I

T may interest our readers to have before

them a statement of the more recent facts about the Dreyfus case so far as they can be given from the despatches and newspapers which reach this country.

In a general way after the Rennes trial and the pardon of Dreyfus in September, 1899, the Dreyfus party divided into two factions. On the one side were many who felt that they had been fighting for the great principle of justice to the individual, that the particular case had reached a point where it could no longer be used in the vindication of that principle, and that the sooner the heat and troubles caused by the incident should subside the better it would be for France and for all concerned. Others still thought the particular case of much importance and continued to agitate. But they were little listened to, and the Dreyfus case as a great public matter, soon became a thing of the past. The legitimate desire for vindication survived this oblivion, and Dreyfus and his immediate party have continued to seek a revision of the verdict. As I pointed out in the third edition of my little book The Dreyfus Story, even after the disgraceful travesty of justice at the Rennes trial "one substantial credit to the French law still remains. If Dreyfus can get a proper 'new fact' the French law, notwithstanding his pardon and his two convictions, still leaves a vindication open to him. Our American Law does not do as well."

The recent movement for revision is well described in the Independance Belge of December fourth, 1903, from which I translate and adapt the following statement:

"Immediately after the interpellation of M. James a propos of the Syveton election

case in the course of which the Socialist leader pointed out that there were irregularities in the Rennes trial, General André devoted himself to a personal investigation which made it clear to him that out of the one hundred and seventy-two documents in the secret dossier, there were at least two forgeries. That point once established, the Minister of War turned over the dossier of the Dreyfus case to the Chancellor, M. Vallé and the latter immediately passed it on to the president of the Commission in the department of justice which has the duty of pronouncing upon the receivability of demands for revision. Whatever they may say or do, this action means the certain revision of the Dreyfus case, for granting even that the Revision Commission should express the opinion that the demand of M. Alfred Dreyfus for revision is not receivable, (which is impossible, considering that new facts have been brought out) the chancellor will go over their heads, as he has the right to do and get the Court of Cassation to take jurisdiction in the matter.

"This court can send the affair again to another court martial, or it can simply quash the decree of the Rennes court without further proceedings.

"One must, indeed, thank that generous France, where justice does triumph in the end, for the good lesson which she is teaching the world by proclaiming that with the French there is no error which can maintain itself permanently, and that France can only find peace when light has been cast upon the whole Truth.”

Since the above was written by the Paris correspondent of the Independance Belge, the Commission within the Department of Jus

tice above referred to has rendered a report favorable to revision and the Minister of Justice (or Chancellor) has passed favorably upon it so that revision proceedings in the Court of Cassation are assured. This does not involve any judicial decision whatsoever in favor of Dreyfus. It is merely a decision by the Minister of Justice to file a suit for revision.

As I have pointed out in my little book only one of the four grounds for revision. known to the French law can now prove useful to Dreyfus. This is the fourth in number and is expressed in the revision law as"the existence of the new fact, or new documents, unknown at the time of the first trial, tending to establish the innocence of the condemned person." But this is obviously broad enough to cover almost any claim that better justice is possible in the light of subsequent experience. If it were subject to no restriction almost any case could be retried at any time. Accordingly in this fourth case there is a vital qualification. Only the Minister of Justice can file a suit for revision on this ground. Obviously, then, this result is important and favorable to Dreyfus. But there has as yet been no trial of the real issue. It has only been framed. for trial.

As I understand it, the serious new fact is this. Among the documents in the secret dossier was a despatch from one attaché of a foreign legation or military spy (Schwartzkoppen) to another gentleman in the same business (Pannizardi). In it he said that he expected to have secret information about a certain department at a certain time. Colonel Henry of the secret service office cut off the date and wrote a false one in blue pencil. The false date corresponded with the time when Dreyfus was having a temporary detail to that department to familiarize him with its work. A peculiar French

99

idea of justice allowed the conclusion that this despatch helped to prove that Dreyfus was a traitor. A slightly more enlightened French justice now proposes to give a new trial on the ground that the forgery is a new fact unknown at the time of the first trial.

As I understand the French law a final decree in favor of Dreyfus will not only vindicate him, but will also operate as a matter of law (without giving the Minister of War any discretion) to reinstate him in the army, and give him the rank and pay to which he would have risen if he had remained in the service, together with all back pay and allowances.

The writer in the Independance Belge, from whom I quote above, expresses a cynical but justifiable doubt whether a court martial, even at this date could be trusted to do justice. It would be a board of soldiers to whom the prejudice of the earlier agitation and the prospect of having to take one of the Jewish race back into the army after such a career as Dreyfus has had would mean a great deal that would be offensive. And the fact that his pardon frees him from any risk of imprisonment or punishment would allow the court to feel that there was no military necessity for an acquittal.

I have some diffidence in making these statements from the meagre information which has as yet reached this country, but I believe that the main points of the story are correctly given. A certain amount of oblivion has been good for the case. It has changed it from a matter of national concern into a simple question of undoing an injustice. And the French nation can perhaps soon have some just pride in the fitness of its laws upon the subject. They make it easier than our own laws for justice to triumph in spite of every obstacle.

E

II.

LIZABETH'S savage prosecution of offenders in any way connected with the Northern Rebellion showed the true Tudor spirit. She instructed Lord Sussex to hang by martial law all those who had no property to escheat; persons of property were to be tried, and if acquitted were to be promptly taken before the Star Chamber. Suffolk hanged over six hundred persons without the formality of a trial, and Sir George Bowes, who assisted in the work, put to death some six hundred more. As the rebellion was over martial law was unjustifiable. The names of most of the prisoners were obtained, by torture, and they were put to death, in open violation of law, on mere suspicion.

The Duke of Norfolk's case (1 St. Tr. 957) is notable in many ways. He was probably guilty of a part if not all of the offenses with which he was charged: but the trial was a farce. He was convicted of a treason resting on presumptions and inferences only. The overt act was his intended marriage with Mary, Queen of Scots, and his correspondence with the Duke of Alva to raise an army to invade the kingdom. It was argued that as Mary had formerly laid claim to the crown, whoever married her would support her title, and consequently endeavor to depose Queen Elizabeth. The letters to Alva had no signatures, and were only proved to be the Duke's by reading the confession of an agent who vouched for their authenticity. He was never really called upon for his defense or allowed to produce his witnesses, but was only allowed to answer at the end of each charge, when he was constantly interrupted and urged to confess by the crown counsel. The evidence was practically all

hearsay, and such as it was, had been extorted by fear. The lords of the council even gave in secret certain evidence which it was said that state policy required should not be made public. Norfolk said, on the scaffold, "And, my lords, seeing you have put me out of your company, I trust shortly to be in better company." Considering that the Duke had presided at the judicial murder of his niece, Anne Boleyn, and had testified against his son, Essex, to save his own life, it requires considerable charity to sympathize with him in the hour of his misfortune.

The trial of Campian and other Jesuits. before Chief Justice Wray, in 1581 (1 St. Tr. 1049), is characteristic of the reign. At the close of Anderson's opening speech for the crown, Campian, who defended himself and his colleagues with marked ability, pertinently asked the attorney-general whether he came "as an orator to accuse them or as a pleader to give in evidence." There was no evidence against them of treason under the statute of Edward III. If it be said that it was necessary to put them out of the way, they were justified in their assertion that it was for religion, not for treason, that they died. Campian addressed the jury with dignity and power. "What charge this day you sustain," he said, in opening, "and what accompt you are to render at the dreadful day of judgment, whereof I would wish this also were a mirror, I trust there is not one of you but knoweth. I doubt not, but in like manner you forecast how dear the innocent is to God and at what price he holdeth man's blood. Here we are accused and impleaded to the death; here you do receive our lives into your custody; here must be your choice,