Dreyfus Affair

“ An epilogue to the Dreyfus affair was the trial for treason before the Senate, at the end of 1899, of a number of persons, mostly obscure followers either of M. Déroulède the poet, who advocated a plebiscitary republic, or of the duc d’Orléans, the pretender of the constitutional monarchy. The State trial of 1899. On the day of President Faure’s funeral M. Déroulède had vainly tried to entice General Roget, a zealous adversary of Dreyfus, who was on duty with his troops, to march on the Elysée in order to evict the newly-elected president of the Republic. ”

“ Let the government have a care. The people will not be satisfied with a minimum sentence based on presumptions, and formulated behind doors closed to stifle the affair. Somebody here is guilty. If it is not Captain Dreyfus, it is the government. And what a terrible responsibility would weigh upon the government of the republic if it were proved that, without proofs convincing to the most sceptical, it had committed the horrible crime of sullying the whole French army in accusing an officer of the most frightful of misdeeds, of having sold his country to the enemy. ”

“ On the 12th, Hamard, Chief of the Sûreté (Criminal Investigation Department) arrests Major Esterhazy and his friend, Mme. Pays.
On the 17th, a letter from Zola to Brisson is published. The letter may be summed up in these words: France is in a hopeless way, and no Ministry will last so long as the Dreyfus affair is not legally dealt with. The President tells me: "If the affair is reopened, we shall never see the end of it; a revision would bring chaos and perhaps even civil war in its wake. Dreyfus was found guilty. If we are firm all this agitation in his favour will subside ”

“ Baratier, Marchand's companion, is on his way to Cairo with the famous report.
Fashoda does not monopolise public attention. The Dreyfus dispute waxes hotter than ever. Most of the newspapers contain nothing but scurrility and abuse. Some deliberately confuse the Fashoda affair and the Dreyfus affair.... Rochefort writes in the Intransigeant: "I should not be surprised if the English took advantage of the cowardice of our Government in order to seize Devil's Isle and free the traitor Dreyfus, whom they love so much!"
The air of Paris is thick with ominous symptoms. ”

“ And, then, it is precisely because the task is a laudable one, because we all are suffering from the most cruel pangs that have ever tortured human beings, because, also, in this horrible affair there is a double interest at stake—our personal interest and the interest of our country—it is just because of this, dear Lucie, that it is your duty to appeal to all the forces that the Government has at its command to put an end as soon as possible to this appalling martyrdom. It is a martyrdom that no creature having a human heart, a human brain, could resist indefinitely. ”

“ But in and after 1905 the Triple Alliance forsook the watchwords of Bismarck, Andrassy and [pg 600] Crispi. Expansion at the cost of rivals became the dominant aim.
We must now return to affairs in France which predisposed her to come to friendly terms, first with Italy, then with Great Britain. Her internal history in the years 1895-1906 turns largely on the Dreyfus affair. In 1895, he, a Jewish officer in the French army, was accused and convicted of selling military secrets to Germany. ”

“ Even if one may bow the head under certain misfortunes, never can a man accept dishonor when he has not merited it.
Our suffering has no place in this epoch; it has lasted long enough—too long. Energy, then, my dear Lucie, the energy of work, of action, which must triumph, for it is based on justice, for it asks nothing but light, the clear light of day, the absolute clearing up of this whole affair. We are not in the presence of an unsolvable mystery. ”

“ M. Bertillon.—“That is, you transform into an accusation” ...
The Judge.—“You are asked, if a similar case were to come up, whether you would use the same system. That has nothing to do with the Dreyfus case; it is a general question.”
M. Bertillon.—“You always come back to the affair of 1894.”
M. Labori.—“Well, I can say to the jurors only one thing, the accusation of 1894, and there you are! And now I have done with this witness.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I have nothing more to say, Monsieur le Président.”
M. Labori.—“There has been but one charge, the bordereau ”

“ General de Pellieux, the minister of war, General Gonse, and myself are entitled to convictions upon them, and we are capable of going on forever unless the absolute light is brought out. But it will not do to let the excitement of the country go on increasing. Now we have a means, without closed doors, and without court decrees, of arriving at the light, at least at partial light, for the revision of the Dreyfus trial is now a thing of necessity. The protests of the crowd show that it does not understand the seriousness of this trial from the eternal standpoint of civilization and humanity. ”

“ If he defends himself, if those who assist him defend him and themselves with him, it is in the interest of the cause that they represent. No, gentlemen, there are no money syndicates that can produce movements like those which you have witnessed, or powers of resistance such as those which we endeavor to display. It is not money that brings here citizens like Scheurer-Kestner, Trarieux, Jaurès ”

“ Even if Dreyfus is a traitor, I do not see what interest we can have in refusing to honor people who are not responsible for the crime committed, and who have given manifest proofs of love for the French country. I cannot suffer the error of one to become a burden on all. If Dreyfus is guilty, let him be punished as severely as you will. You have my article, in which I say that I ask no pity for him. But, if he has brothers, children, parents, who have behaved themselves as good Frenchmen, I hold it a point of honor to do them justice. ”

“ Since then, gentlemen, we have witnessed the daily growth of the number of men who do not believe it their duty, I do not say before the army, but before certain commanders of the army, to abdicate their liberty of judgment. These think that no institution is above the law. They are convinced that, a right having been violated, Dreyfus having been illegally convicted, he must be tried again, whether he be guilty or not,—a question which we shall discuss presently. ”

“ Then there is General de Boisdeffre, General Gonse, General Billot himself, who are obliged to acquit the major, since they cannot permit the innocence of Dreyfus to be recognized, for, if they should, the war offices would fall under the weight of public contempt. And the beautiful result of this prodigious situation is that the one honest man in the case, Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, who alone has done his duty, is to be the victim, the man to be derided and punished. O justice, what frightful despair grips the heart! They go so far as to say that he is a forger ”

“ Never has the government varied in its declarations. General Billot has always declared that Dreyfus was legally and justly condemned. The government did not obstruct the investigation. General de Pellieux’s examination was an open one, and was conducted freely. Major Ravary acted with the same independence. The judges who acquitted Major Esterhazy came to their decision in full liberty of conscience. In short, the behavior of the government demonstrates its respect for law and the dignity of justice. ”

“ I desire to place myself, gentlemen, exclusively on the ground chosen by the minister of war, and on that ground we find that in 1894, the charge against Dreyfus being about to fall to the ground for want of proof, a man who was not a dictator, but simply an ephemeral cabinet minister in a democracy where the law alone is sovereign, dared to take it upon himself to judge one of his officers and hand him over to a court-martial, not for trial, but for a veritable execution. ”

“ That is shocking to good sense and equity, and my illustrious friend, the lawyer Demange, was absolutely right when he insisted on a public trial. Juries are often mistaken, and it is by no means proved that councils of war are fallible, especially as it is now said, and without contradiction, that Dreyfus was condemned on the strength of a document which but two out of five experts found to be in his handwriting. Moreover, we know the value and the weight of expert testimony regarding handwriting. Nothing is more uncertain, and sometimes more grotesque. ”

“ We do not stop them. They have the right to say, one after another: ‘Dreyfus is guilty.’ They speak out thus, in spite of the decrees of the court, and no one blames them, for it is impossible to speak of the Esterhazy case without speaking of the Dreyfus case. For this reason, as for others, being given that there is a thing judged, as in the Esterhazy case, I see but one explanation of the gag that is placed in our mouths—namely, that they do not dare to speak of the Dreyfus case, which it is impossible to separate from the Esterhazy case. ”

“ And to-day I am accused of the most monstrous crime a soldier can commit!
Oh, if I could but hold the wretch who not only has betrayed his country, but who, besides, has tried to make me bear the burden of his infamy, I do not know what suffering I could not invent to make him expiate the agony which he has forced me to undergo! But we must not despair—they must at last find the guilty one. Without that hope we should have to believe that there is no justice in the world. ”

“ Is it because it fears the foreign power whose military attaché has played an ignoble rôle? We do not know. But what we do know is that public opinion will not tolerate concealment, and will insist on an open trial. It would be really strange, were France, after her indignation at the closed doors behind which the Italians strangled the Romani case, were to use the same wretched means toward Captain Dreyfus. A French officer in France must have the right to publicly defend his honor, and the government which accuses him is bound to grant him the favor of the open day. ”

“ If Dreyfus had been convicted in England, it is probable that no voice would ever have been raised in his favour; it is absolutely certain that there would never have been a second trial. A keen sense of abstract justice is only to be found in conjunction with a rich fount of imaginative sympathy. ”

“ My sufferings? They understand them, and I do not like to complain. Besides that, my brain reels, and my thoughts are at times confused. My soul alone remains unshaken, as steadfast as on that awful day before the monstrous accusation was thrown in my face. My whole being still revolts at the thought of it.
But in the end the truth must be known in spite of everything. We are not living in a century when the light can be hidden. It must be that the whole truth will be known, that my voice will be heard throughout the length and breadth of our dear France—just as my accusation has been heard. ”

“ And since then his responsibility has only grown; he has taken upon his shoulders the crime of others, he is as guilty as the others, he is more guilty than they, for it was in his power to do justice, and he did nothing. Understand this; for a year General Billot, Generals De Boisdeffre and Gonse have known that Dreyfus is innocent, and they have kept this dreadful thing to themselves. And these people sleep, and they have wives and children whom they love!
[Pg 9]
Colonel Picquart had done his duty as an honest man. He insisted in the presence of his superiors, in the name of justice ”

“ The Dreyfus case, ah! gentlemen, that has become a very small matter now. It is lost and far away, in view of the terrifying questions to which it has given rise. There is no longer any Dreyfus case. The question now is whether France is still the France of the rights of man, the France that gave liberty to the world, and that ought to give it justice. Are we still the most noble, the most fraternal, the most generous nation? Shall we preserve our reputation in Europe for equity and humanity? Are not all the victories that we have won called in question? ”

“ You know the legend that has been created. Dreyfus was condemned justly and legally by seven infallible officers, whom it is impossible even to suspect of error without insulting the entire army. In an avenging torture he is expiating his abominable misdeed. And, as he is a Jew, a Jewish syndicate has been created, an international syndicate of people without a country, with hundreds of millions at their disposal for the purpose of saving the traitor at the cost of the most shameless manœuvres. ”

“ Dreyfus knows several languages—a crime; no compromising document was found on his premises—a crime; he sometimes visits the neighborhood of his birth—a crime; he is industrious, he is desirous of knowing everything—a crime; he does not get confused—a crime; he gets confused—a crime. And the simplicities of this document, the formal assertions in the void! We were told of fourteen counts, but we find, after all, only one,—that of the bordereau. And even as to this we learn that the experts were not in agreement ”

“ And, if you will permit me, I will begin my brief explanations by reading an article of mine with which I am confronted today, and which I wrote on the morrow of the conviction of Dreyfus. It seems to me that at that time all Frenchmen must have thought as I did, and, when I shall have shown that, I will inquire how a minority of Frenchmen have arrived at a different opinion. Here, gentlemen, is what I wrote on the day after the conviction of Dreyfus. The article is entitled ‘The Traitor.’
Unanimously a council of war has declared Captain Alfred Dreyfus guilty of treason. ”