Page images
PDF
EPUB

German or English, or bribed by Hebrew gold. A crusade was proclaimed against all Jews, and any one who suggested that an officer of the army other than Dreyfus required to have his conduct inquired into was at once stigmatised as disloyal to the army, and as undeserving of the rights of a citizen. The Rocheforts, the Drumonts, and the Judets conducted a campaign of literary scurrility and lying such as never before disgraced journalism, and it is painful to have to record that the reading public seemed to love to have it so, for these abominable productions circulated in their hundreds of thousands all over the land. In aristocratic salons the conversation was scarcely less violent and unreasoning than were the utterances of the press.

Matters were in this condition when, a little more than two years after Dreyfus's condemnation, a spy brought to the War Office the pieces of a petit - bleu resembling one of our own letter-cards, which on being put together disclosed a letter of a suspicious character, addressed to M. le Commandant Esterhazy, 27 Rue de la Bienfaisance, Paris. Colonel Picquart, who was then the head of the department, instituted inquiries as to Esterhazy, and obtained some of his handwriting. He became suspicious from an observed resemblance to the writing of the bordereau, and with great astuteness proceeded to have some of Esterhazy's writing photographed, names and other parts which might give a clue to the writer

[ocr errors]

being covered over. On showing the photographs to M. Bertillon, who had given evidence as an expert against Dreyfus at his trial, Bertillon at once said, "Why, it is the same writing as the bordereau," and added, "For a year past the Jews have been keeping some one hard at work to produce the writing of the bordereau, and they have perfectly succeeded. Thus letters undoubtedly of Esterhazy were pronounced by this expert to be a successful imitation of the writing of the bordereau. Colonel du Paty de Clam on being shown the photographs said they were in the writing of Matthieu Dreyfus, the brother of Alfred, he having a theory that Alfred in writing the bordereau had blended his brother's writing with his own to disguise it. Thus two of the strongest witnesses against Dreyfus unwittingly identified Esterhazy's writing as being that of the bordereau, and conclusively demonstrated that the

true hand which wrote it was the hand of Esterhazy.

When it became known to Colonel du Paty de Clam that Picquart was on the track of Esterhazy, it appears to have occurred to some person

or

persons not to have the Dreyfus affair reopened, that as it seemed likely that the bordereau was about to fail as a piece of evidence, something must be done to give weight to the decision of the court - martial, SO as to maintain the chose jugée. Accordingly some one

who were interested

necessarily in the secrets of the War Office-communicated the fact to the 'Éclair' that

[ocr errors]

66

the document containing the of revision by this disclosure in words "Ce canaille de D- the 'Éclair,' was Esterhazy himhad been been laid before the self, for when an agent was court-martial. That this com- sent to Esterhazy's rooms he munication was made to the found the place empty and a 'Éclair' corruptly, and against heap of burnt papers on the true justice, is proved by the hearth, Esterhazy having carfact that the name was given ried off all his other belongings not D but "Dreyfus" in to Rouen. full. Who the person was is not known; but it is known that two men were deeply interested in preventing any reopening of the case, and were utterly unscrupulous in their modes-viz., Henry and Du Paty de Clam. That it should have been possible for men of any ordinary shrewdness to believe, that by cynically announcing that the court had been made to receive secret evidence outwith the knowledge of the defence they were strengthening the case of the opponents of inquiry, is a striking indication of their estimate of French notions of justice and fair-play. Such an announcement in a similar case in any other country would have caused the whole community and press to rise up in indignant protest, and to demand instant review of such a scandalous travesty of justice. Knowing as they must have done that Dreyfus's counsel would at once declare that no such document had been shown to him or his client, their conduct is inconceivable unless they believed that the great mass of their fellow-citizens

[blocks in formation]

The matter became serious. When Picquart had made his discovery, he had urged upon his chiefs that they were upon the eve of "a great scandal," aud that the army authorities should take the initiative in clearing it up, adding, "If we lose too much time, the initiative will be taken from us, and that, apart from loftier considerations, will put us in an odious light "_"it will be a troublesome crisis, and one which we can avoid by doing justice in time." These views, so manly and wise, he reiterated in vain when the disclosure was made in the 'Éclair.' He received from his chief halfhearted replies, and he declares that at last he told his superior that he could not "carry this secret with him into his tomb." But he of course at the time bowed to the instructions of his chiefs.

Two months later the following audaciously false statement was made by General Billot, the Minister of War, in answer to an interpellation. It was an answer prepared in the office of the General Staff by those who knew the facts. Speaking of the court-martial, he said: "Justice was then done. The preliminary hearing, the arguments, the judgment, were all conducted conformably to the rules of military procedure."

Thus a wilful falsehood was put into the mouth of a Minister of State, a sentence which members of the General Staff and every member of the courtmartial knew to be false. From that moment the die was irrevocably cast. For any opening up of an inquiry must, it was known, demonstrate the untruth of this official assertion in the

Legislative Chamber. No one can wonder that every nerve is strained, and every subterfuge practised, to crush out further inquiry. For the result of it is certain, if a result according to the truth is not made impossible by official resistance or judicial corruption. It seems plain that the folly of the move made in publishing the secret document was recognised immediately after the blunder had been committed, and that it was seen to be necessary to revert to the bordereau, which was the only document legally before the court-martial. Therefore a few days before General Billot was put up to reassure the public mind by a false statement, a copy of the bordereau was handed to the 'Matin,' and published, along with a statement that to "any one who has been able to compare the admitted writing of Dreyfus" with the document, "it will be clear that it was his hand which traced these lines." Little did those who thus indicated that the bordereau was more to be the pièce de résistance of the General Staff imagine that they were by this publication handing over to the enemy the most powerful weapon which he could wield. It has been seen how it was

once

demonstrated who was the true writer of the bordereau in April 1896; but in consequence of the restraint put upon upon Colonel Picquart, the matter remained quiet until the bordereau was published in the 'Matin,' strangely enough without any specimens of Dreyfus's handwriting with which to compare it. This latter omission is significant.

But now the time had arrived when, quite independently of Picquart, it was to be again conclusively proved that Esterhazy wrote the bordereau. Picquart had been silenced; but the fatuous move of putting the 'Matin' in a position to publish a facsimile of the bordereau bore very different fruit from what those who did it thought they were sowing the seed for. M. de Castro, a stockbroker in Paris, hearing the newsboys shouting the contents of the 'Matin' on the boulevard, bought a copy, and received a startling shock. He had done business for Esterhazy, and at

the

first glance recognised Esterhazy's writing. Much perturbed, he with his brotherin-law compared letters in their possession with the facsimile, and found them identical. Knowing that M. ScheurerKestner, the President of the Senate, had taken an interest in the matter, he went to him. On being shown the papers, M. Scheurer - Kestner retired and came back with some others, which De Castro at once identified as Esterhazy's. Thus the matter was brought to the notice of one of the most distinguished and honoured men in France, who had already

earnestly urged General Billot to examine into the matter, and who had agreed to give him fifteen days to do so, before doing anything himself, with the result that, to use his own words, during those fifteen days means were taken by which "the Ministerial journals dragged me in the mud, denounced me as a dishonest man and a miscreant, . . . and called me a German and a Prussian." Having thus in vain besought the military authorities to take the initiative, and seeing that there was a determination at the War Office to discredit him before the event, he arranged with M. Matthieu Dreyfus to publish a statement accusing Esterhazy of having written the bordereau. One would have supposed that this would have given pause to the General Staff in their career of justification of what had been done, and led them to inquire; and it is difficult to understand what motive they could have not to inquire, unless they already knew the truth. It was three days after this that General Billot stoutly announced to the Chamber that "it is a chose jugée, and it is not permitted to any one to go back upon the trial"!

Of course, as it was known in the War Office that Colonel Picquart had established who was the true writer of the bordereau, it was found convenient, in view of this confirmation of his discovery, which would necessarily lead him to again press the matter, to have him removed. Accordingly, steps were taken to deprive him of his position in the Intelligence Office at a moment's

notice, to send him here and there throughout France, and far from Paris, and ultimately to Tunis, and on to the Tripolitan frontier. General Gonse has avowed that he was sent away because he was "hypnotised with this DreyfusEsterhazy affair." No other reason can be suggested, and the "mission" on which he was sent was admittedly a myth, and so uncalled-for and dangerous to life that the commanding officer at Tunis refused, on his own responsibility, to send him forward to a dangerous position, where there was no real work for him to do.

66

Next came a communication from M. de Saint Morel, a subordinate of General Billot, to Rochefort, the editor of 'L’Intransigeant,' which led Rochefort boldly to avow that a secret document had been shown to the court - martial: Why deny it, why not have said so, have cried it aloud on the housetops? . . . Why not have gloried in it as an action to be proud of, instead of concealing it as a fault?" To this was added an assertion that Dreyfus had written personally to the Emperor of Germany offering his services, and that the Emperor sent him а message through the German Embassy accepting his offer on the footing that, in the event of war, "he should at once assume his proper rank in the German army.' Let a pause be made here to ask,-what must be thought of the honesty of people who could publish such stuff as this as authentic news for the public? Or if their honesty be assumed, what

66

[ocr errors]

must be thought of their sanity? The Government could not face up to this move of the Etat Major. They repudiated it, as any Government with any self-respect must have done. Indeed they could not have maintained diplomatic relations with Germany had they not done so, as they had direct and positive assurances that there had been no relations whatever with Dreyfus.

[ocr errors]

A plot was then organised to destroy Picquart, in which it is now certain that Henry, Du Paty de Clam, and Esterhazy were all engaged. Bogus telegrams, signed Speranza and Blanche, were sent to him to Tunis, where also Esterhazy sent him a letter. The telegram signed Speranza and the letter both misspelled Picquart's name by leaving out the letter C, thus indicating that they came from the same source; and this is confirmed as being Esterhazy by the fact that, in a letter also signed "Speranza, the name Picquart is again spelled in the same way. This letter Esterhazy professed to have received. There is no doubt it was a fabrication of his own. The telegram signed Blanche stated that it was known that "the author of the petit-bleu is Georges "—that is, Picquart -and adds, "He must take precautions. Here is the first indication of an intention to counter Picquart by an accusation that he had forged the petit - bleu. Fortunately the knaves outwitted themselves, for the case of forgery was to be got up by scratching out the name on the back, and writing in Esterhazy's

[ocr errors]

name again, the intention being to show that Picquart had removed another name, and put in Esterhazy's. But the petit - bleu had been photographed in the original state, and therefore this erasure and substitution is a clumsy fraud. Besides, it still has the original address of Esterhazy's house, and it was complete with the name Esterhazy before Picquart ever saw it, as a subordinate fitted the pieces together, and so brought out the name on it and brought it to Picquart.

Picquart at once wrote to General Billot complaining of these communications, and saying that he was unable to understand them. But before his letter could reach Paris, and before, therefore, any one at the War Office could know anything regarding them, unless they were fabrications, an article about them, which is traceable to Esterhazy, and avowed by him to have been adjusted with Du Paty de Clam, appeared in the Libre Parole,' signed "Dixi." Thus their authorship is proved. They were fabricated by a conspiracy of the basest kind.

It became absolutely necessary to get this Esterhazy difficulty out of the way, and accordingly it was arranged that his case should be examined into. The spirit in which this investigation was entered upon is indicated by the fact that a man formally accused of treason was not arrested, nor any search made of his house or repositories; and the spirit in which it was carried on is shown by the final acte d'accusation, or indictment, which is in France an

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »