The Revision of the Dreyfus Case. American lawyers, challenges their belief, and incites in their breasts the inquiry whether a nation capable of inflicting such injustice upon its own citizens has a right to live. M. Zola, the celebrated novelist, de nounced in the public prints the injustice of this conviction and was prosecuted for libel by the atrocious government which had fathered the conviction of Captain Dreyfus, and was twice convicted and sen tenced to fine and imprisonment. Colonel Picquart, a member of the high staff, de nounced the conviction, and for that act of justice is now confined in a military prison. He also has, among the files of the War Office, a so-called secret dossier} and is either to be released or court-martialled for forgery! In the rapid succession of ministers of war, there went into the office a civilian named Cavaignac. This official was a per fectly honest man. He is not to be con firmed with Cassagnac, the editor, duelist, swashbuckler and blatherskite. Cavaignac was of distinguished origin. His father had been a candidate for the presidency of the French republic in 1848 against the cele brated Lamartine, but was defeated. Cavaig nac determined to investigate the question of the guilt of Dreyfus, for the double pur pose of doing justice and of allaying the revolt which had arisen in public opinion against the infamous proceding by which he had been convicted. To this end he exam ined the records in the war office, and there he found a document which convinced him of the guilt of Dreyfus. He exhibited this document in a speech before the French Assembly in which he declared his convic tion, on the faith of it, that Dreyfus had been justly convicted. For the purpose of allaying the public dissatisfaction, this docu ment was photographed and posted up in all the arrondissements of France. Soon after wards the appalling news came that this doc1 A word meaning a bundle of papers.
13
ument had been forged by Lieutenant-Col onel Henry, another member of the intelli gence department of the high staff. This sol dier, who had hitherto borne a high character, and was a devoted member of the profession of arms, confessed the crime and alleged that he had done it under the command of his su perior officer. For this, Cavaignac ordered him into arrest and sent him to the fortress of Mont Valcrien. There he committed sui cide by cutting his throat with a razor, or was assassinated, as some believe. The theory of suicide is altogether the more probable. It seems that the document, which he had forged as pretendedly eman ating from Dreyfus, was forged two years after the conviction of the latter and was placed among the archives of the war de partment for the purpose of vindicating the conviction and the infallibility of the French army, which, it seems, has now to be reckoned with as a separate political corporation. We have thus put in type a portion of what we have been able to gather concern ing this celebrated case, the history of which is yet to be written. We have proceeded with a feeling of uncertainty at almost every step; for how can any certainty of truth be dug out of such a squirming maggotry of fraud, forgery and perjury? What can be said when a government commits forgery in its own vindication? This incident, rank as it is, should not, however, destroy our re spect for the French people. Whatever may be thought of their official classes, and especially of their military officialism, they are, on the whole, a gallant, honest, and self-respecting nation. As such, they are entitled to the sympathy of their neigh bors — and especially of their ancient allies, the Americans — in their effort to maintain the supremacy of the civil over the military power, and to purge themselves of the rank corruption and gross injustice which fester in the Dreyfus case.
