THE SITUATION IN FRANCE.
THE alleged issue between the Army and the democracy in the United Kingdom is used as a political con- venience, and, like most political conveniences, is unreal ; but we fear that it is impossible to deny reality to the scandal which is agitating France from end to end. Were Englishmen not so deeply occupied with the tumult of their own affairs, they would certainly have paid more attention to the Rochette Inquiry in France—an inquiry into what is said to be a conspiracy on the part of high Ministers of the Republic to defeat justice. One cannot imagine a more dangerous poison in any State than the desire and the power among politicians to tamper with justice and to deflect its course for political reasons. A disastrous relation between the Executive and the Judiciary continually appears in Continental countries when a great criminal trial discloses contact at any point with politics. The only way of safety, the only unequivocal guarantee of justice in the Courts, is that the Judiciary should be abso- lutely independent of the Executive. We know that the temptation for Administrations which believe themselves to be advanced social reformers to bring the Bench under their control is very great. This is one of the ever-present dangers of democracies. In the nature of things new- fangled and necessarily complicated legislation which has to be interpreted for legal purposes in the Courts ex- poses " progressive " Governments to rebuffs far more than it exposes Governments which are content to legis- late on the old lines or to leave legislation where it was. In all democracies the temptation to bring the Bench to heel exists. In the United States the controversy about the "recall of Judges" is only one expression of the con- flict. In England at this moment there would be an overwhelming incentive for Radical Ministers to upset legal decisions as to the meaning of their measures for land valuation were not the British tradition of the in- dependence of the Courts too strong for them even to attempt to assail it. An independent Bench is a tremendous bulwark of liberty. A. country in which political interference with its functions is made a practice is in grave jeopardy. We may summarize the facts and allegations which are now being investigated by the Rochette Com- mittee. Rochette was a swindler on a colossal scale. He floated a countless number of bogus companies, paying dividends on the shares of one company out of the subscriptions for the next. He is said to have made a private fortune of three million pounds. At last the bubble burst, and he was arrested. The trial was due to take place in 1911, when M. Monis was Premier and M. Caillaux was Minister of Finance. According to the statement of M. Fabre, the Procurator-General (or Public Prosecutor), which was read in the Chamber last week, M. Monis ordered that the trial should be post- poned. M. Monis is said to have done this in the interests of M. Caillaux, and that can mean only that M. Caillaux or his colleagues were conscious of some grave embarrass- ment to themselves which would appear instantly the witnesses gave their evidence in Court. In England such a step by a Prime Minister would be impossible, but we know only too well that politicians here will act on exactly the same motives under more limited conditions, and intrigue (as in the Marconi affair) to ensure the postponement of material statements in the Legislature or to withhold information from some of the members of a Com- mittee of Inquiry. M. Fabre stated that he was instructed by M. Monis to visit the President of the Cor- rectional Chamber in order to obtain the postponement of Rochette's trial. M. Fabre protested against this "moral violence," but ultimately consented. He says that he suffered a "violent internal struggle," but he nevertheless induced the President of the Correctional Chamber to give way. Rochette escaped, and is supposed to be living in some part of the world where he is practically safe. It is generally believed that M. Calmette, the editor of the Figaro, had intended to publish M. Fabre's statement on the day of the Rochette debate in the Chamber, and that belief may have been the principal motive for Mme. Caillanx's murder of M. Calmette. In any case the con- tents of the document, which had been abstracted from the Ministry of Justice, were known to so many persons that they were certain to be published sooner or later. The question how M. Barthou, who actually read the document in the Chamber, came by it seems to us of no importance at all, though it is intelligible that politicians who are in a corner should wish to make this the chief point of the Rochette inquiry. Nor can we appreciate the pettiness of the argument that the document was "privileged." The word becomes a monstrous prevarica- tion when it is sought to use it to bnrke investigation of a question that involves the moral health or illness of a whole country. How deeply politics and the administration of justice are mingled in this affair may be seen from the evidence which M. Monis and M. Caillaux gave before the Committee on the day of M. Calmette's funeral. M. Monis stated that M. Caillaux had asked for the postponement of Rochette's trial on the ground that he wanted to do a good turn tom barrister who had requested postponement. " If the postponement were refused, the barrister would make a sensational speech dealing with other financial swindles. He said that political interests were concerned." M. Caillaux, for his part, tried to incriminate M. Briand—his greatest political opponent. He said that M. Briand himself had given the order for Rochette's arrest, but that later he had ordered M. Fabre not to let all the facts become known. M. Fabre, giving evidence to the Com- mittee on the same day, however, denied much of what M. Monis and M. Caillaux had just said. He described how M. Monis had pressed him to procure a postpone- ment: "Any Procurator-General worthy of the name ought to be able to secure this delay." He absolutely denied what M. Caillaux had said about M. Briand.
Last Saturday a fresh and vigorous bare was started by a statement of Me. Maurice Bernard, who had been Rochette's counsel. He was the barrister, we may remark, to whom M. Caillaux had professed to wish to do a good turn. Me. Bernard absolutely denied that he had wished for the postponement. He had asked no favours from M. Caillaux. The moving spirit in the whole matter, the person who bad worked upon the feelings of M. Monis and M. Caillaux, was a certain M. "X." Thus the Great Unknown makes his appearance, as so often in French quasi-political trials. Who is M. " X "? We know only, on Me. Bernard's word, that M. " X " is neither a politician nor a journalist. As two enormous areas for identification are thus ruled out, we cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of shrewdness in the common guess that M. "X" was Rochette himself. But the implications of this guess are grave indeed. If it be right, M. Monis secured the postponement at the request of the criminal himself because the criminal threatened political revelations ! The imbroglio need not be summarized further except, to give an extraordinary example of the allegations of shady backstairs methods which are being charged against Ministers. On Tuesday M. Barthou said (we quote from the Times) that-
"
M. Caillaux, in order to protect himself against the use by his political enemies of the incriminating Fabre report, had a state- ment prepared of an apparently private conversation by two eavesdropping secretaries hidden behind the curtains of his reception-room. This document he held ready as a menace against M. Barthon and M. Briand in the event of their threaten- ing to use the Fabre report against him. M. Caillaux„ he declared, had provided himself with an additional weapon in the shape of copies of official telegrams relating to foreign affairs, which be considered to be compromising for M. Barthon and M. Pichon.'
It looks as though finance of the sort which knows no nationality were too freely mixed with present French statesmanship. If that be so, we trust that the French people will express their judgment on this matter at the coming elections. M. Doumergue hopes, of course, to be able to continue in office till the last moment and to faire lee elections. But few French Premiers could carry on their backs even for a few more weeks the burden of scandal and recrimination which daily heaps itself up at the Rochette Inquiry.
Previous page
