THE DREYFUS JUDGMENT.
THE judgment of the Court of Cassation in the Dreyfus case has been discounted, but it has still an interest of its own. In the first place, it was unanimous, which was not expected. It was believed up to the last day before the decision that a section of the forty-six 'Judges would be obstinate, and, whether moved by pure wrong-headedness or by fear of the Army, would refuse to decide that the new facts proved by the evidence were the kind of new facts which the compilers of the Code held to- justify or compel ,a-_ second trial. The cause of evil, however, found no Abdiel, and the Anti-Semites are deprived of a weapon which they might have used with some effect. In the _second place, it is the law, the inflexible law, which has triumphed; and not merely a sound opinion. The Judges have not ordered a new trial upon any abstract considerations of justice, or • - any argument as to the general welfare of Frenchmeni but have decided in language of stately simplicity anti • directnees • . that the conditions which in the Code render .a new trial obligatory. do exist. There is the new lact—namely, the forgery of the incriminating docu- ment, the bordereau supposed to have been written by Dreyfus—and, therefore, if he were the guiltiest man alive he inru4t be retried. That form of . decision is not merely a security for every man whom the law protects ; it exonerates the Judges from the charge of bowing to opinion or fearing the criticism of the civilised world. They treat Dreyfus -as they would treat any other condemned man, no worse, but also no better. They do not judge as Cadis, but as great lawyers with a defined function to perform. And in the third place, though they have refused to try Captain Dreyfus themselves—as was perhaps expedient, for it is not desirable to express distrust of all Courts-Martial—they have indicated to the new Court what their opinion is. If the bordereau is a forgery, if the rumoured confession is a fiction, and if secret " evidence " was shown to the members of the original Court-Martial, and the Judges declare that they believe these things, then there is nothing against Dreyfus ; nay, there is strong suspicion of a plot to ruin him. The new Court-Martial is left perfectly free, but is still made aware of the verdict which the highest Tribunal in the country thinks will best fit the facts. • We do not see that -the Court of Cessation could have gone farther, unless it had decreed the acquittal of a man who in law is accused, but has not yet been tried ; and this, in the severe logic of Frenchmen, would have been pronounced absurd. The Court of Cessation, in fact, has acted as it be- seems a great Tribunal to act, and that action, which makes the law supreme and not opinion, is a relief-not only to all- friends of France, but to all who care that the shadow on the- dial-of civilisation should not go back.
Two broad conclusions follow almost inevitably from the whole affair, one pleasing to politicians, one most unpleasant. The " public opinion of the intelligent classes has shown its force in a most striking way. The "intellectuals " had against them-the Government of France, the French Army, the Catholic Church, and the French democracy, and they have compelled them all by sheer force of argument to repair an injustice 'which . these powers had resolved should not be repaired. Five Ministers in succession assisted the plotters, the active.-chiefs of the Army were all either mixed up in' the plot or tolerant of those who were, the majority of both Chambers was on the same side, the inferior Magistracy were intimidated, " society," in its technical sense, was furious against the intelligent, it even seemed for a moment as if the latter would be overwhelmed by brute force, and still they held on, shook successive administrations, roused opinion throughout Europe;- faced the storm at home with a courage even yet not "fully- acknowledged, and finally obtained for the unhappy victim:all he and his family had ever demanded,—a fair and open-trial. There is hope for the world in a :victory like that, won by thought and moral indignation over such solid power. It is true that a few material circumstances were in favour of the intellectuals. Money was forthcoming to any amount, and without money the great expense of the legal battle . could ..not have been borne. Then, though the nationality of Dreyfus was in one way terribly against him, in another it told heavily in his favour. It brought to his side throughout Europe a caste which when irritated fights hard, and has means of greatly influencing public opinion. And, lastly, the public had time, in the absence of any great European conflict, to consider the case, and to grow interested to such-a degree that an argument which lasted through foni. years produced no sense of weariness, and no oblivionasto the issues really at stake. Men held their breath at the incidents ,of :au intellectual campaign, as they would have held them at the incidents of a great war. A positive shudder went through Europe when for a moment it seemed . possible - that Dreyfus had been entrapped into a confession.. Admitting these facts, however, to their full extent, the . truth remains that a power entirely spiritual : fought a power of amazing material force in the interests of justice—for Dreyfus himself was in no way a grand figure--and after years of struggle secured, at all- events, a good- chance of final victory. France' has still to acknowledge'- her fault and to repent. it, but Dreyfus the. tortured convict is.Captain Dreyfus again, acknowledged to have been unfairly tried.
The unpleasant facit,nn the other hand, which comes out BO painfully :in–the *hole proceeding is that we- must not under all circumstances trust the instinct of democracy. Men have argued—we have argued ourselves—that ignorant as the masses are, and heavily as their preoccupation in dinner-getting weighs upon their intellectual faculties, their instinct is seldom at fault, and is always on the side of justice, or, if not of justice, then of an overweening pity. That has not proved true in the Dreyfus case. It is folly to say that all the guilt lies at the door of the upper classes. The forgers and perjurers and persecutors of the trial were no doubt, with the exception of Colonel Henry, men of grade, either military or social, but they were egged on and supported by the population of all the cities, and to judge by the votes in the Chamber, by a large proportion of the peasantry. Even now it is hardly doubtful that a majorit; of Parisians, if a vote were taken, would leave Dreyfus in his tropical prison, rather than acknowledge that an Army from which they hope for therehabilitation of their self-esteem could be other than a school of all the virtues.. The great ,cities of France showed no pity for Dreyfus, no horror of illegality, and no power whatever of comprehending evidence. If the decision had been left to the populace justice would never have been done, not even, we fear, after the majority had become conscious that it had been criminally refused. The juries were next in badness to the Staff officers. Philosophers say that a jury tempers the rigidity of law, and makes it bear- able to mankind by a democratic vote ; but in the Dreyfus case every jury has been on the side of the oppressor, has submitted to military intimidation, or has accepted the argu- ment that patriotism justifies civil crime, or that birth in a detested caste constitutes a presumption that the man so born will be a criminal, the very argument of the Terrorists. It is vain to argue • that the multitude was only stirred by hatred of the Jew, for if that is true the new Sovereign can- not be trusted even to protect religious liberty, and we may yet under a democratic regime see a people extirpated because they are misbelievers. The People, it is evident from this trial, still require the guidance, and on occasion the control, of those who are wiser than themselves.
Previous page
