The decision of the Court exculpated Dreyfus from all the allegations made against him, seeing that those allegations, whether based on handwriting or text, were completely unjustified, and that it was vainly asked with what object Dreyfus, who was wealthy, committed so great a crime.
Since the charge against Dreyfus had completely broken down no fresh trial ought to be ordered. Consequently the Court quashed the judgment of the Rennes court-martial convicting Dreyfus, stating that that conviction has been pronounced erroneously and wrongly.
THE DREYFUS AFFAIR.
The arrest of Captain Dreyfus on the charge of high treason was due to the discovery by the French Intelligence Department in September 1894, of the bordereau, an unsigned letter promising to forward certain secret information as to French military matters. It was originally claimed that this document was found by a charwoman employed at the German Embassy, who was paid to bring to the French Intelligence Department the contents of the embassy╒s waste-paper basket. But there is good reason to believe that it never passed through the hands of Colonel Schwarzkoppen, the Germany Attache, but was torn in pieces and brought to the office by Esterhazy, its author. There had already been several disturbing leakages of information, so that there was great anxiety to discover the writer of the bordereau.
Major Henry, a close friend of Esterhazy╒s, was entrusted with the investigation, and suspicion fell upon Captain Dreyfus, a distinguished young officer in the Intelligence Department, whose handwriting was found to bear a vague resemblance to that of the bordereau. General Mercier, the Minister for War, was informed of the situation, and after consultation with the Cabinet the bordereau, together with some letters of Dreyfus, was submitted to an expert. He decided that the hand writing of the documents revealed many differences and need not have been the work of one man. Then Bertillon, who hitherto had not professed a knowledge of graphology, was called in and gave a contrary opinion. Then, on October 15, Mercier ordered the arrest of Dreyfus. The arrest was kept secret while the search for further proofs was continued. Three more expert graphologists were consulted; one decided against identity, the other two, influenced by Bertillon, for. The Ministry had not yet decided to prosecute, when on October 28 Henry revealed to the anti-Semitic ╥Libre Parole╙ the arrest of Dreyfus. At once a tremendous campaign was opened by the anti-Semitic press, and Mercier, yielding to the clamour, persuaded the Ministry to prosecute.
The court-martial began on December 19, and Major Picquart reported the proceedings for the headquarters staff. He found the evidence unconvincing until General Mercier handed in to the Judges a secret dossier. The counsel for the defence was not allowed to see this, but it was known that the only documents of importance it included was a message of an attache containing the phrase ╥ce canaille de D.╙ and a false translation of a telegraph from Panizzardi, the Italian attache, to his Government. Panizzardi, when the name of Dreyfus was published, telegraphed in cipher to his Government to publish a denial if it had had no intercourse with Dreyfus. Mr. Mercier╒s version of this intercepted message ran: ╥Our secret agent is warned.╙ On evidence of this character Dreyfus was condemned to perpetual imprisonment on the Devil╒s Island. Shortly afterwards the German Government officially intimated that it had had no connection with him, and the Italian and Australian Governments, or their agents, made similar declarations.
Dreyfus had continually protested his innocence, and his family accepted his charge to rehabilitate his reputation, but very little came of its investigations. It was Colonel Picquart who first discovered the truth. In March, 1896, he was head of the Intelligence Department, and the fragments of a petit bleu, or pneumatic-tube message, found in the German Embassy came into his hands. It proved to be a request for information from Colonel Schwarzkoppen to Esterhazy. Picquart at once started inquiries, and found that Esterhazy had a very bad reputation and was in grave financial straits. His surprise, however, was intense when he found that Esterhazy╒s handwriting was identical with that of the bordereau. He next examined the secret dossier to see whether it contained anything to convict Dreyfus, but there was nothing of value in it. He thereupon drew up a report, and presented it to General Boisdeffre, the Chief of Staff, and General Gonse, the Deputy Chief of Staff. These ordered him to separate the affair of Dreyfus from that of Esterhazy. They had made up their mind that Picquart must be silenced.
Meanwhile the affaire was being reopened publicly. In November, 1896, Bernard Lazare reviewed the evidence in a pamphlet, and M. Scheurer-Kestner, an eminent Republican statesman, began to move. In July, 1897, he heard through Picquart╒s lawyer of Esterhazy╒s crime and the innocence of Dreyfus. He was persuaded to delay an interpellation by his friend General Billot, Minister of War. General Billot and the Staff Office used the interval to persecute Picquart, who was sent on a dangerous service into Algeria, and by means of forged telegrams to implicate him. In November Matthew Dreyfus denounced Esterhazy. He was tried by court-martial in January, but, backed by the Staff and the War Office, triumphantly acquitted, although in November the ╥Figaro╙ had published some of his private letters, brimful of hatred of France. A few days after this decision appeared Zola╒s famous letter, ╥J╒accuse,╙ in which he accused the Dreyfus court-martial of having violated the law and the officers of the Staff with lying and fraudulent reports. This letter was the turning point of the affaire. Zola was tried for his attack upon the court-martial, and Picquart for the first time gave public evidence of his knowledge. General de Pellieux secured the condemnation of Zola by producing Henry╒s forged ╥thunderbolt.╙
The affaire had now entered politics. The Socialists, led by Jauras and Pressense and Gohier, saw that the fate not merely of a man but of the Republic was at stake, and they fought strenuously for revision.
