Three days passed before he could learn any clue as to the cause of his arrest. At last, on August 24, he was ordered to appear before a police magistrate to undergo his trial. An account of this trial, or _interrogatoire_, is in existence, and most curious it is to note the way in which it was conducted. The warrant for his arrest recorded that he was accused “of conspiracy, and of being in the pay of the foreigner.” These terms suggested that Cormier’s residence in England, or at least in Hamburg, was known to his accusers. Had not the Minister of Police in one of his portfolios a _dossier_ of some importance, full of all kinds of particulars calculated to “do” for him? Strange to relate, there is to be found no allusion to this doubtful past of his in the examination. After the usual inquiries as to name, age, and dwelling-place, the magistrate proceeds-- “What is your occupation?” “I have none except trying to get rid of gout and gravel.” “Have you not been away from France during the Revolution?” “I have served in the war in La Vendée against the Republic from the beginning down to the capitulation. You will find my deed of amnesty among my papers.” “What was your grade?” “I was entrusted with correspondence.” “With whom did you correspond abroad?” “With the different agents of the Prince--the Bishop of Arras, the Duc d’Harcourt, Gombrieul, etc.” “Did you not keep up this correspondence after you were amnested?” “I gave up all the correspondence eight months before peace was declared.” “Do you recognize this sealed cardboard box?” “Yes, citoyen.” And that was all! Cormier’s replies, however, so innocent on the surface, seem to have evoked suspicion, for on August 30 (12 Fructidor) he was brought up again for a second examination. “With whom did you correspond especially in the West?” he was asked. “With Scépeaux, d’Antichamp, Boigny, and Brulefort.” “And now what correspondence have you kept in this country?” “None whatever.” “What are your relations with the Citoyen Butler?” “I have had no communication these last two years, though he is my brother-in-law.” “Where is he now?” “I have no idea. I know he passed through Philadelphia on his way to San Domingo. I don’t know whether he ever got there or whether he returned.” “When was he at Philadelphia?” “He must have been there or somewhere in the United States not more than two years ago.” Thus no effort was made in the second inquiry any more than in the first to search into his past. It should be mentioned that immediately on his return Cormier had made haste to destroy all documents that could compromise him in any way.