workers, some of you merchants,
others industrial, some of you practicing free professions. And it causes you all a justified uneasiness
that business is in such a sad state. The present crisis makes us fear disaster everywhere: revenues are
dwindling, sales are becoming more and more difficult. So, you have come here with the thought that
I can read on your faces: enough is enough, an end must be made!

You are certainly not one of those who say, 'What do we care if an innocent man is on Devil's Island!
Is the fate of an individual worth allowing a great country to be thrown into such turmoil for his
sake?'

(130)

But you say to yourself that the agitation which our thirst for truth and justice unleashes is too dearly
paid for by all the evils of which we are accused. And if you condemn me, gentlemen, at the bottom of
your sentence there will be only the desire to reassure your own, the desire to lift business, the belief

79
that by punishing me you will put an end to an expiatory campaign that is harmful to the interests of
France.

Well, gentlemen, in this you would be completely mistaken! --Do me the honor to believe that I am
not defending my personal freedom here. If you condemn me, you only make me bigger. For he who
suffers for truth and justice becomes venerable and holy.

Look at me: do I look like a buyer, a liar or a traitor? What, then, is the origin of my deed? Neither
political ambition nor sectarian passion moves me. I am a free writer who has devoted his life to
work; tomorrow I will return to the ranks and resume my interrupted business.

How stupid are those who call me an Italian; me, born of a French mother, raised by grandparents in
the countryside of Beauce, peasants of that primitive land, me, who at the age of seven had already
lost my father, who came to Italy only at the age of 54 to make studies for a book. This does not
prevent me from being proud of the fact that my father came from Venice, that shining city whose
ancient glory resounds in all memories. And if I were really not a Frenchman, would not the forty
volumes written in French, which I have distributed in millions of copies all over the world, be enough
to make me a Frenchman who promoted the fame of France?

(131)

Emile Zola continues:

That is why I do not defend myself. But, -what a mistake you would commit if you should think that by
condemning me you would restore tranquility to our unhappy country! Do you not understand now
that what our nation is dying of is that stubbornly maintained darkness, that ambiguity in which it is
consumed? Mistake upon mistake is piled up by our government, one lie follows another, so that the
accumulation of falsehood becomes terrifying.

An error of law has been committed; in order to conceal it, one has then had to perpetrate a new
assault on common sense and equity every day. The condemnation of an innocent man has led to the
acquittal of a guilty man; and now they are about to demand my condemnation from you, because of
the outcry of my anguish of heart at the terrible error on which I saw my fatherland. Condemn me,
after all. It will be only a new mistake to the many others, for which history will impose the
responsibility on you one day later. For this condemnation, instead of restoring to the country the
peace that with you we all desire, would only produce new seeds of passion and disorder. The
measure is full, do not let it overflow.

Give an accurate account of the terrible crisis that is devastating our fatherland! They say that we are
the authors of the scandal, that we, the friends of truth and justice, degrade the honor of the nation
and incite to revolt. This is truly called making fun of the world!

Was not General Billot, to name him alone, informed for eighteen months? Did not Colonel Picquart
insist on taking the revision in hand, if it were not for breaking a storm which would devastate
everything?

Did not Mr. Scheurer-Kestner, tears in his eyes, implore the Minister of War to think of France and
spare it such a catastrophe? - No! No! - Our wish has been to relieve everything, to bury everything; if
the country suffers, it is the fault of the rulers who, to cover the guilty and for the sake of political
interests - refused everything, hoping that they themselves would be strong enough to prevent the
brightening.

(132)

80
Emile Zola continues:
Ah, gentlemen, the Dreyfus affair has become very small at this hour, it has receded into the distance
before the dreadful questions that arose in its wake. There is no longer any Dreyfus affair, it is now
simply a question of whether France is still the France of human rights, which gave freedom to the
world and should give it justice. Are we still that noble, fraternal, generous people?

Will we in Europe preserve our glory of equity and humanity? Are we not questioning all the
conquests we have made?

Open your eyes to understand that on such an erroneous path and in the face of such a terrible
danger the people's soul had to be moved to the deepest depths! No people is confused in this way
without moral life being endangered. The hour is of extraordinary seriousness: it is about the welfare
of the nation!

And after you have understood this, gentlemen, you will feel that there is only one remedy for this: to
tell the truth and to do right. Everything that pushes back the light, everything that heaps darkness
upon darkness, will only prolong and complicate the crisis.

The role of the good citizens, those who feel the need for an end, is given: it means to demand full
clarity. There are already many of us who think so. The men of literature, philosophy and science are
rising up on all sides in the name of intelligence and reason.

And I am not talking to you about foreign countries, about the shudder that has gripped the whole of
Europe. After all, foreign countries are not really our enemies. Let us not speak of those peoples who
may be our enemies tomorrow.

(133)

Emile Zola continues:

But the great Russia, our ally, the small and noble Holland, all the sympathetic peoples of the North,
and. the countries of French tongue, Switzerland and Belgium, why is everyone's heart so heavy, so
overflowing with brotherly pity? Can you imagine a France isolated in the world? Do you want to
cross our national borders, do you want then to smile at our good reputation of justice and humanity,
which will have become a legend?

Ah, gentlemen, perhaps you, like so many others, are waiting for the weather, the proof of Dreyfus'
innocence, to come down from heaven like a thunderbolt? Truth does not usually advance in this way:
it demands that you look for it with understanding. The proof? We know where it is, where it could be
found. But we think about it only in the depths of our soul; our patriotic anxiety is that one day we will
receive the infallible refutation of this proof, having tied the honor of the army to a lie.

I openly declare that even if we have named certain members of the foreign legations as witnesses, it
was not our intention to invite them here in the first place. They made fun of our boldness I do not
believe that they did so in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because there they understood us well. We
simply wanted to tell those who know the full truth that we also know it. This truth is obviously on the
foreign legations: tomorrow they will all know it.

And even if it is made impossible for us, under the protection of insurmountable formalities, to search
for them here in this place, the government, which knows everything, is firmly convinced with us of
Dreyfus' innocence, so it could, if it wished, find without danger the witnesses who would finally shed
light.

81
Dreyfus is innocent, I swear it. I stake my life and my honor on it. In this solemn hour,-before this
tribunal which represents human justice, before you, gentlemen of the jury, in whom my fatherland is
embodied, before all France, before the whole world, I swear: Dreyfus is innocent! By my forty years
of honest work, by the authority that this work could give me, I swear: Dreyfus is innocent!

(134)

By all that I have achieved, by the name I have made for myself, by my works that have contributed to
the spread of French literature, I swear: Dreyfus is innocent! Everything may collapse, my works may
perish, if he is not innocent. He is innocent!

Everything seems to be against me, the two chambers, the bourgeois as well as the military power,
the newspapers with their large circulations, the public opinion poisoned by them. For me is only the
ideal, the ideal of truth and justice. And I am calm, I will win!

I did not want my fatherland to remain in lies and injustice. Here I can be punished. But France will
thank me one day for having helped to save its honor."

Advocate Labori, defender of Emile Zola:

"I do not think that at any time there has been a matter that more deeply excited the conscience than
this. Between the decision of some and the clamor of others, the people, insufficiently enlightened,
full of good faith, still hesitant, stands, on the one hand, with those who, without reason, consider the
honor of the army and the good of the fatherland endangered, and on the other hand, everything
that France possesses in independence and in spirit.

I need only mention the names: Anatole France, Duclaux, Gabriel Monod, Michel Bréal, Jean Psichari,
Réville, Passy, Pressensé, Havet, Séailles and that admirable old man Grumaux, whom the army
certainly cannot deny. And among these two camps, so unequal in number, I am not in doubt which
way this great people, which has always been throughout history the guardian of liberty, of law and
of the highest thoughts of civilization, would lean, if the public authorities, misled by their temporary
interest, supported by their own worst opponents, did not continually deceive the country by their
always similar and never proven declarations.

(135)

The whole world knows that they have only one goal: to gain three months of time for the elections;
the whole world knows that there are 300 deputies in the House and 150-200 senators in the Senate
who consider the revision inevitable but do not want to pronounce it until after the elections. But
these elections, for the honor of the universal suffrage, must not take place in that darkness which
hypocrisy and ambiguity have created.

And the rulers, who should be the leaders of the nation, are not content to separate themselves from
that band of chosen men, but they themselves deliver them up to insult and slander, and this insult
which is hurled in their faces is that they are the members of a 'syndicate which has joined together
for-money interests to help the Jews and to corrupt the country.'

The Syndicate!

A clever, resourceful word, an invention of talented and gullible pamphleteers, but an infamous word,
which has been approved even by the prosecutor. I see only honor in the fact that a family, with the
help of friends, risks its fortune to save a man whom it knows to be innocent. But if one wants to say

82
that Mr. Zola is bought, I reply loudly: That is a lie, or better, it is childish! If he and his friends defend
themselves at all, they do it only in the interest of the cause they represent.

No, gentlemen of the jury, there is no money syndicate that can produce such movements, generate
such energy and such resistance; it is not money that has brought here, apart from the men already
mentioned, people like Scheurer-Kestner, Trarieux, politicians like Jaures, Couguet and - may the hall
protest calmly - Josef Reinach. Artists like Clairin, Eugène, Carriére, Monet, Bruneau, Desmoulins,
writers like Quillard, Ajalbert, Victor Bérard, Meunier, Rane, Lacroid, Guyot, Séverine.

(136)

Labori, continues:
All those mentioned and the many whom I have forgotten deserve thanks, not in the name of Zola,
but in that of a high cause, they will one day have a right to the gratitude of the fatherland. They will
have it because, at a moment when courage was required, they placed truth and right above all else,
because they understood that the eternal ideal of the true and the good is the shining star that guides
the nations, that one must harmonize one's actions with one's fiefdoms, because they thus defended
and protected the true patrimony of France.

The sentence of 1894 against Dreyfus has never ceased to weigh on the conscience of the people. I
am not saying that the majority of the citizens doubt the legality of the sentence, but even many who
remain silent have been confused by the darkness of the trial, by the terrible scene of degradation, by
the stubborn insistence of the condemned on his innocence.

I find no better proof of this than an article carried by the "Intransigeant" this morning. It is from the
pen of Mr. Clémenceau, and one thinks him uncomfortable when one recalls that in December 1894
and January 1895, he was among those most zealous against the traitor. Like many, he believed then
in the justice and legality of the decision, and therefore his opinion today has for me all the greater
weight.

But while the majority doubted, those who approached this family, which one despises only if one
does not know it and finds worthy if one approaches it, those who knew the defender who remained
steadfast in his conviction, kept a doubt and a hope.

That ugly anti-Semitism, with which the honor of the army has nothing to do, dares to say that one
should not cry over the betrayal of an officer if his name is Dreyfus, and he is a Jew. To justify this
value of hope, I will refer to a man who for a long time has not spared us accusations and insults, but
whom I consider a man of good faith, that is Mr. Paul de Cassagnac, director of the "Autorité." Listen
to what he said the day before Dreyfus was sentenced:

'We have the invincible feeling that this judgment will produce deep sadness and bitter
disappointment in the country, for the majority of the people in France, however little they may be
inclined to the Jews, never drove the delusion of religious hatred so far as to wish that a traitor should
be found among our officers, even if he be a Jew, for love of country knows neither Jew nor Christian;
France is the mother to all, and she suffers the public dishonor of one of her children.'

(137)

Labori, continues:
At that time, when the evidence was obscured, the public opinion took possession of the matter,
wanted to know everything, to judge everything, and that is how the campaign came into being,

83
which in three years has led up to the jury court. On the eve of the trial of 1894, the whole press and
even that of Mr. Drumont demanded the publicity of the trial. Cassagnac said on December 4 and 8,
1894:

Labori quotes Cassagnac:

'The further I go, the more I wonder if perhaps Captain Dreyfus is not innocent. Do not shout, dear
readers, but think! Would not this solution be the most desirable? From the beginning I have never for
a moment entertained the thought that a French officer had sold his fatherland to the enemy, and my
hatred of Jews will not lead me to prefer to find a guilty man than an innocent one under the
uniform.

What gives me doubts are the allegations about the document which is the basis of the accusation. It
is said to be from the hand of Dreyfus, it is said to have been found by a secret agent in the
wastepaper basket of a legation. Dreyfus denies the handwriting, and of four experts, three confirm
it, while one protests. If this is the only evidence, the charge against Dreyfus is unwise and frivolous.
Nothing is proven by experts, they have often been wrong.

Unfortunately for Dreyfus, it seems that there are other things. There is talk of another document
found with the same military attaché. Yes, but the government does not have the courage to say how
and from where it has this document, and one does not want to present it.

(138)

What then remains of the prosecution? Does the responsible government not consider itself
sufficiently covered, because it requested the secret procedure? Is it afraid of that foreign power
whose attaché played an unattractive role? We do not know, but we know that the public opinion
does not want a blackout, and this would be only-the double imprudence: a cowardice. A French
officer should have the right in his fatherland to defend his honor publicly, and the government
accusing him has, the duty to grant him the favor of full light. Let the government beware!

One should not be content with a conviction on the basis of simple suspicion and secret proceedings in
order to stifle the matter. There is a guilty party, and if it is not Dreyfus, it is the government.

If Dreyfus is acquitted, the Minister of War becomes a traitor; if Dreyfus is acquitted, the Minister of
War must be expelled not only from the government but from the army for having suspected an
innocent officer.

Confused as I am myself, I believe today in the guilt of Dreyfus. Because I cannot imagine that he, a
family man whose wife and children were dishonored with him, would have been tortured and
persecuted for months if one was not certain of his guilt. And also for this reason, a public debate is
essential. The acquittal in the dark would leave Dreyfus under suspicion or would give rise to the
belief that it was done out of fear of that foreign power, or one would say that the Jews bought the
conscience of the judges.

An acquittal in secret is not one, it is a hypocritical and shameful condemnation. For a condemnation
in our society, rather one morally and physically kills one of its children, it requires the irrefutable,
publicly stated evidence. To deprive a man, a soldier, of his honor and life without saying why, that is
impossible. Human reason forbids such a return to the darkest traditions of the-secret courts of Spain
and the Netherlands. The government of the Republic to renew the conduct of the Inquisition and the
holy Vehme: that is impossible! For that would be too shameful.'

So far Paul de Cassagnac (quoted by Labori).

84
(139)

Labori continues:
"It is impossible and yet, gentlemen, it happened: the secret procedure took place and the doubt
remained!

The forebodings turned into fear for some when an article appeared in the 'Eclair' on September 15,
1897, of which the prosecutor spoke. Esterhazy wrongly attributed it to Colonel Picquart, because
already the wording shows the opposite. Here is an excerpt:

'A French officer atones in the Bagne for the crime of high treason. In order for this penance to be
perfect, not a single conscience must give the traitor the benefit of the doubt, and this doubt shows
itself in repeated articles in which one strives loudly and boldly to spread a scandalous legend around
Dreyfus'.

Such an article, full of lies, could, as it goes without saying, neither come from Colonel Picquart, nor
from the Dreyfus family. It says there (in the journal 'Eclair') further:

'In order for his guilt to be completely clear, it is necessary that the whole truth be known. We have
demanded from the government to be allowed to say this; the government does not believe to step
out of that restraint which a diplomatic consideration imposes on it, but we are not bound to it! The
irrefutable proof, the written proof of this high treason is before us. In our opinion, and it will be that
of all Frenchmen, it is patriotic to disclose all the testimony of treason in order to prove that the
judges of the military tribunal delivered their verdict with a clear conscience and that Dreyfus was
guilty in spite of his denial.'

(140)

Labori continues:
Then one speaks about the loss of pieces of files in the War Department and one continues to say
(continues to quote the newspaper 'Eclair' here):

'There was no hesitation in laying one's hand on a file of exceptional importance, because it was the
one that later brought about the unanimous condemnation. The military attachés of the German
Embassy addressed a ciphered letter to their colleagues at the Italian Embassy in September. Again a
lie, the letter was not ciphered! This letter probably left its originators to also reach the hands of its
addressees, but before that it had been skillfully read and carefully photographed. One possessed the
cipher of the German embassy (!) Around September 20, Colonel Sandherr communicated this letter
to General Mercier. He referred to the spy service in Paris and received the following sentence:

'Cette canaille de DREYFUS devient trop exigeant'

and the name Dreyfus written in large letters, although it never appeared in this document. As soon
as the document with the order of investigation was delivered to the Minister of War, the top-secret
investigation began. Dreyfus, who had completely regained control of himself, always insisted on his
innocence despite the oppressive evidence, he did not know and perhaps still does not know that the
Minister of War possessed the photograph of that letter in which his name was written (!).

The letter which he had written and which he had been careful not to draw was only a moral proof
(here it is about the borderau). The proof could not be delayed, and that was the presentation of the
document in which Dreyfus was named. It could decide the conviction of the court and cause that the
traitor did not escape his punishment. But this document, so serious, was confidential; the minister

85
could not deliver it without a court order. This was issued, but it was still emphasized that the
document should not be presented during the debate. It was therefore communicated to the judges
alone during the deliberation. As irrefutable evidence, it determined the feeling of the members of
this court-martial: they were unanimous in their judgment of the traitor's guilt and of his punishment.

(141)

Labori continues:
This letter could only come from the Bureau of the General Staff. There is a similarity between the
procedure by which one wanted to close our mouths the day before yesterday and that publication in
the 'Eclair' of an alleged proof of which one does not speak any more today, which does not pull any
more today because it is ridiculous, just like those proofs which one brings us now.

And I ask: is it the Dreyfus family, is it Colonel Picquart, who, by the way, did not know the Dreyfus
family at that moment, who inspired such an article? If he were only malicious, one could say that it
was a ruse, but he is not only malicious, but mendacious in the details. And the lie goes to destroy any
attempt, any hope of success of the struggle for revision.

The secret of national defense, as Colonel Picquart told you, does not come into consideration at all.
The way we can discuss the matter here is the best proof of that.

Three days after this article appeared, Mr. Demange met his old colleague, Advocate Salle, who told
him:

'Ah, my dear Demange, I am glad to see you to free me from a secret that I have on my conscience'

'What is it?" asked Demange.

'The article of the 'Eclair'' was the answer of Advocate Salle. 'What he says about the secret file is the
truth!' A few days after the judgment of the court-martial, I dined with some friends, among whom
was one of the judges of Dreyfus.'

I (Advocate Salle) told him:

'How could you unanimously condemn Dreyfus, when Demange, whom I know to be an honest man,
tells me that there was nothing in the dossier and that he counted on acquittal until the last moment?

'Ah,' replied the officer, 'that is very easily explained: Demange has just not seen what we have seen;
if he had seen it, he would think as we do.'

(142)

Labori continues:
That is, so the practical truth, in the article of the 'Eclair'. All details are a lie. What is certain,
however, is that without his and his defense counsel's knowledge, the accused was convicted on the
presentation of one or more secret documents.

At that time, indignation began to stir in troubled consciences. It was only a seed. But this seed grew
and spread; fear turned into indignation when the 'Matin' published the Bordereau, which in nothing
resembles Dreyfus' handwriting.

And at last, this indignation turned into astonishment when the indictment of Major d'Ormescheville
appeared. Its childishness caused the revolt of all the people who judge and think, of those who have

86
come here to speak to you of the scientific spirit that one would have liked to find in a document of
this importance, and which is completely absent from it.

Since then, one has seen growing every day the crowd of people who, I do not say before the army,
but before certain chiefs of the army, want to sacrifice the freedom of their judgment and the
independence of their conscience, who believe that no institution is above the law, and who therefore
consider that if Dreyfus has been convicted illegally, he must be tried anew, whether guilty or
innocent.

And that is the reason of what is called 'syndicate'. The common goal of this so-called 'syndicate',
apart from the conviction of the innocence of the condemned, which you are slow to reach, which you
will have reached the day after tomorrow, is justice, the right, the violated ideal, which we now take
in hand and which, despite all hostility and anger, is our strength and our security.

Syndicate: Yes! but a syndicate of faith, unselfishness, and hope!

A voice from the hall: "For gold!"

Labori: If we had paid you, you might manifest in our favor!!!

President: Master Labori, do not speak to the audience!
(143)

Labori: Mr. President, I beg your pardon, but I have to make my own police. For the rest, I am very
calm. I know that, in the end, the intimidations and the threats will only strengthen you in your
resolve to judge with impartial calm.

Gentlemen of the jury, Zola is not only a creative genius, but he is a poet, the bearer of the ideal, and
as for his fame, you must not ask deluded people, but you must look for this standard throughout
Europe.

What did he have to gain here? Loss of time, shouting, vituperation and insult. But he was driven by
the need to translate his conviction into action; aware of the power of the pen and the power of
thought, he wanted to harmonize his actions with the innermost conviction of his soul by a grandiose
expression - they may call it fierce. He wanted to be a man of action!

And that, gentlemen of the jury, was necessary on the day after the acquittal of Esterhazy. The
indictment in the form of an apotheosis forced the judging officers, whose good faith I acknowledge,
to acquit him.

Under the present circumstances, I too would have acquitted. After the Minister of War had declared
Dreyfus just and legally condemned on the tribune, it was no longer permissible to condemn another
as the author of the bordereau. But all those who had already doubted and worried, and who had
now slowly advanced to certainty, were seized with terror.

It was necessary that one who had so much self-confidence and so much authority among his fellow
citizens came to say aloud what many felt very quietly, and to act. A revolutionary act, he said it
himself, and Mr. Prosecutor seized the word. But it took a revolution to lead minds to reason and
truth and Mr. Zola started it; you will finish it and the only peaceful solution is acquittal.

(144)

87
Labori continues:
How was this act of Mr. Zola received? A few have seen in it a signal to unite and have gone out as if
to war, the attacked have answered by stupefying shouting. The great, credulous, but indifferent
crowd, suddenly startled out of its calm, has passed a twofold judgment. They found that his letter
was too violent and mistakenly thought that it contained insults against the army. But it was
predicted: Dreyfus was condemned by his peers, Esterhazy was acquitted by his own.

Behind it all stands the general staff. We will never admit that an entire general staff could be guilty
and would rather that Dreyfus remain guilty. And one has said to oneself: there are trustworthy men
in the government, too, they know everything and yet they do not seek the revision; that is why
Dreyfus is rightly condemned. All these forget that things in life do not present themselves so simply,
that questions usually contain a dilemma, that Dreyfus can be innocent without those who
condemned him being - I do not want to say responsible, but knowingly responsible and knowingly
guilty.

They do not think that an error at the beginning is enough, they do not think that if one would draw
such a conclusion, as one does here, it could be applied from Jesus Christ to Pierre Vaux, not
forgetting Joan of Arc. One forgets that the reason of state could be applied to even worse acts of
governments, from the Night of St. Bartholomew to the Edict of Nantes, to the horror of the
Revolution and to the legal murder of the Duke of England, which was also pronounced by a military
commission.

These conclusions are terrible, cruel, wrong, absurd, but I think they are bona fide and sincere, and I
believe that all who think so, once they have grasped the truth, will eventually be with us. That it is so
difficult to grasp is clear from the fact of how difficult it is made for us even here at the Court to arrive
at a partial truth

(145)

Labori continues:
Insults to the army? What is the army, then? Is it a few individuals, high as they may be? Is it not the
whole nation in connection with a large number of officers who are honorable, whether of the
General Staff or elsewhere, by their courage and talent? And at the top a small number of permanent
chiefs, experienced but fallible-like all men. Respecting the army, does it mean that everything should
be allowed - I do not say to this army, but to some chiefs? Does it mean that it should form a special
caste, outside and above the citizens, as Mr. Méline announced in the Chamber on January 22? Is any
citizen in this country indispensable from the outset? If one throws in here the threat that the day
after the acquittal the general staff would withdraw, I am convinced that in this wonderful army
there will be no lack of hands to receive the command staff and to give us the same strength and the
same security towards foreign countries.

So no empty threats, no indispensable personalities in this country, no people who are above the
judgment of the jury!

And do you know why military supremacy must not be allowed? Because it would be the most
oppressive of all, more oppressive than the rule of the Turks or the Tartars. Because in those peoples
where absolute military power reigns, there is a responsibility, that of the chief before his people,
before the future of his dynasty, sometimes before a god, while in a country like ours, where there is
no uniform and personally lasting responsibility, the military dictatorship would not be that of a man,
but that of a bureau or a general staff, and would soon degenerate into an anonymous oligarchy,

88
without counterbalance, without accountability, a hundred times more cruel than all the oppression
that one has come to know.

(146)

Labori continues:
And if Mr. Zola is accused of having insulted the army, listen to how the papers write that are the
representatives of this accusation. In the 'Intransigeant' of March 3, 1897, there is a letter attributed
to a higher officer and in it the following floral reading is found:

(L'Intransigeant:)
'It is a monstrosity to see the supreme command of the army in the hands of a 70-year-old old man
(they speak of General Saussier), long since recognized as worthless in war and peace.'

And from General Boisdeffre it is said:

'As for him, foolishly sprung from a nobility of which he has no merit, and now run down, he is a
loafer, ignorant as a carp...so ignorant that he has never had the courage to learn a word of German
and that the Chief of the General Staff needs an interpreter to read a single word in that language.'

From these highest chiefs one cannot infer the others, there are very capable people among them, but
one can infer the new and terrible situation in which we would find ourselves in the event of a new
conflagration of war. And one reads such things even more often, and one reads them not only in
Rochefort, but also in the 'Libre Parole' of Mr. Drumont:

And in today's 'Autorité'-of Mr. de Cassagnac there is a letter which says, among other things: 'One
man is at the moment the target of all public contempt, that is the Minister of War...Not one of our
27,000 officers, of one of our own comrades would dare to defend him.... '

Labori continues:
It is strange that among the two affairs which here interplay, the Dreyfus affair and the Esterhazy
affair, one may speak of the latter and not of the former: whence this distinction? Is it the 'judged
matter' that demands silence? Yes, but isn't the Esterhazy affair just as 'judged'?

I will not bind myself to this distinction. I will chronologically record the facts, regardless of all
obstacles prepared for us. I will try, independently of all darkness, to give full light to your spirit, and it
is the task of my speech to reproduce that which is known and to establish and supplement by
reasoning that which is not known. "

(147)

Second day.
Tuesday, February 22, 1898.
No expression of admiration is strong enough to describe Labori's masterly performance today. Step
by step, in his two-hour speech, he led the breathlessly listening auditorium through the gruesome
drama of the Dreyfus trial, revealing the entire hollowness and lawlessness of the proceedings, from

89
the first suspicion to the scene of degradation. And one had to accompany him on this way, whether
one liked or not.

One saw them in front of one's eyes, the heroes of this tragedy: the colonel du Paty de Clam, how he
wants to extract a confession with the lantern, how he torments the heavily tested wife of the
accused, - the good Major Forzinetti, how he, as a jailer, assures the minister that his prisoner is
innocent. The hollow phrases of the ministers and deputies on the tribune resound in the original
sound.

Then follows the scene before the court-martial of 1894: Maître Demange pleading to be heard, the
chairman harshly interrupting him, again and again and again, until the door of the secret procedure
closes behind the unfortunate victim, long since executed before the condemnation. And then - the
angel of silent horror roams the hall - then he himself appears in that gruesome appearance of
degradation.

Labori reads out the report of Paul de Cassagnac, his opponent. But how does he read it?

That is no longer Labori, that is he himself, the rushed man, as he utters the cry of pain in the last
effort of his strength:

"Je suis innocent ! Je le jure ! Vive la France!"

And muffled you can hear the crowd roar:

"A la mort ! A la mort !"

In a wistful tone, the letters of the condemned man to his defense attorney Demange follow - and
everyone feels the innocence struck to death. And this man, he exclaims, is supposed to have made a
confession to Captain Lebrun-Renault? - Lie, ridiculous, childish lie! Out with this confession, which is
not one, because it was not even recorded in the forms prescribed by law for a man sentenced to
death!

(148)

A Garrick, a Talma is he, this Labori, but one who plays himself!

And yet he always remains the fine advocate, who relentlessly picks apart all the arguments of the
opponents, who in perpetual assurance of their good faith drags the gentlemen of the General Staff
into the light in all their nakedness. The Dreyfus affair "au grand jour", that is the result of today.

The president has abdicated; against the sovereign rights of the defender, his sophisms no longer
hold.

And when Labori had ended, a storm of applause broke out among the mostly reluctant listeners that
would not end. An officer of the Algerian Tirailleurs jumped on the bench and announced the military
coup:

"This is too much. This must be put to an end!"

Today Zola has won the case. Not as if it is at all certain that he will be acquitted. Even his conviction
will be only a new resurrection. But an acquittal would be the overthrow of the existing government
and the beginning of a new era of honesty and justice.

Thus the trial has taken on the highly political significance of the inevitable branding of an entire
system, which can no longer allow anything to happen to it. An end will be put to it, hopefully, but

90
probably in a different way, as the well-behaved, spirited officer in the dressy light blue uniform
thinks, the uniform that is also that of Colonel Picquart.

Advocate Labori, defender of Emile Zola:

"Let us put ourselves in the autumn of 1894! The then Captain Dreyfus was arrested on October 15,
without anyone except his wife knowing it. It was only on October 29 that the 'Libre Parole' spoke of it
in vague terms, and on November 1 in the 'Eclair', the two newspapers that from then on led the
campaign most fiercely.

Where did this indiscretion come from? General Mercier said that he knew nothing about it. It could
not have come from the Dreyfus family, since Madame Dreyfus had been threatened into silence. It
could only come from the bureaux of the War Ministry.

(149)

And then that article of the 'Eclair' says:

'The secretly conducted investigation has ended, the files have been established, the material
evidence has been provided'.

An inaccuracy, perhaps a lie. This is the starting point of the whole agitation. I could present you with
thousands of newspapers, one repeating the other,

that Dreyfus had connections of a proven kind with German and Italian spies,

that he made suspicious trips to Belgium and Alsace,

that he robbed an iron cabinet in the War Ministry,

handed over documents important for national defense to the enemy, and finally

that he had numerous bourgeois accomplices.

Admittedly, the darkness observed in this matter from the beginning has favored the spread of all
these lies.

On October 13,1894, Dreyfus was summoned to appear in civilian clothes at the War Ministry on the
15th. This proves that the arrest had already been decided, and that for the sake of publicity it was
not wanted to take place in uniform. On the 15th he appeared at the War Ministry and was arrested
after interrogation by Commander du Paty de Clam.

A house search was carried out. Madame Dreyfus was ordered to remain silent, referring to the 'Iron
Mask' and the danger to her husband's life, and this was strictly observed for fourteen days.

What are the facts now? What is going on in the Cherche-Midi prison? I would have wished that a
man authorized to do so, Commandant Forzinetti, would have recited this to you on oath. He was not
allowed to be heard. Fortunately, he gave a signed account in the 'Figaro'. I will read it out. Mr.
Forzinetti will certainly be here in the hall: if everything is not true, he will give me a denial."

(150)

Labori then reads the report of Major Forzinetti:

91
"On October 14, he receives word from the War Ministry of the arrival of a senior officer who
announces to him on the morning of the 15th the arrest of Captain Dreyfus. The prisoner was to be
guarded most strictly, was to keep neither knife, nor paper, pen, ink, pencil, and was to be fed like the
condemned. I was to take precautions against the steps that would probably be taken immediately by
the 'High Jewry'. Nothing of the kind took place. The arrest order bore the date of October I4th, i.e. it
had already been issued before the increase, and without the prior knowledge of the Governor of
Paris. From the moment of Captain Dreyfus' introduction into prison, he was buried alive."

There follows the narration of the well-known manner of examination by du Paty de Clam, the
dictation of phrases, the-attempt with a blinding lantern, etc. The prisoner's excitement became so
great, as did Major Forzinetti's conviction of his innocence, that on October 24 he had himself
reported to General de Boisdeffre, telling him:

"You're on the wrong track, this officer is innocent."

Labori continues:
"But the investigation went its course. When Dreyfus had been returned to his cell after the
sentencing, he said:

My only misfortune is that I was born a Jew. This is where a life full of work has led me. Why did I
enter the war school? Why didn't I, following the advice of my own, give my resignation'?

The other day, his defense attorney visited him. And Mr. Demange opened his arms to him, pressed
him crying to his chest, and said:

'My child, your condemnation is the greatest infamy of the century.'

Only from that moment on was Dreyfus allowed to correspond with his family under supervision. His
wife was allowed to visit him only twice during the whole time, his mother-in-law only once. These
visits, which the major attended, were harrowing.

Du Paty makes all possible attempts in vain to obtain a confession. At the end of his report, the
Major, who has a great deal of experience in this field, solemnly expresses his firm conviction that
Dreyfus was the innocent victim of a terrible mistake or an incomprehensible plot. He never made a
secret of this, neither to the press nor to the government.

(151)

Labori continues:
Major-Forzinetti is known to have been recalled from his post, but is still an active officer, as his
bosses know his feelings. His report is not only personally important, but also clearly shows the way
the trial has been conducted.

Secret investigation, almost romantic investigation, and then - the secret court, while at that time the
whole press demanded the open trial, and this, as we have now seen, could have no danger.

And now imagine these lies running through the press, these mysteries, these half-revelations. One
had to believe that there was a proven high treason. From this misleading and overstimulating of the
imagination at that time comes the firmly rooted conviction of Dreyfus' guilt in so many sincere and
thoroughly credulous minds. It is one of those crystallizations which take root and against which one
can no longer fight.

92
The matter has been further complicated by the help of ministerial statements. Minister Mercier, in
an interview which he denied but which the recipient, Mr. Reader, confirmed, spoke of 'documents
and civil accomplices'.

But with such shady justifications and rumors, two things were now necessary: first, a completely
legal procedure, and then a full clarification of all persons involved in the judicial trial, investigators,
council of ministers, defendant and judge.

The unshakable conviction of many of the best of the correctness of the 'judged thing' is now based
precisely on the fact that they believe that these conditions have been fulfilled.

For it cannot be that this conviction stems from the fact that Commander Dreyfus is a Jew. Anti-
Semitism is a doctrine that one must have the courage to reject out loud. Because it wants to sow
discord on the basis of the difference of religion, or if you like, also of race. But I really don't want to
offend any of our anti-Semites to the point of assuming that they would consider Dreyfus guilty only
because of his being a Jew.

(152)

Labori continues:
The strength of my gullible opponents - and only for them I plead - is just that they believe that
everything would have happened regularly and legally, that all involved would have had full insight.
And now, gentlemen of the jury, nothing of all this is true. Without speaking here of the violation of
the law that took place, to which I will return later, the nature and gravity of the facts was nowhere
proven:

Illicit steps of Dreyfus in Belgium and Germany: nothing. -

Relations with a legation or attaché, direct and live: nothing. -

Of real offenses nothing, nothing at all, at least as far as the defense was informed. -

But in the Ministry, there was a photograph of a letter exchanged between two military attachés of
the Triple Alliance, from which they tried to make a document for the Dreyfus trial, a convicting
document. This photograph was in the Ministry eight months before Dreyfus was thought of and
arrested. It does not refer to Dreyfus, which I will prove.

But in the indictment, according to the report d'Ormescheville - nothing of relations of Dreyfus to the
enemy, nothing of bourgeois accomplices! Let us take their beginning:

'The ground of the indictment against Captain Dreyfus is an accompanying letter on blotting paper,
unsigned and undated stating that confidential military documents had been delivered to the
agent of a foreign power.'

General Gonse confirmed this, acknowledged it, but added that he was not allowed to say by what
means it had been requested by order of the Minister.

So, all that is there at this moment is a manuscript, contradictory expertises about the same. Besides,
there is nothing, and the General Mercier, who can be a good soldier, but has no notion of
responsibility, in such big matters, takes everything on himself.

(153)

Labori continues:

93
He substitutes his impressions, his imagination, his belief in the truly childish actions of his
subordinates for the lack of evidence. Is childish too much to say? Then just think of the action of
Commandant du Paty de Clam, how after the indictment he has Captain Dreyfus write a letter
reproducing the contents of the bordereau, how he reports that after a few lines the writing becomes
irregular, and Dreyfus complained that it was cold in the bureau. Proof of guilt is then derived from
this.

I have said that General Mercier took it all on himself. His ministerial colleagues Guérin and Dupuy,
whom we sent for but could not question, knew nothing of other accusations. For them, to follow him
on this fatal road, there was only the word of their colleague.

Mr. Guérin clearly spoke about it in an interview that came to the 'Gaulois' through Mr. Marcel Hutin.
The ministers hide behind the official secrecy in front of the jury; thank God, they do not maintain it in
front of the press.

General Mercier said at the conclusion of the ministerial conversation reported there:

'I had the president of the Civil Tribunal of the Seine, Mr. Baudoin, come to see me, and he
recommended Mr. Bertillon to me.'

You see, gentlemen of the jury, that I was right when I exclaimed after questioning the gentleman:

'Here's the charge!'

'Never,' Mr. Guérin said, 'has anything been communicated to me or to any of my colleagues about
secret file items.'

And Mr. Dupuy also confirmed this in the 'Gaulois', adding that if the newspapers' officially undenied
statements about this were true, a serious violation of the law had taken place.

It is therefore to be noted that at the moment of the arrest of Dreyfus, from which everything else
follows, because one could not go back then, there are no secret documents, nothing else is available
but just the Borderau.

Later one spoke of a secret document since one throws still later documents into the debate. This is
the letter of the military attaché, which was photographed in passing and bears the postscript:

'Cette canaille de D....'

(154)

Labori continues:
And this document, which is completely worthless for the guilt, is lived on for years, it is called of the
highest importance. It is the one that Colonel Picquart is said to have shown to Mr. Leblois in his
cabinet, it appears in Ravary's report, it appears in the 'Eclair'. It is the same one that the ideal 'veiled
lady' later gives to Commander Esterhazy, the "liberating document."

Considering that this document had already been in the War Ministry for eight months, while nobody
thought of applying it to Dreyfus, wouldn't one have to be truly hypnotized on the name of Dreyfus to
apply this D to him? And if even the name were written out, it could still be a forgery. There are, as we
know, forgeries in these things, and if the commander Esterhazy speaks of forgeries, then one does
not even discuss it anymore, then it is certain, because he has just said it.

94
And then: is it allowed to completely despise the official declarations of certain powers with regard to
their relations with Dreyfus? If we wanted to, we could have called strangers to testify at this barrier.
But we did not want it at all, because we wanted to settle this matter among us Frenchmen, because
we can create the light alone, because we do not want to engage foreign countries, and because we
want to find ourselves, whatever may come out of these careless threats of war thrown into the
debate, if disunited today, yet hand in hand tomorrow towards foreign countries from which we ask
nothing (applause).

But is it permissible as a bona fide opponent of foreign countries to disregard such high and official
statements as were made in the Reichstag Commission and in the Italian Tribune?."

President: "Go on!"

Labori: "Foreign countries have no reason at all to defend traitors, it goes against diplomatic
customs. One does not hand over one's spies oneself, but to defend them when they have been
caught, there is no reason for that. Therefore, such statements must be paid attention to after all,
they may be put in the balance."

(155)

The defense counsel then moves on to the communication of the secret dossier on the part of
Colonel Picquart to Mr. Leblois. He does not want to accuse anyone for lack of good faith, he
considers the words of Archivist Gribelin and Colonel Henry to be quite sincere, but it seems that
they were under the influence of an optical illusion.

He cites some inconsistent data in the testimonies of these witnesses and in Ravary's report. - Mr.
Leblois took a decisive step with Mr. Scheurer-Kestner in 1887: if, as those witnesses say, he had
searched the secret dossier at that time, i.e. as early as I896, he would hardly have waited a year to
do so.

In summary:

No serious evidence against Dreyfus!

No risk to foreign countries!

The audience misled by novelistic accounts and abuse of the secret

Nevertheless, we admit, Zola also admitted in his letter, that it was done in good faith. It is now sad
that one can make so many childish things in good faith and be so gullible. And yet the court-martial
of 1894 wanted to acquit after discussing the borderau, the only charge. Labori then reads the report
of the "Autorité" on the first session of the court-martial of I894, with the president brusquely
interrupting the defense counsel, Mr. Demange, every time he speaks of the "single document" and
fights the secret procedure.

Labori does not doubt the good faith of the judges of that court-martial, but they were under the
pressure of a very strong autosuggestion, of which Mr. Bertillon is a living example. I affirm it on my
honor, - for I have the files in my hands - that in the accusations there is nothing but: "Dreyfus is
curious...Drefyus demands information.... etc. etc.."

Labori continues:
"There was nothing, nothing at all different, I assure you, and Mr. Demange, if he were allowed to
speak, would confirm it. The best proof that no positive facts emerged from the testimonies and

95
hearings is that the Minister of War would have communicated them, perhaps not to his colleague
Trarieux or his friend Billot, but certainly to the trusted personal papers of the General Staff, the
'Jour', the 'Echo de Paris' and the 'Eclair'.

(156)

One means that has been used for months to close our mouths is the alleged confessions of Captain
Dreyfus to Captain Lebrun-Renaud. If this gentleman could have testified here, I would have asked
him for the date of his report to the Minister of War; it is dated November 1897. And then Messrs.
Clisson, Dumont, Fonbrune would have confirmed that Lebrun-Renaud told them about Dreyfus's
degradation, without saying a word about these alleged confessions.

Madame Chapelon, who did not appear here as a witness as a result of threats, has published a
report in the 'Aurore' that in more than a hundred conversations with her, Captain Lebrun-Renaud
never spoke of these confessions. Also, you will remember the scene that took place here in the Palace
of Justice. Major Forzinetti said there to Lebrun-Renaud:

You know very well that in all conversations about Dreyfus you told me that he had not made a
confession. You even told me that, as a result of the newspaper talk about it, you reported it to the
Minister of War and the President of the Republic at the time. If you now use the language attributed
to you, you are a miserable liar!'

Captain Lebrun-Renaud did not return a word, but General Gonse intervened, sought to reassure the
major, and squeezed his hand....

Labori continues:
"The government, urged by public opinion, contented itself in the "Agence Havas" and in answering
the interpellation Cavaignac with vain evasions, invoking, as usual, the res judicata. If a confession
had really existed, which had nothing at all to do with the secret court proceedings, it would have
been the duty to make it known in order to calm public opinion and end doubts, and it would certainly
have been done."

(157)

As psychological proof of the impossibility of such a confession, the defense counsel reads out the
report of their degradation from the-"Autorité" of Mr. von Cassagnac, he reads out Dreyfus' letters to
his defense counsel Demange, and concludes:

Labori continues:
"For all men of sense and conscience, these letters weigh more heavily than all the declarations of Mr.
Lebrun-Renaud. Besides, even otherwise these confessions, not acknowledged by the condemned, not
countersigned, perhaps taken from some misunderstood utterance, would be worthless in
themselves."

Labori then reads out excerpts from the interrogations of Dreyfus by Major du Paty de Clam, which
shed light on his peculiar procedure.

"Thus, Dreyfus had requested an audience with the Minister of War. The next day, du Paty do Clam
informed him that the Minister of War wished to receive him,

'once he had entered the path of confessions.'

96
The answer is:

'I am innocent, I have nothing to confess.'

You see, they were not afraid to even set traps for the accused.

This, gentlemen, is the material of this building that we have to carry on our shoulders. It is lies on the
part of the one, those who are the subservient and miserable helpers of this business of darkness. It is
hypocrisy on the part of those higher up, the chief culprits who know everything. They may hear my
words when they reach them; they may remember them well:

The name that history has pinned to the most ignominious stake of shame, that is the name of
Pontius Pilate"!

(Loud applause.)

(158)

Third day.
Wednesday, February 23.
All high-tension developments run the risk of exhausting themselves before they have reached their
end point. So today was not quite at the height of the progress since then.

Labori, too, seemed somewhat fatigued by his fifteen-day giant performance. He, too, was hurrying
towards the end, and so it happened that he did not treat today's topic, the hub of the whole trial,
the actual Esterhazy affair, with quite the same detail and force as one would have expected of him.

It is true that there was by no means a lack of significant effects, especially where he ironically
recounted that historically well-known case of a writing expert, at the end of which the President of
the Court remarked that he himself had written the hand remark attributed by the experts to the
defendant as a forgery;

- so when he characterized the expertise of the year 1894 with the words:

'Instead of looking for a new traitor, they looked for a new writing expert'!

- so when he read the articles of the 'Jour' and the 'Autorité' of Mr. de Cassagnac from 1896, which -
today the most vehement opponents of the revision-- doubted Dreyfus' guilt at that time.

In the presentation of the Esterhazy affair, one had expected important revelations about the real
context of things, because in these days of general excitement, rumors were circulating here that
official communications had been made on the part of the Italian Embassy to the French Government
that Esterhazy had been the spy of Italy and Germany. -

But Labori kept himself as discreet as ever in this field, and the government ought really to be as
grateful to him for this as the general staff was to Colonel Picquart for his careful avoidance of all
sensational revelations, of which he was undoubtedly the master.

The speech of Georges Clémenceau, who is considered one of the most celebrated orators of France,
caused me some disappointment; it probably resembles that of Zola, and seems, probably more in
print than in delivery, for its content and train of thought are masterly. Clémenceau was also no

97
match for the increasingly violent manifestations of today's particularly carefully composed
audience.

(159)

In his short reply, the prosecutor acted as an agitator, he used all his rhetorical power to give the
signal to this auditorium for an expressive demonstration in favor of the army. That is not really the
task of a prosecutor!

The question is put, the jury retires, after thirty-five minutes they reappear, and their president
loudly announces the affirmative verdict reached by a majority and without granting extenuating
circumstances. It had been expected, not only as a result of the tremendous pressure of public and
military opinion, but because, in fact, Zola had not been able to prove the most vehement
expressions of an acquittal of Esterhazy "knowingly" and "by order." The accusation was cleverly
directed at this one blunder that the bold revolutionary had given himself.

The auditorium listens to the verdict in silence, but after half a minute, the roar of applause of
thousands of voices rises outside around the palace. The court pronounces the highest sentence, as
one had not expected, but actually could not have expected otherwise from its shortsightedness.

After fifteen days of strenuous work, the audience leaves the gloomy hall with a wide variety of
feelings and expressions. The curtain has fallen. The officers' strapping figures greet each other
triumphantly, but at the defendants' table Zola is surrounded by his friends, embraced,
congratulated!

(160)

Time is pressing, the readers want to receive this report, and yet it is impossible to complete it from
my own. So, I bring at the end as a picture of this day, the report of Madame Sévérine from the
"Fronde", at the same time a model of the earlier praised female reporting.

Labori finishes his defense speech masterfully and magnificently, he examines the famous document,
the last - -there are so many that could be destroyed- -the one that at the last hour the General de
Pellieux threw down, the visiting card with the letter; he believes in the authenticity of the card, not
in the remark that is written on it, even less in the enclosed letter.

He discusses the Bordereau, the reports of the sworn experts, all this nonsense, all this nonsense; he
recalls the admirable military career of Colonel Picquart, emerged from the war school, battalion
chief at 32, Knight of the Legion of Honor, promoted to the youngest colonel of the French army. He
exonerates him from all the accusations, he exposes his unassailable correctness, his complete
honorableness, his rare conscience, he assures that he will come out of everything not only purified,
but greater.

He brings back to the truth what has been slanderously said about the Dreyfus family: three brothers
among four opting for France: the eldest, after having done his French military service, remained in
Germany for business interests, but after all that had happened, he left Mulhouse in 1897, returned
to Belfort, had himself naturalized as French, after having had his six sons opt for French nationality.

(161)

At last he draws, - and with what avenging violence -, from his sinister and fantastic actions the
historical picture of Esterhazy. But then he concludes:

98
Labori:
"I place myself on the narrow ground to which the action of the War Department has confined us,
nothing remains but that in 1894 one man, a Secretary of War, in the absence of all evidence, took it
upon himself to have one of his officers condemned; and since then, everything has been done to
maintain the error under cover of darkness.

Zola's letter was a cry of justice, indeed this letter of Zola's united everything that, with the exception
of a few heads, France calls its own in the great and pure. Do not be confused and intimidated, the
honor of the army is not at stake, do not believe in this danger, because all these good officers, who
could be mistaken, will fight tomorrow with the highest honor and lead us to victory. Do not punish
Mr. Emile Zola, gentlemen of the jury! You know well that he is the honor of France. With the truth
and with the moral energy you fight the victorious battles. I also want to shout "Long live the army"
at the moment I ask you to acquit Zola. But I shout at the same time "Long live the Republic!" "Long
live the right!" "Long live the eternal ideal of justice and truth!" and with trustful calm, gentlemen of
the jury, I await your verdict."

Like the day before yesterday, like yesterday, give the brave defender the applause he deserves....

It is now the turn of Mr. Georges Clémenceau:

"After the young master's splendid speech of defense, I have nothing to add to the evidence; but Mr.
Labori has left aside a point which it is necessary to explain. He has shown you there in the far
distance a man, perhaps the worst criminal, -perhaps a martyr; he has shown you how all human
powers are linked against the light, he has called you to revision, that is, to truth. Now you are the
judges, and after this drama that Labori has unrolled before you, it is a question of knowing what the
impression has been on us, on public opinion. It is a question of knowing where we all stood when
Dreyfus was condemned, and to show it to you, I will read you an article that I wrote then, and which
was held up to me-today."

(162)

He then reads out the article written in 1894, which the "Intransigeant" of the day before yesterday
had seized as a weapon against his present opinion. In the middle he interrupts himself:

"On the issue of secret proceedings, I have not changed my mind, but only on condition that all
documents have been disclosed to the defense."

Then he closes:

"At that time, I expressed the feelings that animated all Frenchmen; this article is the justification of
my behavior today. On the day when the French army condemned Dreyfus, we were all against the
"traitor", we could not hesitate, our respect for the verdict could not waver for a moment, and
precisely because we are incapable of insulting the army, we received its verdict in this way. After the
unanimity of that time, I wish that now the unanimity would be such that the judges could have been
mistaken. This contains no blame for the Army, because when the appeal comes, Dreyfus will again
appear before a court-martial.

Did we know then what had happened to the Bordereau? Did we know the fact of a secret file? Could
we consider it possible that a person was sentenced after such an interrogation, after such a purely
formal debate?

99
This trial, which I have attended, has helped to bring me to the thought that there is, however, reason
to suspect that an innocent man has been convicted. But-I cannot and will not say so, and neither can
you and certainly will not say so when you acquit Zola. You will simply be saying that you want a
regular administration of justice. Nor did we know at the time of Colonel Sandherr's prejudice against
the Jews."

(163)

The hall is full of protests, but very calmly the speaker Georges Clémenceau addresses the
audience:

"I say nothing offensive against any of the prejudices against the Jews, share a lot of very honorable
men. Mr. Lalance, the former deputy of Alsace has confirmed that the Colonel Sandherr had them, I
do not insult him by invoking this testimony.

I did not know before of the investigations demanded or begun by Colonel Picquart; I did not know of
all that was instigated against Colonel Picquart himself; I did not know the experts, but I have seen
them before these barriers. Yes, I have seen Mr. Bertillon and his scheme appear, I have heard Mr.
Theyssonière tell an incredible story of stray documents, I have heard Henn Charamay say that a
writing expert was not enough for a conviction, and I have heard General de Pellieux assure me that
the secret ancestry was not necessary at all.

I saw that public opinion outside tried to put pressure on you, gentlemen of the jury, I saw that in this
palace they beat someone who had shouted 'Long live the Republic!'

I could not have guessed that secret pieces of files, secret for Mr. Scheurer-Kestner, the General Billot,
were passing through Paris in the hands of a veiled lady, and were coming back to the War Ministry
through the hands of Mr. Esterhazy, who was given a receipt instead of being arrested.

I could not foresee that Esterhazy, the only real insulter of the army, would be showered with
applause on his way out of here by people who now shout: 'Long live the army!'

It is time to distinguish Esterhazy and the army, in whose veneration we are all united We have finally
heard the generals Boisdeffre and de Pellieux pronounce peculiar words at these barriers. We were
told to show an order for Esterhazy's acquittal, of which Zola spoke; well, instead, an order has been
pronounced for you here to condemn Zola.

From the start, do you not see this trace of light that grows and illuminates the truth? For my part, I
have been very slow to grasp the possibility of innocence.

(164)

I went to Mr. Scheurer-Kestner, who showed me manuscripts; I am not an expert, I was not yet
convinced, but how to resist the suspicion that comes from the resistance of public authorities to
clarity?

They said that it was a Jewish campaign, but they know well that the first suspicion of Dreyfus'
innocence arose within the army: it is the-Colonel Picquart who opened this path.

"Who is an anti-Semite!" exclaims Zola.

100
Clémenceau continues:
"You say that he is anti-Semitic, I didn't know, by the way it has nothing to do with it. Justice is the
highest ideal, and that is why it is the most difficult to achieve. Social organization appears as a
wonderful work. A people delegates its sovereignty to the elected who make the law, to the judges
who dispense justice, to the soldiers who execute it.

But it happens that people are mistaken, and then the danger lies precisely in the fact that they are
sincere. If one is mistaken, the others follow him and cover the error out of esprit de corps, and if it is
the army that seems to have been mistaken, they say that we have offended the army; but-we are
not offending them!

For 30 years we have been pursuing a double work, we are defeated, gloriously defeated, but
defeated nonetheless; we are pursuing an ideal of national revival, an ideal of justice and reform. We
must be strong, but we must also be just. Only apparently does the bourgeois society resist the
military one.

On the day of war, the two mix, because on that day we will all wear the uniform. But the trust does
not exclude the control. For 21 years we have had confidence in the army of the Empire!

Mr. Zola was accused of having written the 'Debâcle', ah! generals were found to do it, I say it quietly.

What Mr. Boisdeffre and Mr. de Pellieux have told us here proves how things must have been before
the court martial. What happened in open court reveals what happened in secret. What kind of
justice is this that discovers evidence two years after the conviction?

(165)

Clémenceau continues:
One denies a Scheurer Kestner open exposition in the chamber, but of course, one has also granted it
to the defense and the accused. That is not true French justice! -They cried out against that terrible
law of the Prairial decreed by Robespierre; yes, it was ugly, it was disgraceful, but it came into being
under the Revolution, in a turbulent and confused time.

But we are in full peace to do even worse. It is the misfortune of eventful times to offend when one
disagrees. We have seen officers here lying to each other, and tomorrow Colonel Picquart will cross
the sword with a comrade whom he may love at the bottom of his heart; but we ourselves, who do
not wear the uniform, are treated as bought by the Jews.

One speaks of the condemned thing; just look at the condemned thing: (he points to the crucified
Christ hanging on the back wall of the hall above the court) they have hung in the courts this image
which recalls the most ghastly error of law that history has ever known, but they hang it behind the
judges so that they cannot see it! I am not one of his worshippers, but I love him perhaps more than
those who invoke him so strangely to preach religious persecution.

We stand here before-you, you will pronounce your verdict-.

Many Frenchmen say it is possible that Dreyfus was sentenced irregularly, but he was sentenced
justly, and that is enough! This is the sophism of the raison d'état.

We dance on the ruins of the Bastille every 14th of July, but we have preserved this lower Bastille: the
raison d'état. It is the raison d'état that, through the guillotine, stopped the wonderful movement of
1789. There is no justice outside the law.

101
Undoubtedly, it is painful to be in conflict with the military force, with those good people who
believed they were acting right.

(166)

It can happen to anyone that he thinks he is acting justly, and yet he is mistaken. It happens to
commoners without uniforms, and it also happens to commoners in uniforms, because soldiers are
nothing else.

Gentlemen of the jury, do us the service of stopping the beginning of a religious war!

You have seen what happened in Algiers, say in the name of the French people that justice is needed,
even for the Jews!

Tell the beginning of the religious war: 'This far and no further'!

We appear before you, gentlemen of the jury:-yourselves appear before history."

The speech ends under a thunderstorm of the auditorium, which grows larger and larger.

Mr. van Cassel answers; he is the accuser, he reaps, applause.

Labori rises indignantly, tired but magnificently he still speaks few words for the justice and for the
truth.

The jury leaves, comes back and pronounces its verdict. A joy of "KannibaIen" breaks out to need
Zola's word, and it seems to carry away the military part of the assembly to folly. The Court returns
and pronounces the sentence.

Then it is already madness, the crowd standing outside screams for death, while we, rich in
numbers, offer the condemned the tribute of our respect, our enthusiasm and, moreover, our
adoration.

Prosecutor van Cassel's Replica:

"I have to ask the question all over again:

Mr. Zola has declared that the court-martial sentenced by order, has he brought the slightest proof of
this? He has not even tried!

But for 12 days the insult to the army has been thrown in here, and during 3 days, in order to be
tolerated here at all, one must always repeat that the general staff is composed of good people, and
that the court martial has judged in good faith.

The offenders are forced to retreat behind the army, shouting: "Long live the army"!

(167)

Defender Labori:
"This last incident was necessary to show between whom this debate is going on here, between those
who fight for justice and right, and between those who shout 'Enough!" when, on behalf of the
accused, the defense lawyer wants to take the last word.

You call me an insulter of the army, because it is me you are targeting, who has been speaking for 12
days. I am not used to such attacks, and I am not one of those who tolerate them.

102
I do not accept this insult that comes to me from your seat, Mr. Prosecutor, however high it may be.
You and I are the same, except for talent! You have no right to lecture me, I deny you this right, and if
you rose to say these short words, it was only to unleash a rally that you could expect from an
auditorium composed against us.

There are two ways of understanding the law. Gentlemen of the jury, the question before you is: Is
Zola guilty?

(Shouting yes, yes! Tumult!)

May this clamor dictate to you the duty of firmness that is incumbent upon you, you are the supreme
judges, higher than the army, higher than the judicial power; you are the justice of the people, above
which only the justice of history stands. If you have the courage, say that Zola is guilty because he
fought against all hatred, for justice and for freedom."

103
 The jury's verdict.
The foreman of the jury rises:

"On my honor and conscience, the declaration of the jury is, as to Perrenx, 'yes' by
majority vote; as to ZoIa, 'yes' by majority vote. "

The Court's ruling.

Perrenx, manager of the "Aurore", to four months in prison and 3000 francs fine.
Emile Zola to one year in prison and 3000 francs fine.
(The maximum allowed by the law! )

(168)

104
 My closing.
The sentence has been pronounced, but it was a deception to think that it exhausted the meaning of
the trial, for this does not lie in the direct occasion, which is in itself only a scene in the great drama.

These days have provided to this movement of independent spirits of France, of which Zola has been
and will probably remain the standard-bearer, with extremely valuable material for the affirmation of
its views.

The crowd changes rapidly in its moods and sympathies, but the conscious spirits preserve their
conviction, they are compelled to proceed to its realization, and it is these spirits which, in the long
run, determine the direction of human development.

Who could have guessed that a Rousseau, a poor writer without influence, who lived solitarily by
writing music in the powerful society of the 18th century, would unleash the storm of the French
Revolution that reshaped Europe?

Whether Zola is in prison or not, whether the Dreyfus trial is revised or not - for my part, I consider
revision quite inevitable - the struggle for justice is unleashed in France, and it will not rest until it
reaches its goal.

It is the great error of the crowd to sacrifice so easily to the idols of the day, to believe that a single
wrong does not weigh heavily against the ideal of justice. How heavy it weighs, and how much it is
capable of undermining all the supports of this ideal, is already proven by the strange psychological
phenomena that have come to light in the wake of the passionate struggle since then.

For example, while everywhere and at all times it was considered a moral deed of the first order
when a brother, a family sacrificed their all for the life and honor of one of their relatives, now they
make a crime out of it.

(169)

The otherwise gallant nation, outraged by the witness call of a 55-year-old lady, finds no trace of
feeling for the truly heroic attitude of a poor woman fighting for what she believes to be her
innocent husband.

Conversely, the notorious depravity and unpatriotic behavior of an Esterhazy reveals a thoroughly
immoral, incomprehensible, people-poisoning tolerance.

These moral confusions have so far been spared to foreign countries, but already those peculiar
voices of witty people are rising there, too, who always like to assert the opposite of what everybody
believes: so in Berlin Mr. Maximilian Harden, so on the banks of the Elbe the "Hamburger
Nachrichten", so even in free Switzerland an occasional contributor to the "Berner Bund". I do not
blame, well understood, that sic are against Zola and Dreyfus, - everyone has the right of free opinion
- I only state that they approve those aberrations of moral judgment louder or quieter.

The peoples are seized like the individuals from time to time by fixed ideas. How else would be to
explain the flagellants, the witch trials, the crusades, even those of the children, and other more?
Such general psychopathic diseases are all the more dangerous because suggestion is involved in the
highest degree.

105
The individual always becomes an Other in diversity. In a theater fire, the most prudent people run
like mutton into the fire. In a crowd, the most educated persons behave boorishly. At the stock
exchange, the totality of the most cool-headed and perceptive people often becomes a crowd of
children, soon exulting in heaven, soon saddened to death, and in the hail of bullets, not only the
instinct of self-preservation, but even humanity is often silent among the noblest.

Why shouldn't the ideal of justice be temporarily lost to the hot-blooded, glory-loving French over
the idea of revanche?

(170)

When one has been under the impression of these negotiations for 15 days, the terrible
consequences of the "fixed idea" of our age, which underlies this whole tragedy, become clear: that
militarism is in the foreground of the political movement and has become a European dogma. It is
this militarism which, in its exaggeration, creates the aberrations that make such a trial possible in
the first place. For at its center, what I have found hardly noticed in the press, is the ignominy of
espionage!

One is horrified to see revealed this tissue of low practices to which, under the uncontrolled
suggestion of the times and their professional duties, the most honorable men unthinkingly indulge.
There we see high officers who have nothing to do but intercept letters, photograph them, prepare
them for anything, recruit and pay agents of the lowest sort.

There we see high-ranking aristocratic military attachés, men of the very finest honor, who have no
other profession than to ferret out the secrets of the country in which they are guests. There we see
a government admitting to intercepting, opening and photographing in secret the correspondences
of these gentlemen, to raiding their waste-paper baskets and spying in their porters' lodges, etc., etc.
As it is here in Paris, so it is everywhere, I suppose. Without these impure things, even the secret
courts-martial would not be such an imperious necessity.

In this field lies the tragic fate of Dreyfus, in this field lies also the tragic point of the whole present
affair, which is concentrated in the person of Colonel Picquart. An officer of brilliant career, of the
highest honor, suspected and persecuted by his own comrades and - in one point, unfortunately,
with some justification - he was the only one among his comrades to recognize that pernicious,
immoral activity, and fell honorably victim to the conflict between his military duty and his human
consciousness. His mistake was that he recognized it too late!

(171)

A man of his stature can accept any promotion at arms as worthy of him, but he should have turned
down with outward gratitude and inward indignation the appointment to the head of a "Bureau de
Renseignements", over whose door the inscription had better be: "General Spionage Bureau." The
fact that Picquart did not realize this in time, did not do it, is his tragic fate: this has also caused that
all those "innocent" actions, which he had to perform due to his profession and performed in good
faith, are now accused of him afterwards as dishonorable, even as a crime.....

It is time to think about these phenomena!

But a comforting phenomenon has also emerged in the course of these confused events. What can
be called a European public opinion is slowly forming. France has not yielded to it this time in the
urge of the passions, but it will not be able to escape its influence in the long run.

106
No man can live in a society that despises him. No nation can fulfill its mission if it is rebuked by the
whole world.

It is the duty of all calmly thinking friends of progress to continue to stand by the right-wringing
French with their sympathy, not to harm their fatherland - as the modern Jacobin press accuses them
of doing today - but to keep it on the cultural level it deserves.

(172)

Epilog
at the same time an anniversary reflection

Paris, Thursday, February 24, 1898.

Strange coincidence that the commemoration day of the beginning of the revolution meets the day
when you think you have ended a revolution.

I wanted to watch the trial aftermath at the Palais Bourbon, I hoped for at least some relaxation from
it. But I am bitterly disappointed. The level of the parliament is little higher than that of the
boulevards. Hubbard and Viviani have spoken excellent words, pointing out the appearance of
General de Boisdeffre, which is not compatible with the republican order, as well as the statement of
Major Ravary: that the military justice is not similar to the civil one, denounced the reproach of a
most Christian prince, but shakes hands with an Esterhazy, at least a writer of abominable letters.

Words have been spoken like "Boulangism without Boulanger" and: "The generals are not the
masters of the nation, but its servants!" - But here too, one feels, it is only a small minority.

(174)

The crowd is also under the impression in the chamber, which my barber reflected this morning with
the words:

"It was necessary to punish Zola severely because he doubted the honor of the army, which is our
main protection against foreign countries."

And Mr. Méline, the gaunt little man who walks briskly back and forth on the tribune, with nothing at
all imposing about him, gives worthy expression to these feelings:

"The government needs new weapons, and it's going to demand them from the Chamber."

107
Only foreign countries are guilty of everything! One can't help but think of a child hitting the table on
which it has bumped. The word of the "syndicate" has already become grandstanding: Mr. Méline
paraphrases it, but others pronounce it...

A profoundly sad feeling crept over me when I saw these "intellectuals" of today's France playing
around so frivolously down there, chatting and gossiping, as if in the theater, their eyes fixed on the
insignificant events and speeches of the stage and not noticing that under their own feet sparks,
smoldering, spiritual sparks that one does not extinguish with agendas.

I understood why so many French envied Germany for its emperor.

I felt that all theories are gray, and that in any case-a badly governed republic is the worst of all forms
of government.

Only once did my gaze brighten when I saw the mighty figure of Jaurès standing down there and
heard him interject:

"It is the irresponsibility of the High Command that prepares our misfortune"!

Beautiful France, too, still has its future, but it lies in the far distance: it can only be the result of a
laborious, thankless, renunciatory intellectual work of the few who have kept cool reason in this
witch's dance of blindly overstretched patriotism.

In contrast to the street revolutions since then, may this revolution from above, carried by the clear
sense of leading spirits, make its slow way!

May it not take another defeat to bring the French people back to their higher cultural tasks!

(175)

The government, as we saw today, does not lead, it is led by the current of a misguided public
opinion. So, perhaps, today it has again missed an important psychological moment. With the
general satisfaction over the condemnation of Zola, it could calm all minds if it at least held out the
prospect of examining the question of revision, which, in view of the events in the courtroom, will
sooner or later become necessary. Its sense of victory did not allow it to take such a prudent stance.

The people and the government agree: the foreigners can come quietly to Paris, because those
spirits which will make the next revolution, do not fight in the streets!

108