The trial of Emile Zola: containing M. Zola's letter to President Faure relating to the Dreyfus case, and a full report of the fifteen days' proceedings in the Assize Court of the Seine, including testimony of witnesses and speeches of counselZola, Émile
History
The trial of Emile Zola: containing M. Zola's letter to President Faure relating to the Dreyfus case, and a full report of the fifteen days' proceedings in the Assize Court of the Seine, including testimony of witnesses and speeches of counsel
Zola, Émile
Dreyfus, Alfred, 1859-1935; Trials (Seditious libel) -- France -- History -- 19th century; Zola, Émile, 1840-1902 -- Trials, litigation, etc.
M. Leblois.--“I did say so.”
The Judge.--“I did not hear it.”
M. Leblois.--“I said just now that I was first introduced to this
affair in June, 1897, when Colonel Picquart came to ask my aid and
protection against written threats that he had received on June 3 from
one of his former subordinates. It was for purposes of his defence that
Colonel Picquart related to me a portion of the facts, but not those
concerning military secrets, and it was for purposes of his defence
that he gave me General Gonse’s letters. I consider that you are now
reassured as to the source of my information.
“I add that nothing is easier than to establish materially the proof
of what I have just said, for information telegraphed by a provincial
agency on February 2, and not contradicted since by any newspaper or
otherwise, specifies the points raised in the debate before the council
of inquiry. Furthermore, Colonel Picquart has received, in conformity
with military regulations, a clear notification of the questions
concerning which he was examined. In fact, if a single question is to
be put in a council of inquiry, the law requires that the person to be
questioned shall receive a notice of the points on which the discussion
will turn. Then Colonel Picquart, being in possession of such notice,
emanating from the reporter in the case, is clearly in a position to
prove what I have just said.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.--“Permit me to ask a question. Just now the
witness said this second letter, which was a forgery, was so drawn
up as to prove that it emanated from a personage familiar with the
documents of the war offices. But the witness did not explain this
declaration. I should like to ask him what there was in this letter
that enables him to make this declaration, and to say that it came from
the war offices.”
M. Leblois.--“I prefer not to give any explanations in regard to
this letter, for I should run a risk of altering the version that
you will soon hear from Colonel Picquart. [Laughter.] I think there
is some misunderstanding. I said that the text of the two telegrams
was a certain proof that they emanated from a man familiar with all
the secrets of the war department, but I can say that only of the
telegrams, because I have seen them and am in possession of their text.
I cannot speak so certainly of a letter which I have not seen, and
concerning which I have only information.”
M. Labori.--“From the standpoint of the conspiracies to which M.
Leblois has referred, what was the bearing of the false letter
intercepted in the war offices?”
M. Leblois.--“I said just now that I considered this false letter
signed ‘Speranza’ another stone on which to erect, little by little,
the edifice of the conspiracies against Colonel Picquart. Regarding the
two telegrams, must I give details?”
The Judge [hastily].--“No.”
M. Labori.--“_Monsieur le Président_, we are very desirous that he
should.”
The Judge [sadly].--“Since the defence demands it, speak.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account