The Dreyfus Affair Read Online Free PDF

referred to it when lobbied by Scheurer-Kestner. But now with feigned astonishment Labori asked for the document he referred to to be produced in evidence. ‘Whatever respect I may have for General de Pellieux’s word as a soldier, I cannot accord the slightest importance to this document. So long as we do not see it, so long as we have not discussed it, so long as it has not been made public, it counts for nothing.’
    General Gonse stepped in to undo the damage done by Pellieux’s revelation. ‘The Army is not afraid of the light. It is not afraid to say where the truth is to be found to save its honour. But discretion is required; and I do not see how, in the interests of national security, one can bring a document of that kind into open court.’ But Pellieux was not to be restrained. ‘And there are other documents,’ he assured the court, ‘which will be outlined by General de Boisdeffre!’
    â€˜What Pellieux has done is idiotic,’ Henry told Paléologue; but any hope among the Dreyfusards that the cat might get out of the bag was demolished by the superlative gamesmanship of General de Boisdeffre. Recalled the day after General de Pellieux’s triumphant assertion that he would tell all, this man of very high rank – indeed, of the highest rank in the hierarchy of France’s most respected institution – addressed the court in a calm, emphatic and above all authoritative tone of voice. ‘I will be brief. I confirm that, on all points, General de Pellieux’s evidence is correct and authentic. I have not a single word more to say. I don’t have that right; I repeat, gentlemen, I do not have that right .’ To make further disclosures would put at risk relations with Germany, and might even lead to war. He emphasised the words, ‘I do not have that right,’ and concluded his short address with an appeal to the jury. ‘And now, gentlemen, let me conclude by saying one thing. You are the jury, you are the Nation. If the Nation does not have confidence in the leaders of its Army, in those who bear the responsibility for its defence, they are ready to hand over that onerous task to others. You have only to speak. I will say nothing more.’
    General de Boisdeffre left the stand, applauded by the anti-Dreyfusards in the well of the court. Maître Labori protested that he had not had an opportunity to cross-examine him about ‘the document that offered no semblance of value or authenticity’, but the presiding judge refused to recall the august Chief of the General Staff. His had been a triumphant tour de force, giving the shopkeepers and artisans on the jury the choice of either accepting the existence of secret but incontrovertible proof against Dreyfus or disarming the nation by precipitating the resignation of the chiefs of the General Staff.
    They had no choice. Despite a dreary summing up by the Advocate General, Edmond Van Cassel, described by La Libre Parole as ‘like drizzle from a grey sky’, and despite three days of argument by Labori, an emotional plea by Zola and an irrefutable case made by Albert Clemenceau on behalf of Alexandre Perrenx – all, in fact, bundling the innocence of Dreyfus with that of their clients, and all heckled by jeers and catcalls from the public gallery – the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Zola was sentenced to a year in prison, Perrenx to four months, and each was fined 3,000 francs. They were released pending an appeal.
    There was jubilation among the anti-Dreyfusards, with shouts of ‘Long live the army!’, ‘Death to Zola!’ and ‘Death to the Jews!’ Zola was escorted from the Palais de Justice through a hostile crowd by a phalanx of friends: had he been acquitted, said Georges Clemenceau, ‘none of them would have emerged alive’. The celebration of the verdict extended beyond the Palais de Justice to other parts of Paris and continued